Rob

There are probably more Japanese collectors of English than you ight think. Certainly enough for Baldwins to attend the Tokyo coin fair and even back as far as 2004 I was outbid on a tin halfpenny going that way too. They have long collected choice English gold.

I admire your laudible target and your optimism, but unless you are prepared to dig deep suspect the wheels will come off the bus. You will struggle finding a Harthacnut, Harold II or a William II for under a thousand, not to mention the minor inconvenience of an Edward the Martyr - One type, always popular, portrait coin, always expensive. And the major inconvenience of an Edward VIII which I recommend you start saving for now. Thanks Rob I did check out the prices intially and some did make me twice! But if it never gets finished I don't mind, the goal and the hunt is what matters for the collection at the moment, and not buying coins just to fill a gap! Some compromises may have to be made (such as dropping to VF for the bun heads, but I actually prefer the pre 1895 pennies in VF I think its due to the history and that they were handled probably!) everything post 1895 is as close to Unc as I can afford apart from some of the scarcer coins I will settle for VF or F if needs be. As for the Edward VIII if had that money to throw about I would have a complete collection of every penny, mint etc plus a mansion, 20 odd cars................... etc. But if I ever saved that amount there is no way in hell I could convince SWMBO to buy a single coin for that amount (or her description "a piece of metal!!!! ). It will definitely prove interesting when I start with the more expensive hammered coins! Your bun policy is romantic and laudable in its own way. However, do be aware that if you are prepared to tolerate a variety of grades in your collection there is great scope for affordable completion. For example, buns from 1887 to 1893 are readily available in EF or better - with lustre - for very reasonable prices. Especially 1890-92 for some reason. F or GF could be reserved for difficult dates like 1864, 1869, 1871, 1865/3, 1875H, and then you could hover around the VF mark (+/-) for everything else. In fact, most dates can be picked up at good prices in GVF and you could even go EF+ for the common varieties of 1860-61, and 1862-63. Thanks Peck, Thats good to know and fully noted! I will be still be attempting to buy the best that money can afford so the higher grades will still be present throughout a considerable portion of the collection as I don't want to fall into the trap of completing a section and then going back through to make upgrades later. My rate of purchases has dramatically reduced which is another bonus as I am only prepared to buy the best that I can rather than just become attached to gap filling for the sake of it! It also means I can keep Mrs J happier with less arrivals ! No chance. You have just moved the goalposts. The moaning will continue unabated.

Even that wouldn't work. You could have all the money in the world, but if someone doesn't want to sell that unique coin, you're b******d.

No problem.

The whole forum's gone bananas! I think we should all drink 'bottled' water until we can work out what the hell's going on around here? What's your problem. Ask questions and a few brain cells flicker into life in people's heads. If the topic is stimulting enough, a percentage will take it on board. No bottled water required - pah. Anyway, what's going on is a realisation that there are more things in the wider numismatic world than an individual's collecting sphere which is usually restricted on the dubious grounds of not being able to afford to collect something. This is a red herring because most people can't afford to complete the series they are currently working on anyway. Vive la difference.

I admire your laudible target and your optimism, but unless you are prepared to dig deep suspect the wheels will come off the bus. You will struggle finding a Harthacnut, Harold II or a William II for under a thousand, not to mention the minor inconvenience of an Edward the Martyr - One type, always popular, portrait coin, always expensive. And the major inconvenience of an Edward VIII which I recommend you start saving for now.

And no tickets with the two coins at Baldwins to help the provenance, though it is likely that the halfpenny is the J coin as both had been in the basement for years.

The above was quickly cobbled together from a standing start at 2 o'clock this morning as a result of the CC coin going off in CNG 93 in a few days time. Thanks for the more detailed info. I'm still leaning towards it being a non-variety (which is good because it will save me some money ) and so not required for the collection. I just thought it would be a useful way of getting a dump farthing as a type example.

Morning all. One of the boxes to tick for the collection is an example of the so-called 'lacquered proof' described by Peck for George I farthings (P789) and halfpennies (P773). I haven't mde up my mind whether they are a genuine mint issue, or simply a selection of coins that were lacquered(?) in antiquity by persons unknown. The first would mean a place in the collection for an example, the second not. A summary of my thinking on these pieces is laid out below. Thoughts anyone? Thoughts on Lacquered G1 coppers On the question of lacquered halfpennies and farthings, I have not yet made up my mind regarding their authenticity as a mint product. Take the farthings first. Colin Cooke's 464 (CNG 93, lot 1891) and Baldwin's item BM20470 are struck from a completely different die pair, but both claim to be lacquered proofs. The obverse die has the S of GEORGIVS under the hair on one (ex-CC) and not the other, whilst the reverse die has a huge flaw or two on the Baldwin coin but not on the Cooke piece and the exergue line hits the toothed border at a different relative position on the left side. Therefore neither has a die link to suggest production at the same moment in time, which you would expect in the case of a special product or test. The Baldwin LP 1/4d does share the same obverse die as the 1717 & 1718 silver farthings, which would confirm that the Baldwin piece is a proof. Peck notes that they are a glossy brown with a mottled surface under the microscope. The 1717 LP 1/4d on Baldwin’s site has an obviously mottled surface from the image provided, but the reverse die is flawed and totally different to other silver or copper proofs seen. The ex-CC coin has the S of GEORGIVS partially underneath the laurels, as does the plate coin in Peck. Again, it appears to confirm proof status. The question therefore is down to whether the lacquer (assuming the description is correct) was mint applied, or at the whims of various previous owners. There are 2(3) obverse dies involved on the dump issue farthings. 1. With the S underneath the laurels – CC463, 464(LP). Peck plate coin P787. All 1717. 2. With the S just clear to the left of the laurels (later strike of 1 after die polishing?). CC462. 3. S with clear space to the laurels. CC455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461. Bald BM20470(LP), Z42539. (1717 & 1718) Reverse dies are as follows. 1. Badly flawed, lower exergue line touching inner circle. 1717 Bald BM20470(LP) 2. No flaws, exergue on inner circle, laurel closer to A than N.(1717) Bald Z42539, CC459, 460, 462, 463 3. short exergue line, no flaws. (1718) Z37110(thin Ag), CC456. CC455(1718 Cu) 4. short exergue line, laurel closer to N. CC461, Moving on to halfpennies, the Baldwin coin has a small flaw by the N of NIA whilst Nicholson's (175) doesn't look like it does, but I can't be certain. The remainder is in general agreement. A coin in a private collection is a die duplicate of BN175 based on the presence of a small lump by the N of NIA and a couple of spots. It is possible that the coin on Baldwin’s website, Z37116 is from the same dies in a different state. The question I am asking is whether these are deliberately done by the mint or not? If a mint product I would expect them to be made at the same time using the same die pair which they patently aren't looking at the farthings above. The jury is out on the halfpennies at the moment, but I would like to know what the various BM and HM pieces look like before I consider buying. If the pieces Peck used to attribute the variety are not from the same dies and those coins doing the rounds are already shown to be from various die pairs, it suggests that they are just a selection of lacquered pieces done in antiquity and so not really collectable as discrete varieties. i.e. they are only collectable because Peck says they are, having given lacquered 1717 coins a reference number. The argument given by Peck for allocating a reference number was that they were initially thought to have been lacquered in Victorian times, but Hunter's demise in 1783 meant they must predate this period. What doesn't seem to have been considered is that lacquering could be an older practise than previously thought. I need to find out which dies are used for the BM and HM pieces and check to see if the Baldwin LP 1/2d has a ticket indicating whether this is the J coin. If anyone has any input to this argument such as an example which purports to be a lacquered proof, please feel free to contribute. Thanks.

May have been dipped, maybe not. It's difficult to tell from the image, but it certainly hasn't been polished on the obverse.

That was much better than I was expecting from our Tommy! Yes, but it's currency and worth a tenner, or about 300 less than he is asking. That's a huge markup.

1881. Spink books these at £20 in fine and bullion value is about a fiver, so anywhere in between is ok . You haven't paid over the odds.

1806 Proof Halfpenny Yeh, right. I've asked which Peck number it is. I suspect the follow-up question will be are you a complete twat or just a partial one? But - must give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Another example from Dundee's finest.

That's crap. It isn't even good enough for a museum copy.

There's no VAT on books. Not sure about import duty.

I was going to call you fussy until i saw Clives reply I thought William I coins were generally rare anyway, or am i mistaken? The W1 prices in Spink are a good proxy for rarity for issue - so the profiles, sword and canopy are generally more difficult to acquire. Within all types there are seriously rare mints for the issue, irrespective of type rarity. That's why a seemingly normal estimate appears to go OTT on occasions. The same applies to other reigns, so in the case of the seriously common Cnut series, Aethelred LSC & CRVX etc. you will often see things going for 5-10x what the book says and which determines the price to be paid by the uninitiated. For W1 PAXS coins, the Beaworth hoard is a good proxy for absolute rarity.

Sorry to be a cynic, but it looks too good to be true. Especially the fact it's on eBay - with a coin like that, why not sell through Baldwins or Spink? Because it's regular bread and butter coin at an auction. Not a rare mint, not a rare type and you get your money in a week or two rather than 6 months. Sure it's scarce, but the return is likely to be little different than selling through an auction house, just quicker. Plus a lot of sellers on eBay wouldn't have a clue about Spink or DNW etc

Difficult to confirm because you no longer have the coin, but on the bottom example are we looking at a recut G2 reverse die with a recut 2 over a 9 or possibly an underlying 1 for 1761 where the die wasn't used? Debbie and Peter - thanks. I must try to remember ebay and the piles of shite found thereon. I'm afraid I have virtually blanked it for the past few years. Interesting point. I always suspected a 1 but, as you say, a 9 is more likely. The mintages of the various denominations can't have been too high and so it is easy to envisage the dies being recut for further use. The intermittent dates encountered suggest that demand wasn't that high. Going back to an earlier thread that I posted on the 1766 penny, I remain convinced that this is the unused 1765 die recut, or at least the die used for my coin. The big problem here is that no one has done a study. Dave Seaman would probably be the best authority on this, so must remember to ask the question next time I see him.

Difficult to confirm because you no longer have the coin, but on the bottom example are we looking at a recut G2 reverse die with a recut 2 over a 9 or possibly an underlying 1 for 1761 where the die wasn't used? Debbie and Peter - thanks. I must try to remember ebay and the piles of shite found thereon. I'm afraid I have virtually blanked it for the past few years.

The detail is ok, but it might be slightly porous looking at the obverse legend.

I think it's a 1. You have serifs top left bottom right on a 1 and the two vertical section is usually quite thin and leaning backwards. I think the vertical stroke on yours is too fat and straight for a 2.

It's about right.

Not to mention the 'supper rare' (sic) description.

Thanks Scott.

OK chaps and chapesses, we all know that the early milled small change is riddled with spelling errors. Does anyone else have a 1762 3d and if so is it struck from the same reverse die with F/R in FR or are there a number of dies? Ta.