1949threepence

Well that did cross my mind, but it does strike me that there's some smoke and mirrors somewhere with DNW as the effective net increase in buyer's premium (inclusive of VAT) since the purchase I made in 2016, is from 24% to 28.8%. The figures don't lie. Which is your point to be fair. So what they did was to hide a 4.8% increase in buyer's premium by extracting the VAT and showing it separately. Sneaky.

...and the rest yesterday... OK, so here's a question that somebody brighter than me should be able to answer with ease. How come DNW charge VAT on top of their buyer's premium, when (eg) LCA don't? Also, why didn't DNW charge VAT on said buyer's premium up until relatively recently? For example hammer price on coins bought in 2016 for me, was £680.00 Total cost £843.20, which is an increase of exactly 24%. Or is there something blindingly obvious I'm missing?

Yes, possibly Canada. His biography says he moved abroad in 1976 and that his youthful interest in coins was rekindled as recently as 2006 when he spied a 1797 cartwheel twopence in a Toronto dealer's shop, bought it, and the rest, as they say, is history. link to biography

Yes you're right Richard. Got my invoice and it shows that what has been added is VAT on general lots at 4.8%, plus import duty at 5% as you say. Just checked back on some old DNW invoices and all they show is buyer's premium at 24% - no VAT. There was still a column for VAT on bullion lots, but that was it. So the net effect of all that lot (no pun intended) is an additional 33.8% over and above hammer !!!

Just looked at my invoice. The total "juice" amounts to 33.8% exactly. I believe there is import duty on this sale, but I didn't think it was as much as 6.8 sodding per cent ! Oh well, never mind. At least I've got the coins. Yes the prices were insane.

I Tell a lie - 8 lots went unsold.

What a magnificent collection and sale. 208 lots and all but about 2 or 3 sold. I managed to get lots 26 & 91. Many of the lots went to room bidder "No 900" Anybody else tune in and get something, or just watch?

Great discussion, I agree. Some really important considerations raised and debated. I've come to the conclusion that I'm only ever going to trust a mint, or near mint state 1882 no H..... ......and as I'm probably never going to see another one for sale, let alone be able to afford it, that's me permanently out of the running.

It is very interesting and worth keeping. I'm intrigued by item No 20, the 1887 penny with a "grained edge". Whilst I've never seen one I have noted varying opinions regarding their mint authenticity, ie: whether they were engraved post mint or not. Naturally, the thicker edged copper coins lent themselves far more readily to edge graining.

Indeed. The Ian Sawden collection has a lot of copper. It also has a 1797 excessively rare gold penny. One of only two known. Needless to say it's very very expensive and it'll be interesting to see what it fetches.

Only if virtually mint state as in the one shown on the previous page, or it's clearly the correct die pairing. Otherwise, even if legit, there will always be an element of doubt.

Interesting. Checked mine. Just the usual two lines, unfortunately.

If you stare long enough at any smooth part of the exergue/field, you can make something out.

That may well have been the one we discussed. There's certainly no trace whatever of any underlying disturbance. Another interesting question arising, is whether the no H pennies were produced at the London Mint. Or at the Heaton Mint and one or two errant dies minus the H were produced, but given the extreme rarity, quickly identified. Or maybe both for different reasons. One intentional, the other an accidental omission.

hmmm....well...probably, but in essence the jury's still out.

Very true, and if I recall correctly this has caused questions on here at some point as to the die pairing on an allegedly no H 1882.

It is, yes. Obverse 11 + reverse M. So you should be able to see whether it's legit or not anyway.

Definitely in that condition. Of course the great thing about it being in that mint state is that you know immediately the H hasn't been worn or tooled away.

Absolutely no surprise whatsoever. Wonder if it stayed in the UK. ETA: did you notice what the 1860/59 went for Richard? It was a very nice specimen.

Thanks Richard.

Very pleased to have obtained an UNC 1854 PT penny with considerable lustre. 1854's often seem to turn up quite scruffy looking. This one is an exception. I don't think my pics do justice to the lustrous appearance, so I've also included a link to it, which shows the coin as it actually appears in hand.

Sneaky steal is just about right £1100 hammer + 20% juice, so just £1320 for a 192A (lot 62). That is a bargain. Just been looking at the prices realised in the Spink Waterbird collection. £75,000 for lot No 24, the unique 1808 penny. Interesting. £5,800 hammer (£6960 overall) for Lot No 46, the 1849 penny. It's a bit better than the one I've got lustre wise, but has a few carbon spots. I think actually mine was a slight bargain for £4,500 especially from Rendel Ingram, who always charges top dollar. But it was one of those cases where they had priced it up several years ago, and for whatever reason it just didn't sell. Then in the meantime the value rose anyway (probably). Another sneaky steal was lot No 51, the F47 1863 die No 4 at just £2000 hammer. Die No 4 is the most "plentiful" as it were, but most of them are very worn - little more than clear date washers in some cases. That one was a distinct cut above the average. link to pics and prices realised

Yes, I must do one myself at some point. Have fortunately got a record of all with the hard copy receipts. One thing I am seriously considering is a website for my penny collection, now that it's nearly complete - although they're never truly complete are they. But need to get some more sophisticated photographic equipment, capable of UHD quality pics, as well as close ups.

Crikey. I would never not know the precise location of such a coin.

Hmmm, well I'm as keen as mustard to get a 192A, but I've got to cut the mustard financially before I can afford one. As for KIng George V, he must have had an 'ard time coping with such an addiction (sorry, sorry)