1949threepence

What about so called "specimen issues" - proof or not? My Freeman 74 is a specimen issue from the Copthorne Collection, advertised as a F74. Yet Freeman describes the 74 as "proof".

Unfortunate mistake.

Absolutely. Well here's an "ultra cameo". link Unfortunately, I was unable to re-find the one I saw in the catalogue last night, so the above is a different one from the September 2017 auction. I've also seen one described as "deep cameo" - lot No 740 in the December auction. Can't see a pic of that on their website.

I received my hard copy LCA catalogue the other day, and couldn't help noticing some items described as "ultra cameo". So better than just bog standard cameo

Talking of newbie collectors.... What I do find slightly concerning is the increasing number of reproduction bun pennies, of all different dates, including 1869 and 1875H, the real ones of which are rare. They all look uncirculated, although often with a horrible rainbow toning, and they are obviously fake, which anyone with experience can tell at a glance. Although they are flagged up as "reproduction gap fillers" and the like, what worries me is that eventually someone is going to try passing some off as real, which newbie collectors could fall for, believing thy are getting a bargain.

Rendell Ingram probably doesn't know how to photoshop, if the abysmal quality of his website pics are anything to go by. Sometimes I think he takes pics in the dark !

Don't think it's the same coin. If you click on the link I provided, you can see the obverse, and the two are clearly different coins.

What you said:- Drew the distinction between the appearance of a VIP proof and an ordinary proof.

Thanks chaps. Evidently this is quite a contentious issue. As you say @VickySilver paying £5000+ for a coin of uncertain pedigree (VIP or not?), seems somewhat impetuous.

Cheers craigy. I get it now.

Out of interest, LCA have sold three1951 VIP Crowns previously. The first was lot 1301 on 2.6.13, hammer £3,600, second was Lot 2868 on 7.9.14, £2,800 and the third Lot 2044 on 7.12.14, £5,500.

Yep, good point Pete. I was so fixated on the fact there were two Scottish shillings, that I completely missed the fact it was only the Crown which was VIP. But - on that subject of VIP - just how do you tell the difference between them and a "normal" proof? Indeed, is there any material difference, or is it merely the fact that they are given to a VIP, which marks them out? Forgive my ignorance on this issue.

I can only see one item, Gary.

Precisely David. I wonder what the explanation is? It ought to be a good one considering the lower and upper estimates applied.

Can anybody else spot something slightly wrong with this Festival of Britain VIP 1951 proof set? link to item

Incidentally, has anybody received their hard copy catalogue yet? I keep adding my name to the mailing list (3 times now), but nothing ever happens, and I've yet to receive one.

I've done that trick as well. They're an absolute sod to find, and never in the place you think they've rolled to.

Hmmm.....not bad. Several outstanding boxes ticked for me there.

I always look for "the coin you see is the coin you get" mantra. I know it's not always infallible, but it does usually prove to be the case.

Thanks for the heads up, David.

I am so so sorry to hear this news. Deepest sympathy to his family and friends. A very sad loss.

Yes, nice. Incredibly rare. I see it's on Richard's rarest penny site. The one which was sold at the LCA in March this year, went for £750 hammer, but it wasn't as nice as that one. I'd have gone to £1500 for that, given how difficult they are to come by.

No, missed that one completely. What did it go for, and what state was it in?

Thanks Neil.

Although I contributed to this thread back in 2012, I have literally only just read the fantastic response from Michael Freeman above. As Pete would say "hat off". I refer to Mr Freeman's book literally on a daily basis. Obviously over time - a very protracted period of time - some of his estimates will be questioned and revised. But for the overwhelming most part, they are considered pretty much as accurate today as they were when first compiled back in the 1960's. That is some feat, and testament to his skill and dedication. Thank you MIchael.