1949threepence

Just what I was thinking. Dave is a stand up bloke and didn't deserve that crap. Bastards

I agree Jon. Proofs should be treated with the utmost respect.

Interesting. I hadn't even noticed it Cliff, to be honest. Obviously some kind of metal flaw peculiar to the variety, but not on the example I upgraded from. Also just had a look at the no incuse curls sold by LCA and none of them have it either (although no pics for the ones before September 2008).

Worn? clear date only, dear boy, clear date only. Anyway, I thought I would make a few points about the 1806 no incuse curl pennies. Peck was of the opinion that they are roughly in a 1:5 ratio as opposed to incuse curl examples. But I'm inclined to think it's more like 1:10 in view of the difficulty I've encountered obtaining one. Not especially easy getting a mid grade specimen, but the higher grades are difficult. Finally got this one from a dealer, and noticed it had previously sold at the June 2021 LCA for just £70. He made a fair mark up on it, as you would quite reasonably expect, but it is one of the better ones I've seen, being toned GEF with no issues.

Didn't realise it existed. Looks a great buy. Probably be all manner of interesting snippets in there.

Thanks for the heads up, Bob.

I've just received a coin from Germany, via tracked Deutsche Post, which arrived today after being posted on 20.12.21. No issues whatsoever. Not sure whether the "from" as opposed to the "to" makes any difference in the context of this thread, but thought it was worth mentioning.

It would be extremely difficult, as the coin has it all. No blemishes save for the merest isolated speck on the obverse, much eye appeal, and UNC. A truly choice piece which I was happy to pay the high price for. Copper is right that the date is much harder to find in high grade than you would imagine for a date which is not desperately scarce.

Very much so.

Very pleased, nay delighted with this absolutely immaculate 1825 in toned a/UNC.

A very interesting article. Thanks for posting, Bernie.

I'm afraid that's kids for you. Anyway, Oliver never did it, hence why his Mum and Dad (and me) knew as he told them what the others were up to. Anyway, I looked it up - have a read

You can guarantee it's been done thousands of times already this Christmas. My 14 year old nephew knows how to fix them (what to add to the sample) to give a false positive reading. They found the way at school, which guaranteed being sent home.

8 years ago now, so a bit late to take it up with them. Besides, I'm not one for whinging, and accept that it's my fault for not doing my homework properly. It's swings and roundabouts with coins. Some you do really well on, and others not so well.

Exactly my thoughts too, after post buy reflection. The coin was advertised as a proof "F129" in the December 2013 LCA, and I somewhat naively went for it , winning for £420. That should have been a hint, because I'm pretty sure it would have fetched considerably more than that, if my enthusiasm had been matched by many others. It's not even a correct description: if it really was a proof it would have been advertised as a 127A owing to the fact that it's obverse 12, not 13. I don't feel I've been entirely done, as it's still a very nice coin, with smooth proof like fields. Sits nicely in my collection as a non proof F127. link

Out of interest, who thinks this is a proof?

Very much so.

Very interesting. Maybe the marbled effect is a key indicator for a Victorian copper proof. From the 1850's at any rate.

Of course, in some pre Victoria cases, if you know whether (or not depending on date) the reverse is inverted, then you'll also be able to confirm as a proof/currency strike. With that said, I believe the 1831 proof has both an inverted and non inverted reverse. The non inverted being by far the scarcer.

Hmm, yes, possibly. But would you still think there was something special about it if it was just being sold as a BIN for £80 on e bay? If you would, then fair enough.

Is there something special about it, Richard - apart from being graded at MS67? Maybe I'm missing something very obvious.

In many cases it's very obvious, for numerous reasons, that a given coin is a proof. There are certain features or aspects which definitively mark it out as such. But with others there just doesn't seem (for me anyway) to be anything about certain coins, touted as proofs, which in any way distinguishes them from an ordinary business strike, let alone a specimen or early strike. But clearly many coins have become marked as proofs over the decades, and now sell as acknowledged proofs, often for a very high price compared to their currency contemporaries. I look at various coins touted as proofs, and really just would not trust the descriptions/pictures enough to accept that they are. I reckon in many cases we are reliant on some individual's personal opinion from many years ago. What is the view of others on here? Do you trust the descriptions implicitly - even the major auction house ones? I'm using the following coin as an example of one I don't necessarily trust as being a proof. Not saying it isn't, but differences aren't hitting me in the eye. It's only an example to emphasise my point - there are many others. The coin in question is an 1859 small date penny which went for £2,400 hammer at the recent LCA. It may well be a proof, and I know Peck identified 1859 as being a date where a copper proof penny was produced. But if you can see something about it which is different to an ordinary currency strike, let me know. It's even got that little extension to the base bar of T in GRATIA, present on all the currency strikes of 1859, which might indicate it comes from the same set of dies. link to possible 1859 proof

Thanks Richard - that's definitely one I'll look forward to seeing.

Not bad for £1.99.