Accumulator

By comparison, there's this one at the forthcoming London Coins auction.

It should say Ar or Arg for silver. I think it stands for Agent 999, who joined a hell of a lot later than James Bond The OP is correct. Ag (argentum) is the recognised symbol for the chemical element silver. I know that, but AFAIK the coin world has never used the chemical symbol for silver? Spink, for example, uses AR for silver. I'd never noticed that, probably because I don't generally collect silver coins!

David, your eyesight is a lot sharper than mine! The value of a George V penny will entirely depend upon the date/variety and the condition. So a poor condition example (like yours, sorry) of any date is practically worthless, whereas a coin in perfect condition will range from perhaps £5 for a common date, through £3,000 for a rare date/variety (e.g. 1919KN), to the ultimate 1933 at £80,000+! For comparison, a typical George V penny in top condition looks like this:

Yes, put it away and use a proper computer. iPhone pictures or any other taken on a mobile are usually too poor to be of much use. The options to add a photo to your post don't appear on the iPhone App for this forum. You will either need to load the discussion board as a full website in the safari browser, which will be difficult to use given the screen size, or use an ipad or computer .

It should say Ar or Arg for silver. I think it stands for Agent 999, who joined a hell of a lot later than James Bond The OP is correct. Ag (argentum) is the recognised symbol for the chemical element silver.

Farthers (sic) day? Box of Liquorice Allsorts & a large bar of chocolate for me!

They are consistently inconsistent. They also list the 1807 proof halfpennies, which were not Soho products, but made by Taylor much later. See my article in the 2007 BNJ showing how Taylor made the 1807 obverse die. The coin which provided the evidence is in the unlisted varieties section of the forum. They also list the 1848 godless florin, again a pattern, though one obverse and reverse design were eventually adopted. Golden rule - don't make rules because you will inevitably break them. Thanks Rob. It's good to know I'm not missing the obvious! A reasonable division could perhaps have be made between coins that were legal tender (currency & proofs) and those that weren't (patterns), but clearly this isn't the case.

I may be missing the obvious, but why are 1805 pennies regarded only as patterns and thus do not appear in Spink, whereas pennies from 1839 are regarded as proofs and therefore listed? Neither coin was issued as currency. Perhaps the 1805 was never actually legal tender, whereas the 1839 was? Any ideas?

Did you make a note of any prices? I had bids on a few things, mostly farthings. There were some nice ones in the sale. Ahh so you were one of my competitors!! Quite possibly. Were you there, and which pennies caught your eye?

Just noticed that these are included in the June 26-27th Spink auction (lot 864), estimated at 25-35k!

I'm sure you knew I'd appear with a photo of this one again About £200, I think, but I particularly liked the overall feel of authenticity and the fact that it was reputedly plucked from circulation. p.s. As far as I'm aware, all my other coins are the genuine article!!

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between. The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here Nick, does the RM report for 1894 give quantities of proofs struck, either singly or in sets, for 1893? Yes it does. Although it doesn't specify the denominations of the single proofs. The numbers quoted are: 756 gold + silver sets 17 gold only sets 556 silver only sets 95 gold single proofs 23 silver single proofs Which makes a total of 3187 gold proofs and 7895 silver proofs. Interestingly, no mention of the bronze proof pennies which Freeman lists (but Peck does not). Not that I've ever seen one!

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between. The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here Nick, does the RM report for 1894 give quantities of proofs struck, either singly or in sets, for 1893?

Hello yes I have both types of proof farthings with and without the broken A - bought a broken A version recently in the Spink Auction were it was initially thought to be a copper version. I have checked to see if the obverse proof dies were used to strike the proof sovereign but that is still inconclusive. As for the penny I have only seen the version with the missing top curve to the C in ViCtoria despite examining about 20 coins. I am also interested in the die orientation varieties in this year set the medal alignments appear to be much rarer (excl.Cu)and available for all denominations. A very interesting set Likewise, for the penny I have checked about 20+ examples and all have the broken 'C'. I've not found a broken C on the dies for any later dates. My penny is "medal orientation" (upright reverse) as listed by Peck (1479). Are you suggesting that coin orientation pennies exist?

I examined all the 1839 pennies previously sold by London Coins (where a photo was available) and a good number of those shown on the mcsearch website. All of them exhibited the broken 'C' in VICTORIA, so I would assume only one obverse die exists for pennies.

Nice penny One day (sigh) one day This time next year... ...we'll be milly on airs, Rodney! You don't have any old pocket watches in your attic, by any chance? Unfortunately not, but I've got a couple of bolts in the attic floor which hold up the chandeliers that need cleaning

Nice penny One day (sigh) one day This time next year... ...we'll be milly on airs, Rodney!

I don't think they operate a preference system on the day of the auction as they will accept the internet bids with minimal hesitation in the room. I got caught out bidding in Sept 2011 when a lot which I had pencilled in at £1800 but at a push £2K got to 1900 with me as underbidder. A slight hmm of literally no more than a second or two and the internet bid was in and accepted. Shame really as it was a really sharp Aethelweard penny, but it was my own fault for prevaricating. As with any auction it is a case of getting the auctioneer's eye and sticking with something irrespective of the desire to get things on the cheap. Bids submitted to the book in advance of the sale will always take priority. I haven't read the fine print either but, being there, felt a slight preference from the auctioneer for room bidders. This may only be that he ultimately controls when bidding on any lot ends and, having eyeball contact with a room bidder, allows for a level of communication (perhaps just body language) not possible with anonymous internet participants. Put another way, no one in the room will ever be miss the opportunity to place a winning bid, whereas this can, and does, happen to on-line bidders. If a really important coin (lets say a 1933 penny) came to auction and I was in the market for it, I would definitely, definitely make sure I was in the room!

Lovely sixpence Dave. The technical issues very much help those in the room. I think a few lots may have gone higher without the problems.

Lovely coin! The Andrew Scothern collection had some really nice silver. The seller and his wife were in the room for the whole auction and he smiled and nodded at me when I won the 1839 proof. Not sure whether it was happiness at achieving a good price or hope that it was going to a good home!

Pleased with this one anyway:

I checked my account with DNW online. They were pretty quick to put up the invoice. Nothing then . Cheers for letting me know. It depends, the sale doesn't finish until tomorrow, so they might not have done all of them yet. I don't have my invoice yet Danz The DNW guys told me that their website has been revamped in the last couple of weeks. They seem proud of it. My invoices show but that may just be because I checked out in person at their offices today. Mixed bag on penny sales. Some went extremely high while others made close to bottom end of estimate. Anything that didn't reach bottom estimate (at least while I was watching) was hoovered up by DNW themselves.

Yes, but the estimates are less than half Spink book, so most are going for UNC plus a bit, or say 2-3x book. I see ... never taken notice of this series before, just left the audio running and was surprised so many of the estimates were so far out, is this common practice? I think the sovereigns were estimated low because there are so many of the same dates. I spoke to two guys in the room who were just there for sovereigns, including the expensive 1841 variety which went for 23k against a 10-12k estimate.

Easily removed if you have a soldering iron. Probably ex mount. A soldering iron is more likey to make an even bigger mess. If it solder it will have alloyed with the silver. Really? I can't imagine any soldering iron getting anywhere near hot enough to melt the silver so that it would alloy. If it is solder, you need an electronic engineer's "solder sucker" to remove it cleanly. A few pounds from RS Components.

Well done Scott! Tell me about the other rarities still on there