Prax
-
Posts
374 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Prax
-
-
I agree with that Pete, as that’s bound to be the case when you have pretty much the entire series for sale. The F71 as you know is 10 a penny in low grades but I am a big fan of coins graded by PCGS in MS65 and above, which she was :-)
I did speak to Mr Paisley about unsold lots and he had about 25 coins (of which one was proof – 1881 if I recall correctly) left which I was told he would relist at some point without the bidder premium but I can’t remember if that was after speaking to Steve and acquiring the unsold lots at a fixed price. Obviously Neil makes his money on the premium so I guess he will look at getting a reasonable discount on the unsold lots. There was also some talk of listing the unsold lots with LCA without reserve, so we’ll have to watch le space.
I am really super glad that so many forum users supported Steve by bidding on (or buying) his coins.
-
2
-
-
On 18/06/2016 at 2:38 PM, VickySilver said:
Ah yes, I can see those very nice images. Do we get to see the others? ...
Most of the other lots no one seemed interested for instance Lot 84 F71, Lot 87 F79 and Lot 103 F111; but I had to have them because they were in better grades to mine.
-
1
-
-
On 21/06/2016 at 6:17 PM, VickySilver said:
There was a collector that divested his 20th C. proof shillings through Spink about 12 or so years ago - many of these had to be obtained by breaking incrdibly rare VIP and Matte sets. I know because I bought a few, but not the QE2's. Don't know if it was the same source. That '56 set sold for a small fortune IMO....
Hardly difficult to see why that would happen. There was also a massive Shilling sale on LCA a few years back and following that was a massive Maundy sale. We've also seen some penny sales recently, I can think of at least 4 quality sales in the last 3 years. I am sure a few years will pass before we see so many collections come to the market in such quick succession.
-
On 21/06/2016 at 5:18 PM, Colin G. said:
Prax... I have the Norweb catalogues...lot 43 is a saxon penny...is that what you are after? I can give more info if it is
Cheers Colin - I've got hold of the info I needed. Top forum this for anything coins
-
2
-
-
Lovely coins especially the LCW on foot.
-
1
-
-
Thanks Pete. I think this is the ex Norweb set less the missing Shillings and thruppenny bit. Someone I know wanted one of these sets. But he seemed to think it was lot 43 of the Norweb sale that I had to refer. I will look for both lots 43 and lot 1165. That was very helpful. Thanks again.
-
All,
I came across this lot and found it strange that the shillings and a few other bits have gone missing.
Anyone know how much this set is worth please? Also does anyone have a copy of the Norweb catalogue. I am after lot 43.
http://www.goldbergcoins.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/48/lot/106036/
Thanks in advance.
P
-
Vicky I did indeed go a bit berserk with the sale. Can't blame me
, Stevie had some stunners and I would have waited a very long time to find better specimens of some varieties that I acquired. Not too sure what's happening with the images. I will try adding another I got off Stevie to see if it's any better on your mac. Previously I copy pasted the image links into the textbox this time this time I will add the links slightly differently (by linking content).
-
1
-
-
A busy few weeks with the family and festivals. No major purchases in the last 2 months though I did go for a few upgrades. I also won 10 lots from Steve's auction including this beauty.
I hope Steve (@Accumulator) won't mind me using his photos now that I have his coin
I have to write to him to get the provenance for my winnings. I hope the auction was a grand success for Steve and I am glad I did my part 
-
2
-
-
On 15/06/2016 at 10:35 PM, Chingford said:
Combined with the comments from France and Germany EU members, Osborne saying he will raise taxes 2% if we vote leave are truly signs of desperation, Very poor campaigning by the Remain party in my view, if Economic doom and gloom wont influence the voters then threaten them,
why not simply address the issues the voters have and provide them the answers to the questions, every debate I have watched, the answer to every single question ends with the Remain talking about the effect on the Economy, totally avoiding the point and question asked
I cant see what positives came from Bob Geldof in a Million pound yacht full of posh totty and chinless wonders taking the P out of Farage and the Fishermen campaigning for their livelihoods.
They are desperate no doubt else they wont drag Jo Cox into the mix.
-
I am told banks are going to get hammered after the doom and gloom surrounding Deutsche Bank. I don't do shares but even if I did I'd not go within a mile of banking stocks during an election year. Election years bring about some of worst recessions so would want to see what the economy does during Nov.
-
Ummmm been studying lot 131 for the past 10 minutes and I am trying to understand why people are fighting over it
-
90% certain that it's not a proof, weak striking around teeth, waves and Britannia's foot. I always look at the rim first because proofs have a very polished yet sharp rim. With veiled heads I've also noticed far more detail on Britannia's foot for instance the toes are clearly cut. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=152&l=2458&f=r&s=l
http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=784&f=r&s=l
Surely you'd think LCA can't get it wrong twice in a row or can they?
-
12 hours ago, jaggy said:
The whole debate has become a bit hysterical and especially from the Remain side with dire warnings of economic catastrophe, the latest being a warning from the IMF of a drop in GDP greater than that experience in the Great Depression. Frankly, most of it is not very believable.
There are also a few red herrings in the debate.
First, 'trade deals'. Remain is giving the impression that we need trade deals to be able to do business and, if we leave the EU, we will have difficulty in getting those deals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither Europe not the UK has a trade deal with the USA at this point in time but it doesn't stop us doing a ton of business with them.
Second, unfavourable tariffs with the EU. In 2014, the EU had a trade surplus with the UK of around £68 billion. Tariffs are always reciprocated. Anyone who thinks that the EU will risk incurring tariffs on its huge trade surplus is clearly smoking something not quite legal. Trade will continue.
Third, immigration. Only about 40% of UK immigration is from the EU and the government has complete control over the rest. If we wanted to cut immigration in half then we could and without reference to the EU. Also, there are about as many Brits living in other EU countries as there are EU citizens living in the UK. Around a million Brits live in Spain, many of them retirees.
Fourth, benefits. A University College, London, study found that immigrants who arrived after 1999 were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives in the period 2000-2011 and had contributed 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits.
Ultimately, I think that the key issue in this referendum is what kind of relationship the UK wants to have with the rest of the EU. I suspect that most people do not want to be part of a not very democratic European superstate (and this might be true of other countries as well). The rather hysterical scare tactics we are seeing are a not very subtle attempt to avoid this core issue.
All this scare mongering is hardly new and you have to remember that even if the majority votes to leave the PM can still veto the referendum and choose to do what he feels is right. With the referendum we are voting to move that power to veto to the EU and to dilute our democratic rights. This is how it works currently - we elect the PM, the PM asks us for an opinion and then the PM can decide to veto or to honour public sentiment; if the PM decides to veto then it's political suicide because there is little chance of being re-elected and after 4 years tops its bye Mr PM and it stops at that (at least for the most part unless the Queen intervenes etc). If we don’t BREXIT the same scenario changes like this - we elect the PM, the PM asks us for an opinion through a referendum, again he can veto that, if decides not to, then he will still remain just one of x (x being the pool of all representative across the 28 member states) pawns. If we don’t get a majority there we are stuffed and assuming we get a majority at the EU then too our voice hardly matters for the EU council can now have a second chance to veto. What’s worse we can't boot the EU leaders and there would be little point changing our PM too. This is how our democratic rights get diluted and this is actually the crux of the matter and what should form the core of the Leave Campaigners. What's more by not BREXITing we would have squandered the rights of our children too because there won’t be another referendum for another 50 years.
When you think of Europe the first things that come to mind are the tulips of Keukenhof, the blonde women of Rotterdam and the weed cakes of Amsterdam. In a nutshell that land of the free and plenty springs to the mind. It's also worth mentioning that the Dutch are one of handful to cap the pay of the super-rich. They make sure no one earns over a certain threshold to ensure the gap between the rich and poor is at check. Yet here's what the EU has done to the Dutch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO4Ayo4mYZg
-
Nice job by Neil
-
2
-
-
Should have paid more attention in school
- "what is the difference between the European Council, The council of the European Union and the Council Of Europe".
In or out is like having a debate about the debate than having a debate on the issues. The way I see it is - there is a requirement for us to hand our democratic rights so that politicians can elect who our leaders would be. For the favour we have would have to put up with the EU creating our laws.
-
1
-
-
On 11/05/2016 at 8:18 PM, alfnail said:
Does this help clarify!?
-
Just been preparing my bids and I noticed that both lot 84 and 85 look like 7+Hs Heaton mint. Lot 84 is possibly not a 7+G as stated. For anyone looking to bid make sure you speak to Steve or Neil before placing bids.
-
An understanding of the natural world and what's in it is a source of not only a great curiosity but great fulfillment. - David Attenborough
-
On 06/05/2016 at 5:46 PM, secret santa said:
I've been talking out of my rear end again - the Max Brehm mule was sold by Spink as part of the Trevor Legge collection in December 2014, not the Andy Scott collection in September 2015. Are we talking about 2 different coins ?
It was I that got the seller’s name wrong :-) It wasn’t Andy S. Pete kindly sent me messages to say he has both of Andy’s 1860 mules. It was indeed Trevor’s sale (why can’t Spink just say Trevor collection as opposed to A Gentleman’s collection) and the mule that I mentioned was https://www.spink.com/lot-description.aspx?id=14007000828
-
Thanks Richard. Interesting, I did not know this coin had been identified in the 80s. Until the Andy Scott sale I assumed all the mules came from (VIP) proof sets and when I noticed that there was a currency mule I immediately thought that it was a new discovery.
-
Indeed Pete
-
Thanks for your PM. I am just posting my reply here for the benefit of all.
Wow Richard I did not know another existed congrats on your 1953 and the discovery. I should edit my post to state “helped identify the second 1953 mule”
. I am not sure who owns the mule but I know someone that does - Bernie.
As far as the history is concerned - I was at Spink on viewing day, as you know once a coin reaches Spink they put it inside one of those plastic envelopes which inhibits (to skin) inspection/handling of the coin. I made a request to Edouard at Spink and had the coin examined. From having handled quite a few proofs in the past I sensed that this coin was not a proof let alone a VIP proof as stated by Spink. I immediately spoke to some of the penny boys about what I had just found including Steve Garr (an Icelandic collector of pennies), Jack (collector from Bagshot) and a few others. Surprisingly on auction day it was Emily bidding against me till the coin reached £2k+ and then it was him against a commission bid. The 1953 mule was the last lot and he too had exhausted his funds (after bagging most of the important coins like the 1860 mule) so the coin went to the bidder on the book. After reaching home I spoke to the usual penny boys and they all seemed surprised that a 1953 mule existed as a currency piece. Then somehow Bernie got involved in the mix and he found out who the buyer was and had the coin inspected. Bernie too thought it was a currency issue. The coin was in UNC grade and would fetch a MS 63 BN through PCGS but it had a small verdigris spot at 9 o clock. The reason I say it was currency issue is because not only did the coin lack sharp rims, mirror finish and clear details but also it was in high grade. Had the coin been an impaired proof it definitely would have retained its mirror finish considering there was hardly any wear. To me it was clear as day that the coin was a currency issue. I hope this helps.
-
7 hours ago, Rob said:
I'm not saying you should be doing one to the exclusion of the other, rather that I'm surprised you don't do both. A completionist I would expect to want both currency and proofs. A proof for any year is normally of a single type, which is more than can be said for the number of currency varieties covering the same period. You don't have a proof for every year and it isn't a case of excessive cost either as many years have currency varieties that cost more than the relevant proof. Take 1863. If you had all half a dozen types for that year, the cost of the proof would pale into insignificance compared to all those die number washers. I believe you would try to get all possible varieties, which really negates the old argument that they are too expensive to collect, because the money thrown at minor currency varieties far outweighs that spent on proofs. Cost is a red herring.
Most proof pennies are also struck in copper or bronze. Sure there are other metals used, but these are very much in the minority. As one who struggles to relate to this reluctance, I often wonder if it more a case of familiarity and a reluctance to stray into the unknown.
Rob, I see your point that a completionist would collect all types including proofs, yet though we (penny collectors) call ourselves completionists we spend a lot more on (variant) washers than we do on proofs; so you infer that cost is not a factor.
I believe that it is the money saved on not splashing at proofs, which drives the value of minor variants to Jupiter. Further you must also consider that most penny collectors go through many thousands (on an average I go through 300 pennies every week apart from regularly scrolling through ebay listings) of coins during their collecting lifespan. I wouldn’t say someone collecting sovereigns or halfcrowns would go through the same volume of coins as a penny collector. The time spent on digging through countless coins in the pursuit of stumbling upon a scare variant or to find something that hasn’t been recorded as yet is the fun part of collecting pennies. Even after memorising volumes of material I have found that new varieties keep shoiwng up and to talk to fellow lunatics about your new discovery over a drink is a MASTERCARD experience - priceless. Personally I have had the pleasure of unearthing the second known slender 3, the first known VIGTORIA and bringing to the notice of the community that the Andy Scot 1953 mule was not a proof but a currency issue (which to date remains the only known currency specimen) amongst making many other minor contributions to the community. The bottom line is most would be happy to acquire a proof coin for the price of an unc version but I feel the obsession with proofs stops there. Again this is why the 1951 proof is cheaper than the currency version in UNC.
That said I am guilty of bidding (though my top bid was just slightly over half of what the coin realised
) on the 1933 Baldwin pattern (see we do make exceptions) 
-
2
-
Lowly beginner in need of guidance
in Beginners area
Posted · Edited by Prax
The QE II (post decimalisation) series is the best for a newbie in my opinion. Good luck and welcome to the hobby.