Coin prices continue to rise

[Rob 3,002]

Maybe there is some input required by the auctioneer to permit flat fee charges? I paid £3 with Lockdales this week for example. The only time I opted for the % fee was when the only lot I was bidding on was going to be £50 max.

[Peckris 2 2,044]

On 7/30/2023 at 9:24 PM, 1949threepence said:

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. 

Yeah, but I don't want to download something just to look at it - a standard link or an inline picture is much preferable.

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 minute ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yeah, but I don't want to download something just to look at it - a standard link or an inline picture is much preferable.

Looking at it, I'm not sure it's linkable. Or if it is, it might be out of my skillset.

Excellent and really interesting couple of articles though.

[Rob 3,002]

34 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Excellent and really interesting couple of articles though.

The question of the 1853 bronzed proofs has occupied my mind one more than one occasion since the article was written.

A stumbling block in resolving the outstanding questions is the images in Baldwin's 44 catalogue are not good enough to determine the positions of the pitting to the reverse rim on the 1853 bronzed halfpenny, which is unfortunate as the 1839/41 bronzed proof in my possession also has a pitted rim. If in the same positions, it would imply the same reverse die and by extension that quite possibly the two dates are contemporary.

Following my acquisition of the 1841/39 bronzed proof halfpenny in 2007 I wrote an article in the May 2009 Circular outlining some thoughts for the existence of the dozen or so known inverted die 1841 halfpennies, which are all struck from the same worn reverse die and point to a striking for a specific reason. The bronzed 1853s have an inverted die axis, as does the 1839/41. As the anomalous 1839 proof sixpence is struck from an obverse that was only used from 1880 on and similarly has the wrong die axis, speculatively I wonder if the non-standard die axis coins are all from this late period. Assuming they were from sets made to order before the mint was refurbished and the old Soho equipment replaced, with a maximum window of 2 years for the sixpence, it would point to a minimal number of the other coins - as is seen.

It would also help to know if the die fixings were compatible on both the Soho presses and their replacements.

I can't help feeling that all the information is currently known, but different bits are in different places.

[1949threepence 3,366]

11 hours ago, Rob said:

The question of the 1853 bronzed proofs has occupied my mind one more than one occasion since the article was written.

A stumbling block in resolving the outstanding questions is the images in Baldwin's 44 catalogue are not good enough to determine the positions of the pitting to the reverse rim on the 1853 bronzed halfpenny, which is unfortunate as the 1839/41 bronzed proof in my possession also has a pitted rim. If in the same positions, it would imply the same reverse die and by extension that quite possibly the two dates are contemporary.

Following my acquisition of the 1841/39 bronzed proof halfpenny in 2007 I wrote an article in the May 2009 Circular outlining some thoughts for the existence of the dozen or so known inverted die 1841 halfpennies, which are all struck from the same worn reverse die and point to a striking for a specific reason. The bronzed 1853s have an inverted die axis, as does the 1839/41. As the anomalous 1839 proof sixpence is struck from an obverse that was only used from 1880 on and similarly has the wrong die axis, speculatively I wonder if the non-standard die axis coins are all from this late period. Assuming they were from sets made to order before the mint was refurbished and the old Soho equipment replaced, with a maximum window of 2 years for the sixpence, it would point to a minimal number of the other coins - as is seen.

It would also help to know if the die fixings were compatible on both the Soho presses and their replacements.

I can't help feeling that all the information is currently known, but different bits are in different places.

You may well be right.

I can't speak for denominations other than the penny, but it appears there is only one confirmed 1853 bronzed copper with an inverted reverse penny.

What I do wonder about is the number of en medaille 1853 copper proof pennies. There were only 40 proof sets minted, but there has to be more than 40 extant proof pennies even now. Possibly as many as 40 again. So what is the reason for them? Were they ordered separately by members of the public after the original sets had been issued, for those who couldn't afford a full set? 

I susoect we will never know the answers to thse questions unless, possibly, some obscure newspaper article turns up, or some official mint briefing is found.    

   

 

 

[pokal02 43]

I think more than 40 sets must have been issued.  The 1853 crown, for which there's no currency equivalent,  is rare, but there are definitely more than 40 of them knocking around. 

[Rob 3,002]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

You may well be right.

I can't speak for denominations other than the penny, but it appears there is only one confirmed 1853 bronzed copper with an inverted reverse penny.

What I do wonder about is the number of en medaille 1853 copper proof pennies. There were only 40 proof sets minted, but there has to be more than 40 extant proof pennies even now. Possibly as many as 40 again. So what is the reason for them? Were they ordered separately by members of the public after the original sets had been issued, for those who couldn't afford a full set? 

I susoect we will never know the answers to thse questions unless, possibly, some obscure newspaper article turns up, or some official mint briefing is found.    

 

 

The 1853 bronzed halfpenny also appears to be one confirmed. Forget the Norweb coin which is definitely copper - because I've got it. It's the oddball 1839 sixpence which I think is the real clue. I can't see the last young head die being made other than from 1880 on, and certainly not in 1839 whence it sat on the shelf for the next 40 years. That has to mean a late strike. We know that the 1839 sets were not all made in that year because of the 39/41 & 39/43 halfpennies plus the above 6d. My money is still on the production of a few sets prior to the mint refurbishment in 1882, with one or more 1853 sets also produced.

The same might also apply to the inverted die copper 1860 penny that went through London Coins, because we know that the die still existed, it currently being in the RM Museum collection. The same applies to the 1860 copper halfpenny and farthing dies. The latter have always been considered late strikings.

[oldcopper 276]

21 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

You may well be right.

I can't speak for denominations other than the penny, but it appears there is only one confirmed 1853 bronzed copper with an inverted reverse penny.

What I do wonder about is the number of en medaille 1853 copper proof pennies. There were only 40 proof sets minted, but there has to be more than 40 extant proof pennies even now. Possibly as many as 40 again. So what is the reason for them? Were they ordered separately by members of the public after the original sets had been issued, for those who couldn't afford a full set? 

I susoect we will never know the answers to thse questions unless, possibly, some obscure newspaper article turns up, or some official mint briefing is found.    

   

 

 

What surprises me is that, as there obviously seem to be more of some of these proofs than were issued in the sets, why haven't any survived with an original case, Royal Mint envelope or whatever packaging they would originally have been put in? There are no contemporary official boxes around for any individual proofs of the Wyon proof set years as far as I know. Same with the pattern florins of the late 1840's for instance. About 25 years ago in SNC there was a fantastic set of all three main Gothic crown varieties (2 x1847, 1853) plus several of the different florin patterns in a plush velvet case, but that my have been a later case.

[Rob 3,002]

The evidence suggests the florins weren't issued as a set for the reasons I have outlined previously. You can't exclude that partial sets were possibly given to a few people, but all 28 varieties - no. These were clearly made to test the waters on the best obverse/reverse die and legend combinations.

[oldcopper 276]

5 minutes ago, Rob said:

The evidence suggests the florins weren't issued as a set for the reasons I have outlined previously. You can't exclude that partial sets were possibly given to a few people, but all 28 varieties - no. These were clearly made to test the waters on the best obverse/reverse die and legend combinations.

Separate from the proofs of course, but I wonder how they were stored or given to people as quite a few of each variety were made. Or perhaps the Mint just stuck them in a cupboard for a long time, but they must have sold them/given them away at some stage.

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

What surprises me is that, as there obviously seem to be more of some of these proofs than were issued in the sets, why haven't any survived with an original case, Royal Mint envelope or whatever packaging they would originally have been put in? There are no contemporary official boxes around for any individual proofs of the Wyon proof set years as far as I know. Same with the pattern florins of the late 1840's for instance. About 25 years ago in SNC there was a fantastic set of all three main Gothic crown varieties (2 x1847, 1853) plus several of the different florin patterns in a plush velvet case, but that my have been a later case.

That's a great point. It's doubtful whether any of the 1853 proofs, other than the full sets, would have been issued rolling around loose in a plain envelope - or, if collected, that they would have been in a raw pile on a desk. Surely they would have been in some form of dedicated packaging, however rudimentary. You mention the plush case above, but it's likely that other forms of packaging would have survived given that some people tend to keep everything, and they might well have survived through the 170 odd years (or less) since. 

The psychology of the public doesn't change. Then as now, many would deliberately dispose of or quickly lose track of the packaging. Probably about half would diligently keep it. So it's quite surprising there isn't any meaningful evidence of such, with the exception of the original full set cases.  

[Rob 3,002]

1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

Separate from the proofs of course, but I wonder how they were stored or given to people as quite a few of each variety were made. Or perhaps the Mint just stuck them in a cupboard for a long time, but they must have sold them/given them away at some stage.

I think they would be given to each member of the committee who took the decision which designs to put forward for adoption, together with some for Victoria. It's illogical to assume a wider circulation for the public given they would not be privy to prospective designs, so IMO the ESC rating of R2 for most varieties is hopelessly out. The R5 rating for the double reverses is probably about right for the number of people involved in the decision.

 

[1949threepence 3,366]

On 7/29/2023 at 3:53 PM, 1949threepence said:

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

.....and here it is. An 1860 restrike gilt copper pattern penny by Moore for Shorthouse. Very pleased. Peck 2115, Freeman 842.

Provenance:-

To Coinery N/K (lot 38 Coinery auction 29th July 2023 - link

Ex: Ian Sawden collection (lot 157, DNW auction 12th October 2021)

Ex: Colin Adams collection (lot 171, Spink auction  23rd July 2003)

Ex: D.E.Magnay collection (lot 276, DNW auction 3rd February 1999: bt Seaby April 1980)

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by 1949threepence

[Rob 3,002]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

.....and here it is. An 1860 restrike gilt copper pattern penny by Moore for Shorthouse. Very pleased. Peck 2115, Freeman 842.

Provenance:-

To Coinery N/K (lot 38 Coinery auction 29th July 2023 - link

Ex: Ian Sawden collection (lot 157, DNW auction 12th October 2021)

Ex: Colin Adams collection (lot 171, Spink auction  23rd July 2003)

Ex: D.E.Magnay collection (lot 276, DNW auction 3rd February 1999: bt Seaby April 1980)

 

 

 

And ex me. I bought it in the Adams sale and sold it off the website in September 2009.

Did it come with the tickets? It left me with 4.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Rob

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

And ex me. I bought it in the Adams sale and sold it off the website in September 2009.

Did it come with the tickets? It left me with 4.

Unfortunately no. In fact there was no provenance provided by TheCoinery. In comparing, it was obvious that the coin was the same specimen as in the Sawden collection, so went from there. 

I really wish there was more provenance to coins such as this. Not sure all dealers take the issue very seriously. 

[Rob 3,002]

Pity. It had mine, 2 x Adams and a Seaby from 1980 for £375.

[Kipster 157]

4 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Unfortunately no. In fact there was no provenance provided by TheCoinery. In comparing, it was obvious that the coin was the same specimen as in the Sawden collection, so went from there. 

I really wish there was more provenance to coins such as this. Not sure all dealers take the issue very seriously. 

Unfortunately, when things get chucked in a slab, a lot of the associated paperwork goes awol. Had it before with some farthings.

[1949threepence 3,366]

1 minute ago, Kipster said:

Unfortunately, when things get chucked in a slab, a lot of the associated paperwork goes awol. Had it before with some farthings.

A great shame in my view. Past sales documentation add to the entire positive experience of buying a new coin. 

[Rob 3,002]

Although the loss of physical evidence is unfortunate, it wouldn't be so bad if there was a mechanism for retaining the provenance on the slab - but they rarely do and half the time get it wrong. I bought the original silver strike with the wide raised rim reverse in DNW a year ago which as far as I am aware is the Moore piece with the longest provenance, being ex Carter, Peck, Magnay, Adams and a few anonymous sales since then. Unfortunately for the documentation, it's a superb example, so lost all its tickets once slabbed, which included a Carter ticket when Colin had the coin. Anyway, it's now out of a slab again with a ticket that records all the info.

Still looking for a gilt obverse C with the no legend reverse if anyone knows where the Adams 186 coin is? I haven't seen it since 2013.

[secret santa 2,016]

Just to tease you:

[Rob 3,002]

Yes please, when you're done with it.

[secret santa 2,016]

Sadly, I don't own it - I got the pictures from the Spink sale.

 

 

[Diaconis 696]

And it goes on… prices for top pieces just keep on rising.

An excellent Petition Crown just went for $960,000 with BP at Heritage.

Electrotype gap filler for me😬, and they’re not cheap either. 

[Nonmortuus 848]

I am really struggling to fill the many gaps I have. Most things are now out of reach of my budget.

 

[terrysoldpennies 691]

Unfortunately I think that the best coins are being bought up by the very rich, purely as investments along with art and classic cars, which are also sky rocketing.

I collect mainly Pennies and over the last few years it seems to me that most of the rare types are rarely come onto the market. 😞