VickySilver

This will not give off the amount of oxidants that pine will but still will, and your experience along with that just given by Peckris unsuprisingly support that. Wood = problems unless you have a well patinated coin.

That would not just be humidity as with the mahogony there would likely be organics being emitted by the wood that may contain sulfa compounds or groups.Humidity and heat would be accelerants to the reactions at coin surfaces. I think this is a real issue for wood cabinet storage. This reminds me that even with inert storage containers that the coin holders themselves can be a source of problem for the same reason, and I am thiinking of the common cardboard sandwiched 2x2s which are not unreactive.

Gary, do get back to us once you get the coin in hand and have a look at the edge. Very nice pickup if it is proof, even if mishandled.

That is just not enough different from an especially well struck & preserved specimen crown of the date for me. I mean really, SLIGHTLY finer lettering less fully impressed command prices 10,000 % higher? I think not (at least for me), and this is coming for someone who for some reason loves the 20th C. crown series & even has an ESC 377. This would require a specific gravity test to confirm 377 vs. 377A status. Provenance? Who cares? I mean is there HRH DNA on it? Picture with him holding it. It would be interesting to see the text of the catalogue on this lot, Rob are you with us?

Rob, you no doubt have kept track of his (Freeman's) coins but it seems that he has through relatively recent times had coins from possibly his collection on ebay. I seem to recall corresponding with him about one before I knew it was him & don't remember his ebay nomen.

Ouch, that is a big number to start with! Good luck to whomever wins it...Wonder if there is any valuable commentary bits in the margins?

By all means, chck the edge as Peckris has said - there are other edge variants, some not listed. I have the "hip hop" version but also one with about 2/3 of the edge overstruck with rotated lettering. Probably the common varieties but always worth the check.

The "5" shows similar spread, if that is what it is, as well as the first "8". Not too good at posting pictures but recall that I may have one of these with date issues, just have to figure out what I did with it...

Yes, certainly in hand viewing in the best; for example, it certaily looks like there is "leftover" stigmata of the numeral 1 to the left of upper and lower serifs. As it is generally the case, at least to the best of my understanding, these are not recarvings but rather repunching of the die (or perhaps die matrix) with numerals either grouped or singly and that there is a great deal of variability with these "overdates" (I use the quotation marks because I am not certain that is what they are, or because a term may be rather inexact but is many times used) where somtimes but a single digit appears to be reentered and other times groups of them. My point really is that the top datal may not necessarily be a smaller type as metal is pushed around by the impacts to die or matrix. Although I know there is great interest in these date punches as evidenced by the earlier discussion on another post about wide and narrow spaced dates, I just can not get personally to excited by them; certainly technology was not then what it is now and a bit of imperfection even as these are milled coins would be expected. I could cite the many legend corrections in the Maundy series that are unpublished, not to mention in the farthing series. The type I believe have much more significance would be demonstrated by the 1848/7 sixpence or the 1847/6 Britannia groat wherein dies were converted for another date altogether. With the former it would be the only way to get a die for the 1847 sixpence as the single confirmed specimen would be prohibitively rare.

I am not so certain about a "small over large date". The second set of datals appear to be set slightly to the North-Northeast or toward 1 - 2 o'clock with a bit of counterclockwise rotation. The second set of datals may have spread the imprint of the first set with a bit of metal creep on the die.

Possibly, however Peckris you did fail to counter my point about WHY this is a relatively insignificant rarity, at least technically.

I was thinking of Gothic florins where arc numbers are counted, and even though I have an extensive collection have to confess to NEVER counting arc numbers. These are certainly more of a notable varietal (arc numbers) than wide or narrow space datals. I would say the equivalent to arc count with regards to date varieties would be large or small dates which, although not exciting, are certainly more noteworthy as it is not simple spacing of puncheons.

Noticeable, but do people truly care. This is just too much fussy detail to me - why don't we start counting the teeth number around the perimeter as well? This is the type of mentality taken to its ridiculous limits by the famous "slender 3" bun. Most definately, to each their own!

Yes, quite, the first 1909 2/6 would be cheap at 4x that price. The florin not a rare date but even 50 pounds would not be that bad a price to pay. I can not imagine that the seller could know what (s)he had with the piece.

Possibly to sell on Man itself?

I agree with a conglomerate of the above. It is a much better than average strike but has seen some wear. KG's temporal area is one as are some of Britannia's details. Mine too is an EF with sl. muddy details and not that pleasant toning, so this would be marginally better. I like a nice "H" better than the KNs, as strange as that may seem as they seem harder to locate & more of a challenge.

Well, I would not get that excited because this would be one of the infamous NCLT coins of Isle of Man. A few collect them, but most scorn them and likely will give you silver melt value only, sad to say. You might get lucky and sell on ebay to two competing bidders, but tend to doubt that occurance.

Luster, that part of grading can really create some contraversy. Red usually equates with lustre, but many opinions on what other surface colour can also demonstrate luster - some very brown specimens can demonstrate a silky luster as well, for example.

Interesting thing about all of these offerings (sacrifices?) put out by the Isle of Man is that it has turned off most numismatists. That has left something of a vacuum for those who collect true currency offerings. I have noted some years ago that the 1972-1974 years saw the minting of VERY limited currency issues of types made in quantitiy in other years - about 1000 minted of each. There seems to be no interest in these, though in truth the are offered understandably with infrequency. I have seen them sell for as little as 20 USD to less than 25 pounds. All had been bagged and none offered in collector sets of any type. Poor little orphans, and an example of what a lot of NCLT junk will do to true collector interest in a country.

Hi Peter, Can you "linkify" the 1856 farthing?

OK, what penny?

Coins as investment? Good luck! Although they may end up bringing more money that they were purchased for in some instances, overall I would not begin to count on bringing in retirement money. Funny thing I have noted about collecting is that some of the mediocre to lesser coins (in monetary value) have been some of my very favorite. No doubt when the day comes to resell they will not bring a lot. In fact, and understandably so, dealers will likely "cherrypick" the more expensive bits and dump or lot up the lesser coins. Some of the more expensive bits may or may not bring a profit - likely the lesser bits will lose out as investment. As far as the certifying game and London coins or others who take ordinary coins, slab them, and then sell them for crazy numbers, even I who am a bit equivocal about slabbing, come down firmly against this not only because I do not see the added value but because it seems squarely a ripoff. As a collector I rather resent the dealers and flippers who drive up prices and have no interest in the coins themselves...

Peckris, I think the point is that people likely have not been searching out the obscure differences that make a slender 3 a slender 3. I can quite imagine that with more searching more will turn up - doubtlessly many on this forum have more experience than I but will note I have NEVER looked for this type before, and it was only after this sale that I looked at my two specimens (oh well, not "slender 3's"). This coin has far less going for it even than, say, the US 1970 S one cent of the small date. In the end this is a minor variety and not a date or mintmark individual coin like the 1882 London mint coin. Absolutely outrageous that this slender 3 coin attracts other than minimal interest. Not even an overdate and NOT a major varietal. I will not name names but I know a collector that collects by die state and so would have multiple specimens from the same die. There is something for everybody I suppose and am thankful that collectors paying such money must not be interested in the relatively rare bits that I go after...

Yes, sorry about that as it is term for copper coins (even if of alloy) when they retain excellent luster. These would be top coins, and was trying to emphasize how ridiculous (IMO) was the price paid for the slender 3 or die marked 5 pennies. I would very much prefer the set of key pennies any day, not that they are cheap. What is difficult to fathom is that an 1882 London (NOT Heaton) penny in mint [red] would likely bring less than this overblown bit and yet is a date and mint combination likely of greater rarity and not subject to increase of finds now that the type has been identified as rare.

Well, increase in objectivity is the point, no matter what one's perspective is. Unfortunately there has been probably much more subjectivity in "traditional" grading, even using the examples you have brought forth. In another post one of the posters said he would discount a TPG coin. If so, please let me have first look at ALL of your PCGS 65 red coins prior to 1930. Back to the introductory post before the pirating: 19k for the slender 3 penny - does the purchaser realize he has paid above and beyond the cumulative value of the following for a minor variety: 1849 red unc. 1856 PT red unc. 1856 OT red unc. 1860 red unc. copper 1864 crosslet 4 red unc. 1864 "plain" 4 red unc. 1869 red unc. 1871 red unc. 1875 H red unc. 1882 London vf or so Simply incredible.