Rob

erm...£68...for a 1903 halfcrown. I suppose that makes me an average pleb on eBay No it doesn't Declan and well you know it. It isn't the cost of Ebay purchases, rather the finer points of numismatics that are missing from many listings such as identifying the monarch on a coin, or the denomination, or even the country sometimes. Tickets don't come into it for most when the basics are missing for starters.

We are all ordinary collectors on here, just that some things cost more than others and it's a case of each to their own. Thanks to the diarrhoeic output of the Royal Mint coupled to my insistence of obtaining an example of each attributed designer's handiwork, fully one in five or more of all purchases are under a tenner and do nothing for the quality of the collection. Some things cost a few pounds, some a few hunderds or a few thousands, but when the time comes to sell they will in all probability still be worth what you paid for them. Don't get me wrong, if I could buy £10 notes for a fiver, I'd do it all day long.

The thing about a provenance is that unless you paid silly money in the first place, a bit of time spent establishing the provenance is a one way ticket. At worst you have a coin worth the same as it was before, but with the right names attached it will only add value. No provenance has ever detracted from a coin's value.

I'll keep my eyes open, but think you might be struggling. Scarce, yes, but not really rare and premium quality no, so less chance of an image.

I do.

Comfortable I would assume. The big money paid for the large hammered gold recently has been between a couple who sold their business for a rumoured £300m and A.N.Other. Chances are they were involved this time unless they bought one of the DNW pieces. The odd £100K here and there is fairly inconsequential.

I know you're right. But I think it's important to distinguish between prestige and provenance. A coin from a prestigious sale such as Norweb or Bamford will carry a premium just for that alone, and the better the coin is, and the longer it can be linked to those sales, the better for its future. But, such sales also carry a proportion of relatively mediocre coins - break the link and suddenly those are cast adrift. However provenance is generally irrelevant to mediocre stuff, Oh, in price terms, that's quite likely the case. However I have coins owned by Shuttlewood, Osborne and more recently, Morris. None of these coins are spectacular (OK, one is interesting) but I would still be very interested to know where they bought them and who owned them before. These aren't Brookers or Locketts but they are still serious collectors of Charles I coins. For all I know one of my coins could have been a minor item that passed through the hands of a well known collector, but without very serious research I have no way of knowing. But I'd rather like to! Shuttlewood threw his tickets away, which was unhelpful. Not sure about Osborne, but Morris's were acknowledged on Lloyd's tickets as well as including his own with the coin. Which coins are we talking about? Might be able to help.

I know you're right. But I think it's important to distinguish between prestige and provenance. A coin from a prestigious sale such as Norweb or Bamford will carry a premium just for that alone, and the better the coin is, and the longer it can be linked to those sales, the better for its future. But, such sales also carry a proportion of relatively mediocre coins - break the link and suddenly those are cast adrift. However provenance is generally irrelevant to mediocre stuff, and I believe that Rob is interested in tracing back the history of important pieces? For example, how much do we know about the previous life of coins in Norweb and Bamford etc? This is an area I know nothing about, so maybe Rob could enlighten us - is there already provenance for the best coins in important sales, or not, or only some? Does the existence of provenance even for those sales add much to the value-added premium? I'd love to know. Norweb is one of the better catalogued sales and she obtained many of her coins from Brand who bought heavily through Spink from ca.1912 until his demise in 1926. She also bought her British coins mostly via Spink and Baldwin which means there may not be any provenance from these sources if the coins were obtained from individuals as opposed to sales. Bamford is also traceable to some extent because he bought in person at some sales and so if you have an annotated catalogue with buyers named at the sale, he will feature. The problem coins are those which were bought 50 years ago or more because so many sales weren't illustrated and at this point it relies on tickets or the rare catalogue image. Provenance unquestionably does add some value, though it tends to be variable. I listed half a dozen prices for similar items after June's Spink sale and it appeared that the Lockett provenance was adding about £200 to the price of a £300-400 coin. Slightly lesser ones in both grade and quality weren't selling if they had faults. The best coins invariably have some sort of provenance, but this can be lost if not noted at the last sale as happened recently when a fine sovereign went from no provenance back to having a lengthy one starting in the 1800s. It had previously been recorded, but was dropped in a recent sale and so potentially lost. I know this is covering old ground, but my 1601 portcullis halfpenny had a provenance of Foster and Nicholson when I bought it last year for just over £3100. As some may remember, that list has now been extended to 18 sales. The sister piece which is the pledge halfpenny that was in Spink's June sale had a comparable estimate to my coin a year before. The number available of both types appears to be 4 and so the price should be similar. The provenance of Parsons on its own for the latter piece is good but not special in isolation, but as part of the 10 sale provenance that I established prior to the sale, it went from a coin that we knew where it was prior to 1954, to a coin that we knew where it had been since at least the early 1700s including many big collections over the years such as Montagu and Murdoch etc. This made it a £4000-4500 coin and I increased my bid accordingly, though a man with deeper pockets was always going to get it. I think a reasonable estimate is an uplift of 30% with a decent provenance. For those that are unaware, Montagu was the first sale where there was extensive illustration of various lots. That in itself was significant. Montagu set out to acquire a comprehensive collection in top grade. To this end he made his fortune as a lawyer and then went about buying in complete collections as they became available alongside routine auction purchases. He died aged 51 by which time he had accomplished more than most could ever hope to achieve. The star lot in his sale was the Juxon Medal given by Charles I to Abp. Juxon when he was on the scaffold prior to his execution. At the sale in 1896, this medal realised £770 - a huge sum and was bought by the British Museum. It was Montagu's ability to acquire the choicest, rarest pieces that made his collection special. I know that the few illustrated pieces I have that were formerly in the Montagu cabinet are ones that I would have immense difficulty bringing myself to sell simply on quality grounds. If I don't want these pieces, I might as well stop collecting. Murdoch aspired to a Montagu-like collection, but was always playing catch up. He bought extensively at the Montagu sales, but as individual lots fighting all-comers it would always be an uphill struggle. He died a few years later and the collection was sold in 1903-4. Again, the quality of the lots was apparent from the catalogues. Although the superb items seen in the early catalogues were available then, many no longer are, having been acquired by museums and effectively protected from public viewing. It therefore falls to the slightly lesser items that remain available to act as the desirable objects of today in many instances. This is where tickets are invaluable because a handwritten note is much more helpful than a note that X bought this coin but it isn't illustrated. That is why I bought a lot on ebay last year - a Henry VI half groat, but the ticket was obviously that of Webb (Soth. 1894). £65 for a halfgroat in any condition with a ticket that could be ascribed to Webb was a no brainer and I hit the BIN button with only a cursory glance at the coin i.e. the ticket was worth the £65 and the coin (which was about VF) a bonus. A couple of halfpennies bought out the circular about 6 years ago were given as ex Clonterbrook Trust. Fine, but by extension it means they were ex Lockett (Clonterbrook was the family trust), and the Lockett catalogue which gave the source as Longbottom also conveniently left out the presence of the Webb ticket which meant that it went from a 1974 sale to an 1894, 1934 and 1958 sale in addition. Happy days. I guess it is horses for courses. Your average pleb on ebay wouldn't know what a ticket meant, but in a proper auction it adds corroborative evidence to the provenance if given, and if not given at all provides the buyer with a bonus.

It's not that people collect coins of a certain value only, but that every series has its key date(s) where demand always outstrips supply. Every denomination, every reign, hammered, milled, they all have their very expensive items that only a few people can ever own, irrespective of whether they can afford them. If a date run costs a few hundred pounds each, but one date has a 1 in front of the usual price, then that is what you will pay. It is quite noticeable that there has always been a certain cut off price which seems to limit the hammer price for casual purchases. 2 or 3 years ago it was about £3000-3500, but a year ago ran up to £4000-4500. Below this there is a lot of competition as if it was coming out of general expenses, but above this things are a bit more exclusive.

For what it's worth, the first 100 lots at Tuesday's St. James's were a reasonable selection of coins. They were bought by a total of 45 individuals with 12 lots passed. 15 buyers didn't reach the £1000 incl. premium, though cumulatively the other 30 did. The highest hammer price for any lot was £150K (+24% prem.) and the most lots won by a single bidder was 6, with three buyers represented. So there was a fairly broad selection of bidders as the results show. If they were all collectors that bought then the number can be said to be small, but if they were dealers buying on commission, or for stock, then the collector base would be several multiples of the number of lots won. It's quite a healthy market out there at the moment for quality, but the sting in the tail is the number of passes for the indifferent or problem coins. 12% is quite a high pass rate.

As Colin Cooke once said to me when I was bemoaning my coming second yet again on a choice piece - 'You aren't doing anything wrong chasing ex Carter pieces (Dr. E C Carter colln bt Baldwin 1950) because he only ever collected quality, the problem is just that your pockets aren't deep enough!' Any piece that has historically been known as the finest, or one of the finest, will not lose that label easily. Its history will help it, both value wise and its desirability when the time comes to sell. As for the TPGs - not enough space on the label. They don't always get the attribution right and slabs are a pain full stop because there isn't anywhere to keep the old tickets. Once a coin gets slabbed, the chances of any tickets following the coin are greatly reduced and so the provenance then depends on the TPG determined one, which if historical may or may not be correct. Slabs are aimed at a market where the number is more important than the provenance. If Montagu or Murdoch are irrelevant and not worth mentioning, then lesser provenances such as Ryan or Morrieson stand no chance of being included. The only old ones they are consistent in adding are Norweb, Boulton and occasionally Lockett and Lingford. Apart from that it is a question of pandering to modern collectors and putting their names on the slab. I saw a coin the other day that I knew was ex Brand and Norweb, but which is now anonymously slabbed as a nice coin. Norweb's coins came in the 2x2 envelopes with the distinctive spider design that she used to keep them in. Useful info like the weight was also included. That will now be lost.

Ah, but would you be willing to pay for the info? I think that's a bit like the slabbing question. For a valuble coin that you might be interested in selling, then the provenance will add interest if not value and (to me at least) might be an asset. A small cost could be justified. Bit the idea might not take off if places start to scan their documents and post them online. The Fitzwilliam copy for example it says 'some prices handwritten', but obviously we don't know what details that might include. A (even low res) scanned copy could answer that. Of course, I quite like looking to find out where my coins might have come from - not to the extent of Rob's library - but many people won't have the time or inclination ... I guess the main problem is that it'll likely only be the private collectors. Auction houses and museums will have their own resources they can refer to, or judging by some auction listings, just won't bother. A decent provenance will unquestionably add value. The pledge halfpenny that I wanted in Spink's June sale had a provenance given of Parsons only, but a bit of judicious research extended that to 10 names starting with the Earl of Pembroke (d.1733). Without the provenance it was a £3K coin, with the added info a £4000-4500 coin. Unfortunately it went to Geoff Cope (as I knew it would) and is now on his website, but that is a good example of the uplift in prices you can get. Once you can get a traceable history of ownership, the chances of rejection on the grounds it is a copy is very much reduced. With illustrations this is enhanced, like the penny above. Prices are ok up to a point, but the important info is the name of the buyer as that gives the provenance. The auction houses will all have their own copies of the sales with prices and buyers, though Seabys threw a lot of the info away when they were taken over by CNG. Baldwins are a bit disorganised and may have lost some info. A problem you will encounter is that where book bids are knocked down to a common name e.g. Glens used Graham, Spink used Goddard and today DNW use Wood for book bids. There is no way of knowing the ultimate winner without the auction house divulging the info - which they won't.

Maybe a trip to Cambridge? Fitzwilliam catalogues There are copies in the BM, the Fitzwilliam, the Ashmolean and the Warburg Institute according to M & R. Whether they have buyers' names though is another matter. Spink will have a copy of the catalogue and Baldwins may possibly have one, though their library is a little disorganised. Peters business idea's patent...RPcoins-ancestorycoin.co.uk Ah, but would you be willing to pay for the info?

Maybe a trip to Cambridge? Fitzwilliam catalogues There are copies in the BM, the Fitzwilliam, the Ashmolean and the Warburg Institute according to M & R. Whether they have buyers' names though is another matter. Spink will have a copy of the catalogue and Baldwins may possibly have one, though their library is a little disorganised.

Following today's prices at Baldwins, it appears that those on Monday weren't as bad as they could have been. Oh, the benefits of a good library. Checking Carlyon-Britton's article on the Saxon and Norman mints in the 1908 BNJ, it lists the various legend readings for the known Dorchester pennies at the time. My coin's reading has a footnote saying Mrs Mary Willett's collection has an example which is illustrated in vol.2 (1905). A quick check and there is my coin, illustrated on plate 3. I don't have the catalogue of her sale though which was at Glendinings 23/11/1920. Find that info and we could be on a roll. It could be the only one known of this reading too which would be a bonus, because Symonds aside, Dorchester sword pennies are notable for their absence in any catalogues that I have. Period.

Sorry, correction. There was also a Harthacnut from Dorchester (lot 1028) which was struck off-centre on the reverse, but with an excellent provenance.

Not satisfied with winking at the wife, you're now winking at a Cnut pointed helmet type penny. You either need to send your iPhone to language school, or to Room 101 for re-education. Cnut's pointed helmet type is even more common than Edward the Confessor's. But that demonstrates the thinking behind my collecting rules. 50% of all hammered Saxon & Norman pennies comes from the main centres of London, York, Canterbury, Lincoln and Winchester. Individual types may on occasions be rare for a particular mint, but the mint as a whole is invariably common. There are a lot of mints for which only a few dozen coins are known in total (including museums). When you see one for sale, you tend not to pass up the opportunity.

That's for me. Apart from lots 16 & 17 in the Symonds sale of 1973 (both VF and collected by him in the early years of the last century), this is the only other example to come to market in the last 50 years or more. It is also vastly superior to the other two. I came second on a couple others, but really wanted a Dorchester as the mint is less than common. There were 5 Dorchesters in the sale; a CRVX and a PAXS which are both common as types, a superb William I profile right which ticked all the boxes but was always going to be too expensive, an Edward the Confessor Pointed Helmet which had wonderful multi-hued toning and was arguably the most attractive of the 5 and this one. I opted for the latter as it provided an example from a difficult mint for the type where there are relatively few other difficult mints as alternatives - no more than a dozen. The Pointed Helmet issue is infested with at least two dozen hard to get mints. I have set myself the task of getting as many minting locations as possible without duplication of coin type where possible. I'm starting with the difficult mints first and when these are mostly complete I can fill in the gaps with the easy ones. A relatively rare type gives the opportunity to acquire a difficult mint to boot at a relatively small premium to the price paid for any example of the type, whereas a rare mint of a common type will always be multiples of the cheapest.

Allow me to disabuse you of the idea that hammered are VF or worse. Fresh from today's sale at DNW is this William I sword penny from Dorchester. The most adequate description of today's sale is carnage. The first part was a parcel of Saxon and early Norman pennies in top grade, mostly EF or better. Estimates in total of about £85K for the 39 lots; cost to the buyers, just over £197K. Lot 1012 was the worst offender with someone paying £31K for the very nice Edward the Elder portrait penny with a Saxon church on the reverse, though some were reasonably priced. The attention paid to this small collection was justified as there hasn't been a group of such high grade pieces for a very long time. Or as someone said to me today, 'Now Brian Grover will be able to afford a new set of flip-flops!' Wonderful coins, every one of them. Jim Sazama's hammered pennies contained a lot of indifferent material, though the really nice Edward I 1b made £10500 against the £8200 he paid in 2008. Things didn't get any better afterwards either.

A man/lady who moves to Ilford from Wessex (Bournmouth area?)...wow she/he must of been a looker. Truth is MOST good hammered stay in the collection.Trays of rubbish at coin fairs plus Ebay .This is one area where the collector needs his friendly dealer. For a very good reason. Due to the inconsistencies of striking, an EF details hammered piece is almost an anomaly wheras an EF milled piece has merely seen little circulation. Couple that with the fact that Saxon aside, where the amounts struck at the time were huge due to the Danegeld payments, relatively few quantities have been found in hoards post this period that were fresh from the mint. Therefore, most issues have a few choice pieces that become far more desirable than the run of the mill coins that make up the bulk of the examples extant and they are known by the people who do their homework. One Truro crown on my shortlist has been off the market for the past 102 years. If it appears at auction the price will go through the roof compared to Spink guide prices, though pro-rata not as much as the Petition Crown over the same period. At a sale in 1909, it made £30 compared to the Petition's £43. It is round and fully struck up with no double striking. Nobody is going to willingly part with such a coin. Another attraction of hammered is their individuality. Inconsistent strikes give rise to a greater variation in eye-appeal that is not found so easily in the milled coinage where to a large extent it is determined by the toning. With many milled coins, a date run results in a lot of sameness be it full lustre or toned. A run of say Victorian bun-heads will be far less interesting to the eye than a run of privy marks even if the denomination stays the same.

Spink should be ashamed of themselves! I quite agree. I had 2 or 3 looking like that which went in the bin on the grounds that not even Scott would be interested in them. I didn't have the nerve to try and ask for money for them and at approx. 10p scrap value for the metal there wasn't any hidden value either.

This isn't the preserve of self slabbed coins. I've had a few that I wouldn't have bought had I known about the edges prior to purchase. All courtesy of the big two TPGs which p's you off a bit when you have just spent many hundreds or even a bit more. They do appear to have quality control - whereby the visible knocks get rejected and the hidden ones are slabbed, presumably on the assumption that nobody in the US would want to break out a coin. And you can't complain, because they would reply that it must have happened when you broke it out. One reason for marking down a slabbed coin.

London is always a problem, whether coin fair or auction. I stopped getting the train to London when it leapt from £95 return to £130 (pig class) and that's a few years ago. The alternative is driving, which now costs £50-60 for fuel, plus parking for the day of £30ish, plus congestion charge, plus the hassle of sitting in queues of traffic on the M1 or M40 (realistically a minimum of 4 hours each way). All that with no guarantee you will find anything suitable makes it distinctly unattractive. Cheap train fares are available - if you want to arrive in mid-afternoon. I make an effort for specific sales where I particularly want something (like next week), but avoiding going to London at all can be a very pleasurable thing.

Another problem with hammered is that the dies were less reproducibly made. If you have a full letter punch, then it is reasonable to assume that the character would be sunk into the die until the main body of the punch acted as a stop. With earlier hammered coins the letters are usually composites of lines, curves, wedges etc., using all of which are more likely to result in an end product of a less consistent depth. Then you also have the problem of worn dies, flan hardness, flan size, force applied when striking, number of strikes made or even at which mint the coin was made. The list is lengthy. Variation in any of the aforementioned will result in a different product every time. Even the waviness of the flan is down to how easy it was to remove the coins from the cutter. It seems a reasonable assumption that the coins were cut out of a sheet using something akin to a pastry cutter because you frequently find Saxon coins in mint state with a wavy flan. The only sensible explanation I have heard for this is that they were deformed trying to remove them from the cutter, because their as struck nature would exclude damage from circulation.

The problem with a price range is that the really nice example which is way better than the normal fayre will distort the figures. If you have only 2 or 3 examples available to collectors, 1 or 2 in Fine - VF and one close to mint state, then the latter will sell for multiples of the former and so set the benchmark. If you have the only lower grade coin and the best sold for say £10K, then most would expect theirs to sell for perhaps half of that without considering that most people would wait for the better one to reappear. Or, using a milled example, consider the 1667/4 half crown - 3 known, all dire, but one is less dire than the other two. People always see what they want to see which in the case of the grade applicable to their coin is over-optimistic (or nearly always so). A price range would also cause problems for insurance purposes as you would be obliged to revert to the price paid for your coins as opposed to replacement cost.