Coin prices continue to rise

[VickySilver 775]

Yes, good point as they do miss these & the latest example which I will try to picture if I get hold of it is a proof 1853 Penny that came right from the set with the brown toning on the exposed side from the set and relatively "red" on the down side (obverse)...They really screw up mattes as well which hold their values up and rising if graded highly (off year). Beware of these and opportunity is likely there: one example are the proof 1839 and 1853 halfcrowns as some of the "Proof 63 Cam(eo)" coins may actually be much higher grades....

[1949threepence 3,366]

7 hours ago, VickySilver said:

Yes, good point as they do miss these & the latest example which I will try to picture if I get hold of it is a proof 1853 Penny that came right from the set with the brown toning on the exposed side from the set and relatively "red" on the down side (obverse)...They really screw up mattes as well which hold their values up and rising if graded highly (off year). Beware of these and opportunity is likely there: one example are the proof 1839 and 1853 halfcrowns as some of the "Proof 63 Cam(eo)" coins may actually be much higher grades....

My 1853 proof penny (below) is somewhat like that, although the very attractive reddish portions on the reverse don't show up to well on the photo. I reckon it has to catch the light in a certain way to be readily visible. I think it came from a set but not certain.

Interestingly, there were only 40 sets minted according to information in Coin News as it related to the Tyrant collection - link - but there surely has to be more proof pennies than that, purely from observation. Although when and why the extra were minted is a mystery. Moreover, Peck says there is a bronzed copper proof from 1853, with an inverted reverse. Never seen one advertised though, or seen one anywhere come to that.
 

Quote

 

1853 Victoria Young Head set in gold, silver and copper

The mintage was a mere 40. The reason for issuing this set has never been revealed. One of the rarest of all English proof sets, this one is complete, containing 16 pieces: gold sovereign and half sovereign, silver crown and its fractions including Maundies and Britannia groat, and the copper penny, half penny, farthing and half farthing. Beautifully toned, the two gold coins are matching in color, the silver all possess golden bluish gray iridescence, and the coppers (not bronzed) show both original mint-red color and amber-green iridescence.

 

 

  

[Old Money 34]

4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Peck says there is a bronzed copper proof from 1853, with an inverted reverse.

SNC January 2014 1853 Proof and 1919kn CuN.pdf

[1949threepence 3,366]

2 hours ago, Old Money said:

SNC January 2014 1853 Proof and 1919kn CuN.pdf

Very very interesting and informative. Thanks a lot.

[Peckris 2 2,045]

6 hours ago, Old Money said:

SNC January 2014 1853 Proof and 1919kn CuN.pdf

A link would be much appreciated rather than something you have to download.

[1949threepence 3,366]

On 7/22/2023 at 12:10 PM, 1949threepence said:

A case in point regarding the ongoing rise in coin prices.

"The Coinery" are offering an 1839 proof penny at their auction of 29.7.23, with estimates of between £5,000 and £6,000, and a minimum starting bid of £4,000. The coin is NGC slabbed in a special "Coinery" holder, and is graded as PF66 BN - link 

I won an 1839 proof on 22.5.22, also from The Coinery for £3,700 hammer. But I had to fight for it, from the £2500 commission bid I'd left. Mine was also in a special NGC Coinery slab, but PF64 BN. 

So my theory is that yes, although almost certainly the difference between PF64 & PF66 makes a price difference, I wouldn't have thought it would account for such a sizeable difference. Much of the increase is surely due to overall price rises in coins.

Incidentally, any differences betwen this coin, and the one I got, are Rizla paper thin. In fact I'd venture that my reverse is superior to this one. There are marks (scratches) on the coin currently offered, although as with many slabbed coins, it's often difficult to determine whether the mark is on the coin itself, or externally on the plastic holder.  

1839 pennies are scarce generally, but rare in undisturbed, issue free, high grade. 

 

On 7/22/2023 at 12:42 PM, PWA 1967 said:

Unfortunately the price difference in just a grade or two on most pennies determined by NGC are huge ,for the few collectors currently buying them.

The 1839 PF66 for sale in "The Coinery auction " sold for £10,000 the last time it sold and at the time it was the highest grade.

Now one is graded 67 (Maybe bought by the seller of this one) the one graded 66 has almost certainly lost its highest grade attraction.

Unfortunately its not what we think the grade is but what NGC put on the label and if its high or the highest , there are a few collectors who will pay big money for them.

Only my opinion but i have been watching the prices of NGC pennies for the last few years and ones graded really high or the highest can sell for daft money.

Fortunately its only a few buyers though who will pay these high prices and what it does mean is the ones graded high but not really high 😀 ,we can buy for sensible money.

 

Well, whoever sold it, assuming they were the previous buyer at £10k, sustained a huge loss as it just went for £4,900 hammer at the Coinery live auction.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Yes , as i was trying to explain shows that paying daft prices for the highest graded can all change tomorrow when one gets graded higher 😀

There was another penny today i sold a couple of years ago and that also only went to less than half of what i sold it for,due to others now being higher.

Edited July 29, 2023 by PWA 1967

[1949threepence 3,366]

2 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Yes , as i was trying to explain shows that paying daft prices for the highest graded can all change tomorrow when one gets graded higher 😀

There was another penny today i sold a couple of years ago and that also only went to less than half of what i sold it for,due to others now being higher.

Hmmm......oh well, whatever.

I'm just very pleased I managed to get the coin I was interested in today. 

[VickySilver 775]

Agreed. Crazy to PAY for such pieces, but the seller unloading it for 10k did well! 

[1949threepence 3,366]

28 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

Agreed. Crazy to PAY for such pieces, but the seller unloading it for 10k did well! 

Indeed so. According to the NGC rankings there are now 7 at PF66.

[VickySilver 775]

Mine is a keeper and not slabbed. But fess up, the funny thing is that one's ego wonders what the TPG grade would be on occasion....

[Kipster 157]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

I'm just very pleased I managed to get the coin I was interested in today. 

Well done. 

I didn't get the one I was after as it went for about 40% more than I was prepared to pay for it, but I did pick up an alternative which is an improvement on my current one. 

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, Kipster said:

Well done. 

I didn't get the one I was after as it went for about 40% more than I was prepared to pay for it, but I did pick up an alternative which is an improvement on my current one. 

Thanks, and also well done on your win, albeit not necessarily your No 1 choice.

I received my invoice via e mail earlier on, and was very pleasantly surprised to find there was absolutely no premium payable. None - just straight hammer price plus postage. Whether that's re-couped via higher estimate ranges, I'm not sure. But it certainly stands in contrast to my previous win from The Coinery which had, I think, just under 20% premium and an "internet surcharge". That was May 2022.     

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Thanks, and also well done on your win, albeit not necessarily your No 1 choice.

I received my invoice via e mail earlier on, and was very pleasantly surprised to find there was absolutely no premium payable. None - just straight hammer price plus postage. Whether that's re-couped via higher estimate ranges, I'm not sure. But it certainly stands in contrast to my previous win from The Coinery which had, I think, just under 20% premium and an "internet surcharge". That was May 2022.     

Thought it was too good to be true. Just received a revised invoice with the buyer's premium added, and had to pay a further £232.00.

Apparently there is no seller's fee on items over £1000, and on this occasion the no fee was applied in the wrong place.

I'll await with baited breath to see if an internet surcharge is also added.

[Bruce 163]

4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Thought it was too good to be true. Just received a revised invoice with the buyer's premium added, and had to pay a further £232.00.

Apparently there is no seller's fee on items over £1000, and on this occasion the no fee was applied in the wrong place.

I'll await with baited breath to see if an internet surcharge is also added.

You bid through easylive, so that there's internet surcharge?

[1949threepence 3,366]

9 hours ago, Bruce said:

You bid through easylive, so that there's internet surcharge?

Spot on Bruce. I actually found this out when I called The Coinery late yesterday and spoke to Guy. I'd forgotten, but last year I went through easy live auction because of technical issues (couldn't get sound) - hence the extra surcharge. This time I went throughThe Coinery's website so there will be no surcharge. 

[Bruce 163]

4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Spot on Bruce. I actually found this out when I called The Coinery late yesterday and spoke to Guy. I'd forgotten, but last year I went through easy live auction because of technical issues (couldn't get sound) - hence the extra surcharge. This time I went throughThe Coinery's website so there will be no surcharge. 

Nice, so that you saved few percentage off👍.

[Rob 3,003]

Easylive isn't extortionate. A flat fee of £3 is a pint - not going to break the bank. Spend over £100 and you are winning compared to the %age route.

[1949threepence 3,366]

4 hours ago, Rob said:

Easylive isn't extortionate. A flat fee of £3 is a pint - not going to break the bank. Spend over £100 and you are winning compared to the %age route.

If it had just been £3, I'd have dismissed it as a minor anomaly, but as you can see from this extract from the invoice, it was considerably more than that. Out of sight is the £592 buyer premium.

 

[1949threepence 3,366]

On 7/23/2023 at 10:35 PM, Peckris 2 said:

A link would be much appreciated rather than something you have to download.

If you're working from a standard desktop PC, Chris, you should be able to see it at the bottom left of the screen a few seconds after clicking. Just click on it to read. 

It will in any case be saved in your downloads. 

[Rob 3,003]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

If it had just been £3, I'd have dismissed it as a minor anomaly, but as you can see from this extract from the invoice, it was considerably more than that. Out of sight is the £592 buyer premium.

 

When you sign in to Easylive to register to bid on an auction it gives you the option of either a flat fee of £3 which is taken whether you win anything or not, or a 3% of hammer surcharge. That's a no-brainer. I've spent thousands on many occasions for the same £3 a pop. On very rare occasions I have not won anything, but happily paid £3 to give me the ability to bid live, particularly with less prestigious auctioneers, where you might be wary of leaving commission bids. 

As I said, it's the cost of a pint and you need to do incredibly badly to spend more in wasted £3s than the 3% charge on any winnings.

[Michael-Roo 777]

6 minutes ago, Rob said:

When you sign in to Easylive to register to bid on an auction it gives you the option of either a flat fee of £3 which is taken whether you win anything or not, or a 3% of hammer surcharge. That's a no-brainer. I've spent thousands on many occasions for the same £3 a pop. On very rare occasions I have not won anything, but happily paid £3 to give me the ability to bid live, particularly with less prestigious auctioneers, where you might be wary of leaving commission bids. 

As I said, it's the cost of a pint and you need to do incredibly badly to spend more in wasted £3s than the 3% charge on any winnings.

Me too. £3, wins or no, is neither here nor there.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Michael-Roo

[1949threepence 3,366]

35 minutes ago, Rob said:

When you sign in to Easylive to register to bid on an auction it gives you the option of either a flat fee of £3 which is taken whether you win anything or not, or a 3% of hammer surcharge. That's a no-brainer. I've spent thousands on many occasions for the same £3 a pop. On very rare occasions I have not won anything, but happily paid £3 to give me the ability to bid live, particularly with less prestigious auctioneers, where you might be wary of leaving commission bids. 

As I said, it's the cost of a pint and you need to do incredibly badly to spend more in wasted £3s than the 3% charge on any winnings.

Oh....right thanks. Not sure what went wrong there. Will have to pay more attention next time. 

[Bruce 163]

9 hours ago, Rob said:

Easylive isn't extortionate. A flat fee of £3 is a pint - not going to break the bank. Spend over £100 and you are winning compared to the %age route.

I also use £80-100 as benchmark to bid through easylive.  if i guess my winning lots exceed that sum, i will pay for the £3.  

Back to Coinery case, i remember there is no flat £3 option, and bidding through coinery website is less expensive than easylive portal.  However, i am not sure about this now, coz i changed to bid through Coinery website since 2nd auction held by them because of the auction premium issue.

[1949threepence 3,366]

19 hours ago, Bruce said:

I also use £80-100 as benchmark to bid through easylive.  if i guess my winning lots exceed that sum, i will pay for the £3.  

Back to Coinery case, i remember there is no flat £3 option, and bidding through coinery website is less expensive than easylive portal.  However, i am not sure about this now, coz i changed to bid through Coinery website since 2nd auction held by them because of the auction premium issue.

That might explain why things didn't accord with Rob's experience. Thanks for the extra info, Bruce.