Rob

Any luck with the Charles shillings {E5!!!} at DNW sale Rob? The shilling with `N` head mm I had my eye on went mad! along with most of the others. What is happening to the market? some people are setting very high prices with their winning bids, I sometimes question my collecting habbits! I got the E5/2 as well which pleased me as it has good lustre with cabinet friction only to a few letters and is better than the picture in the catalogue although the lions are not particularly well struck up. It is essentially as struck and was one of the more reasonably priced pieces in the sale probably due to the quality of detail on the reverse. In fact I had a good couple of days with over half the pieces I wanted at Baldwins and 3 of the 6 I targeted at DNW. I also wanted the negro's head, but 950 was too much for the grade so I dropped out and some of the bulk lots at the end which I had as a fall back also had some nice coins with good provenances but went for a bit too much. I also got the Henry IV heavy coinage 1/2d and the 1926 proof 1/2d, both of which I wanted. The latter was particularly pleasing as I can only find half a dozen references to this type in catalogues and most of those are the same coin. I think there are only 2 or possibly 3 available with the Norweb piece being another. I was offered the chance to make a profit 2 minutes after I bought it, but declined on the grounds I may not see another in the next 10-15 years. There has been some debate as to whether the 1926 and 1927 1/2d proofs are actually proofs, but comparing this piece with later issues I have to say that if it isn't then neither are any of the other dates - so it is.

A lot of dosh for a gothic crown. Personally I think the one in Baldwin's sale last year was nicer, albeit a bit more expensive. On the collecting side of things, I thought the 1839/41 proof halfpenny was a lot more interesting. Nice proof Rob, Good price too. You weren't the lucky bidder by any chance? Funnily enough - yes. Although I clearly wasn't the only one who noticed it based on the hammer price which is about $200 more than they would normally go for. Talking to Steve Hill at DNW yesterday, he also saw it, but didn't chase it.

A lot of dosh for a gothic crown. Personally I think the one in Baldwin's sale last year was nicer, albeit a bit more expensive. On the collecting side of things, I thought the 1839/41 proof halfpenny was a lot more interesting.

You have copies of Bramah and Batty!!! If ever you get the urge to sell let me know I have been looking for ages without success I know my luck I will buy one the day before it is scanned into google books!! The 4 volumes of Batty sold on ebay for £357 finishing last weekend. Unfortunately I got waylaid and didn't get a bid in.

This means crown there is the first British Proof. What I am saying is that in the interests of consistency the slabbing companies should stick to one thing or the other and not mix and match as per their daily whim. They use a Proof prefix for both patterns and proofs. This I don't have a problem with as both are usually struck to much higher standards than currency examples and so acts as a means of differentiation. However, I have yet to see PF applied to anything below 60 grade irrrespective of condition. If a proof is impaired it simply has to have a lower number -eg PF15 if necessary. They seem to have a mental block about calling a proof or pattern anything other than mint state grade however. They also don't appear to have the knowledge of what is a proof or pattern. If a coin has never been approved by parliament for circulation it is not a currency piece and remains a pattern. Therefore, given they were never passed by act of Parliament to be legally circulated, the Cromwell pieces should always be given a PF grade in recognition that they are patterns. I just wish the slabbing companies would employ people who know how to i)identify correctly and ii) have sufficient knowledge to grade British coins accurately. To be virtually assured of getting a genuinely unc piece it is necessary to start at MS65 and even then it's not guaranteed - but hey - all those happy punters getting a statistically better collection are pleased, even if half their coins have been cleaned/dipped/artificially toned etc and a significant percentage aren't even what they think they are.

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage. I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong. It seems NGC have graded some Cromwell half crowns as business strike ie MS**. Link to NGC census Rob I'm sure I have read somewhere that there is on going debate into whether or not the Cromwell coins are patterns or just rare. I remember reading that a contemporary account of the day said that there where quite a few Cromwell coins circulating but that they were quite worn. Is it possible that these coins were at some point melted to be used in other monarch's reigns, thus making the remaining Cromwell pieces rare? Edited to add: Having never had the chance or privilege to examine one in hand, I cannot pass judgment. In your experience does the strike and legend etc. make the balance sway for these coins being patterns? They were never proclaimed legal tender by Parliament as Cromwell died before production got into full swing, so technically must be considered patterns. I'm sure some limited numbers will have circulated unofficially because you come across pieces that are really worn from time to time and there is nothing to suggest that people had any more scruples then than now. The short time between production and the accession of Charles II would mean only limited opportunity to circulate these and certainly would have been frowned on post-1660. Most Cromwell pieces are not particularly rare.

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage. I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong.

The number of auctions seems to be going through the roof. From this Sunday to next Friday there are 7 if you include the Goldberg and Heritage sales in the US. Only August seems to be auction free now. It's a bit hard on the cashflow.

Can't see me going what with the 3 days of auctions before Coinex. 3-4 days in London is bad enough if you include viewing time.

Just a guess, but probably the fine work pieces of James 1st should be considered proofs as some of these and the subsequent Charles 1st fine work pieces have highly reflective fields and are struck on as round a flan as could be expected from hammered issues. Similarly for the patterns of this era which are struck on obviously specially prepared flans. It is possible that there were a few made to similar standards in Elizabeth 1st 's reign too. In terms of milled, the 1662 crown (ESC 16) is a good contender.

Not usually. Mine's a very nice woman. She even instructed me to increase my bid in a recent sale. Didn't work though because I still came second.

A "dump" halfpenny. The first issue was struck on thicker, smaller diameter flans Ahhhh! Thank you again. That kills two birds with one stone - I was going to ask what a dump issue was, they use it in the book I am using but it's not in the explanations. (feel free to explain why it is called a 'dump' coin though). Rich Because it's dumpy - thicker and smaller diameter

A "dump" halfpenny. The first issue was struck on thicker, smaller diameter flans

Bet he wouldn't pay even half book price for the grades claimed, even if he wanted one.

More generally, the gap between the best and the worst coins in the collectable range continues to widen with the better examples outstripping inflation, but the lower grades barely holding their value. In particular, the differential between EF and AU seems to be stretching out. Still a seller's market in my opinion. The differential between EF and AU is probably widening because buyers are relating to the U rather than saying it isn't uncirculated and so it it should be graded extremely fine or variations on this. Uncirculated should be a statement of fact which therefore should not support the A prefix and thus AU should be graded good EF but that can turn potential buyers off because at this grade everyone wants an uncirculated coin. The number of collectors appears to have dramatically increased in recent years which has exacerbated this effect because many appear to have learned their grading from others' descriptions on ebay and the like. This becomes a monster which feeds off itself and will invariably lead to a hike in prices. The lower grades are kept in check by ebay which has led to a serious oversupply of VF and lower grade coins. Becasue Spink only prices down to fine in most cases, this forms the lowest grade (and hence price). However, many are in grades such that even a scrap metal merchant would ask for a discount. A genuinely UNC coin should almost always be worth top dollar because they are a lot scarcer than people imagine or sellers' descriptions suggest. A choice one is worth a premium.

Not sure about this one, surely some mistake here and really should know better.

It's an ME. One of those things I learnt after years of looking for 1926 ME pennies as a kid. The earlier image is a little more angular than the modified version.

The problem with ebay is that anything which isn't described as UNC or aUNC doesn't sell. I sold an aEF 1863 penny which made the princely sum of £5.11. Nothing wrong with the picture, but because I didn't overgrade it, nobody bid it up. It was subsequently called almost unc and sold for £46. That's why so many things are called almost uncirculated. It's a cop out, because you can't be accused of lying if you say almost. This covers a multitude of sins including an almost total absence of detail in many cases. VF or any other grade for issue is total b****cks. There isn't, nor ever has been, any reason why the grade of a coin can become detached from the actual wear to the surfaces. You can have a coin struck from worn dies yet uncirculated if supporting evidence is present, but just because a coin is 200 years old doesn't mean that you can ignore the wear. That p's me off a lot too.

Chris, A little help with what is undervalued...I think the1845, 1846 and 1849 Victoria pennies, are way under the market valued in the CCGB, if you can find one. I just bid at the London Coin Auction on a EF+ 1849 with an estimated Value 1100 to 1400 pounds. I bid the high end at 1400, but the coin went for 2100! As for the 1846, I have still yet to find one for sale! These low mintage Victoria's have got to be classics, with the low mintage, and the market getting bigger for them. IMHO! Bob C. I was also willing to go to £1400 on that one. The scratch at 10-11 o'clock on the reverse was a turn off., but if I remember correctly, it was a postal bid that won, so maybe they didn't pick it up. That one was a bit overpriced IMHO. Re the 1846 you may be right in saying it is more difficult to acquire than the book would suggest. 15 months ago I put one on ebay in fairly dire condition - say good fine, with a feeling of guilt starting it at £20 and it made £66 which surprised me somewhat.

The picture isn't good enough and the impression given rightly or wrongly is that the coin has been polished - horribly so. You can't tell for certain whether it is the modified effigy or the second issue because you can't see the BM on the truncation which makes an id simple. The ME has BM to the right, the previous issue has BM more central. It is illustrated in Spink's tome on p.471. If I had to guess I would say it is the ME type because the parting in the hair is more pronounced with a longer line, but I wouldn't gamble on it being so. Pictures like this usually hide a multitude of problems, so "if in doubt, leave it out".

As for the date, I am still not sure there is no something here (pls look at the first 0): The quality of the datal figures is as good as the rest of the reverse legend where there is a good selection of blocked, flawed or disintegrating letters. Coupled with the lack of an obvious 6 under the 7, I'm tempted to put it down to a flaw because I can't reconcile it to a particular number.

Certainly looks like two T's, but I'm not convinced about the date. That's another one to add to the list. Also, can you see any trace of the crossbars of the A's? The first one looks like an inverted V has been used because it has flat bases with no fishtails unlike the final one and there doesn't appear to be any sign of a crossbar. The final A is a bit claggy to say whether the crossbar is present. These were often added as a separate punch, presumably with a chisel and so can be at any height and not necessarily horizontal. Please could you add a picture of the obverse. Thanks.

Hopefully the money raised from this will go towards a literacy course. link

To be fair, it was me that alerted them, and I made it pretty impossible for them to be in any doubt that it was a con. As I pointed out, how can two separate auctions be selling the same coin as lot 568 from the Glendining Auction on 11 May 1954! Even ebay couldn't get that one wrong..... or could they? Mmmmm.... Was the coin the actual one in Parsons' sale i.e a worn 1697 crown 3rd bust, 2nd harp with a NONO edge? It is illustrated in the Parsons catalogue despite its grade. The coin is this one, which sold on ebay a couple of days ago. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/VERY-RARE-WILLIAM-II...1QQcmdZViewItem Looks like the one you mentioned. Yes, that's definitely the same coin.

To be fair, it was me that alerted them, and I made it pretty impossible for them to be in any doubt that it was a con. As I pointed out, how can two separate auctions be selling the same coin as lot 568 from the Glendining Auction on 11 May 1954! Even ebay couldn't get that one wrong..... or could they? Mmmmm.... Was the coin the actual one in Parsons' sale i.e a worn 1697 crown 3rd bust, 2nd harp with a NONO edge? It is illustrated in the Parsons catalogue despite its grade.