1949threepence

Beauty - yours? Totally free of marks, apart from a tiny blemish on the Queen's neck. The smaller one is also a gem.

My photo is an accurate reflection of the overall true colour. Just doesn't bring the best of it out, as already stated. You were lucky to get yours for a song. But then coin prices are going up and up.

pic of my 1853 proof penny

I see what you mean about the copper proofs. The pic of the higher hammer price 1853 penny, for example, doesn't bring out the shimmering iridesence, and superb, red, green/blue toning in the legends, more typical of this date. If you didn't know, and someone told you it was a currency strike, you'd probably believe them. Of course you get the full effects when rotating the coin through the angles. The pic I took of mine doesn't bring out the best, but I think it's a little better than Noble's pic. Noble's pic

Yet some of the 19th century base metal proofs do attract fair prices. Some are very rare and highly collectable. Obviously they're not going to compare with gold proofs, because not only do you have rarity in many cases, but also bullion value. The two together makes them irresistible as investment pieces, especially given the substantial rise in gold prices recently. Ideal hedge against inflation which you physically hold yourself. That places them completely outside the mercy of banks and other financial institutions - many of these are not the solid dependable pillars of society they used to be, with their increasingly incomprehensible modes of operation and weird ID demands. I can definitely see the attraction.

Another interrsting little snippet is that the 1853 proof set had a mintage of just 40. So any proofs from that set are going to be super rare. Source

A few didn't reach estimate, but maybe not quite the same thing in this instance. Not sure. Some of the prices reached were astounding.

Bit more potentially useful information here, Chris:- source

now then, now then.....what a prize eh?

Of course they were originally part of the 1839 proof set, and according to the information relating to The Tyrant Collection just 300 were minted. However, they continued to be produced to order for many years after. So what the final total was, is anyone's guess.

Just looked in my coin yearbook. The mintage isn't given, unfortunately. Don't know if available elsewhere. Probably not. It can't be many though. I'd bet <500. Maybe even fewer than that. As it's gold, most are no doubt still extant.

Very well done. I would have liked to have bid for the 1831 William IV proof penny en medaille (ie: the reverse is not inverted, the rarer of the two types), but my registration approval e mail only came through just after this coin had gone - typical !!! My fault. Shouldn't have left it till the last minute.

At Noble Auctions Australia. Just watching this live (started 7:30pm their time, 10:30am UK time). The highlight of the sale has to be the 1839 five pounds Una and the Lion, which went for $780K (aus) which at an exchange rate of $1.74: £1.00 is about £448,275. Wow, is all I can say. Some big prices being attracted.

Ian, once again, thanks very much for having a close up look for me. Much appreciated. I thought it was probably an optical illusion, and looking at the detailed close up pics you kindly provide, it very obviously is. But it's always worth checking out, just in case. The grime in particular is very deceptive.

"Actually, that lighthouse doesn't look quite right for a reverse J. I've looked at my Freeman's 102, 105 and 106, which are all reverse J, and the lighthouses all taper downwards into a slightly broader base in a way that yours doesn't appear to, Bruce. Yours seems more akin to the lighthouse on reverse H." Wrote the original all wrong. Should have been as above.

Actually, that lighthouse doesn't look quite right for a reverse J. I've looked at my Freeman's 102, 105 and 106, which are all reverse J, and the lighthouses all taper downwards into a slightly broader base that yours appears to, Bruce. Seems more akin to the lighthouse on reverse H. Probably an optical illusion, but even so. Be interested to hear the thoughts of others on that one. I'm not sure about the rock.

Thanks for the tips chaps, but I reckon nothing can beat seeing the coin i hand, which is why I've sent it to Ian. It's more probable than not that I'm wrong about the date spacing, but at least I'll get a second opinion based on sight of the actual item.

I need to investigate and buy some close up photography equipment. If I get too close with what I've got, the pic just gets blurred.

Thanks Ian - I'll send it by next day tracked delivery tomorrow. Although it'll be next day but one, as the actual next day is Sunday.

Hi Ian - if it were purely the angle of the camera then it would not be as obvious to the naked eye as it is. If you like, I could send it to you for closer examination, to see what you think. Let me know. ETA: under magnification there is definitely some grime, but I'm not convinced that would distort the impression to such an extent.

Unfortunately not, and although I can find the item in e bay, it won't let me enlarge the thumbnail. In hand the difference is quite definite.

Here are the two 1841 colon after REG obverses I have. To me there are clear differences between the 1 and 8 when comparing the two.

By the way, how times change.....

Hi Ian, Was just about to start this when I realised the battery on my tablet had run right down. Now on charge. I'll do tomorrow. Just looked again and, unless I'm seeing things, there is a palpable difference between the 1 an 8 date spacings on the two coins. Maybe an optical illusion.

That's actually a very very fair question. Besides coins, another one of my interests is the weather and the number/location of weather recording stations does seem slightly biased to this observer. Many decades ago (and over a century ago in fact), one of the recording stations which time and again came up with top readings, was Raunds in Northamptonshire. There is still a legit weather station there, and it still registers interesting readings (see link), but you NEVER ever hear that name mentioned for readings or records. Raunds is a perfectly reasonable semi rural South Midlands weather station, typical of many which day in and day out do a great job. But not a single word do you ever hear of them. I mentioned Raunds as it has been famous in the past. But there are others scattered over that area and the Home Counties, such as Rugby, Milton Keynes, High Wycombe, Banbury, Meriden, Buckingham and Oxford - all of which are locations which can reasonably said to represent England as a whole, and are in non biased locations. But again, you never hear mention of them (occasionally Cambridge crops up, such as for the previous record high in 2019) There are also numerous officially recognised recording stations in the North of England, which again you rarely hear about. Although with that said, we did hear of one on Monday night - Emley Moor, which recorded the highest ever minimum temperature of 25.9. That was surprising given the Northerly location. It's quite high ground as well, and that may have caused a bias. The old ITV tv transmitter at Emley Moor was brought down in March 1969 by a thick coating of rime (layer of ice caused by persistent freezing fog), which caused its weight to increase massively on the side facing East. But back to your original point, yes, I think there might well be a logical case for excluding airports, especially Heathrow and Gatwick as their readings could well be biased upwards given their urban locations and concrete bases. All weather stations use Stevenson screen thermometers, but what they're sited on, and their proximity to other influences, may well make a difference. There was bias in the old days as well. Many earlier records were set in Camden Square, London, which was an urban location later considered too biased to be meaningful. Yet they use Heathrow? link to Camden Square info Photo of Camden Square as it was when used as a weather station:-