1826 Proof Farthings

[Kipster]

Evening all,

Just had my 1826 proof farthing come back from NGC with the PF64 BN grade that I was expecting. I don't normally send things for grading, but I do with any proof that I get. However, they haven't noted it as Bronzed on the label which they have with my 1831 proof farthing. So I had a look on the NGC population report and NGC have two separate entries for 1826 proof farthings:

1826 BARE BUST and 1826 BARE BUST BRONZED

I've just emailed NGC to ask them what's going on, as Spink only has a Bronzed proof, yet Peck says there is a Bronzed AND a rarer Copper proof. Seeing as NGC have graded more of the 1826 BARE BUST than the 1826 BARE BUST BRONZED I think it's highly improbable that they are the copper proofs.

Does anyone know anything about these proofs at all please, as I don't really expect NGC to have any explanation if they've made an error.

Cheers

[copper123]

1 hour ago, Kipster said:

Evening all,

Just had my 1826 proof farthing come back from NGC with the PF64 BN grade that I was expecting. I don't normally send things for grading, but I do with any proof that I get. However, they haven't noted it as Bronzed on the label which they have with my 1831 proof farthing. So I had a look on the NGC population report and NGC have two separate entries for 1826 proof farthings:

1826 BARE BUST and 1826 BARE BUST BRONZED

I've just emailed NGC to ask them what's going on, as Spink only has a Bronzed proof, yet Peck says there is a Bronzed AND a rarer Copper proof. Seeing as NGC have graded more of the 1826 BARE BUST than the 1826 BARE BUST BRONZED I think it's highly improbable that they are the copper proofs.

Does anyone know anything about these proofs at all please, as I don't really expect NGC to have any explanation if they've made an error.

Cheers

About sums up slabbing firms really

[Rob]

Just speculation, but I would think the bronzed were all made for the boxed sets, with a small number of singles made in copper. 

[Menger]

Not specifically addressing your question, but somewhat related: I would persevere with NGC. I did and while it took a few follow ups they revisited their categorization of many 1847/8 groats (including mine) v 1848/7 groats, to make the former rarer than the latter.  At about the same time they obliterated their 1847 and 1848 3d categories (relegating these wholesale to Maundy - to my great satisfaction) and seemingly they similarly thinned out their 1841 and 1846 3d populations. There seemed to be a recognition that the British population reports need work. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Menger

[Rob]

7 hours ago, Menger said:

Not specifically addressing your question, but somewhat related: I would persevere with NGC. I did and while it took a few follow ups they revisited their categorization of many 1847/8 groats (including mine) v 1848/7 groats, to make the former rarer than the latter.  At about the same time they obliterated their 1847 and 1848 3d categories (relegating these wholesale to Maundy - to my great satisfaction) and seemingly they similarly thinned out their 1841 and 1846 3d populations. There seemed to be a recognition that the British population reports need work. 

Is this not more likely to be a case of both being 8/7, but in the case of 7/8 they didn't punch the new digit deep enough? To use an example to support this theory, the 1817 GEOR/E shilling has the E in the highest relief, but it is inconceivable that someone said 'hey, this reads GEOR - better change it to an E'. Yes, the wrong digit can be entered, but recycling old dies is the more likely option. The only reason for calling it 7/8 would be to differentiate between the dies. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Rob

[Menger]

4 hours ago, Rob said:

s this not more likely to be a case of both being 8/7, but in the case of 7/8 they didn't punch the new digit deep enough? 

More likely than what? 

Michael Gouby’s theory is rather that both 1847/8 and 1848/7 are made with 1847 dies, and both struck in 1848 - but yes the added 8 in the former is not properly over-struck.  That makes sense to me. But supposedly the 1847/8 is a much rarer coin and has other distinguishing features (and at least two varieties itself). For this reason it gets distinguished in the reference books - although confusingly sometimes called 1847/6.     

Edited May 18, 2023 by Menger

[Kipster]

On 5/17/2023 at 10:12 PM, copper123 said:

About sums up slabbing firms really

Yep. I saw an NGC MS64 BN graded 1825 halfpenny for sale the other day, but it was clearly an 1825 farthing. I let the dealer know it was misattributed and they pulled it. But that said, that's a pretty basic thing to get wrong.

 

On 5/17/2023 at 11:32 PM, Rob said:

Just speculation, but I would think the bronzed were all made for the boxed sets, with a small number of singles made in copper. 

Interesting. Would it be easy to spot the difference between the two?

[oldcopper]

2 hours ago, Kipster said:

Yep. I saw an NGC MS64 BN graded 1825 halfpenny for sale the other day, but it was clearly an 1825 farthing. I let the dealer know it was misattributed and they pulled it. But that said, that's a pretty basic thing to get wrong.

 

Interesting. Would it be easy to spot the difference between the two?

To me the best way to tell is to look at the brown colouration in incidental light, not reflected light. This removes most of any colourful aspects like blues, greens etc. If it is chocolatey brown, milk to plain, then it's bronzed, if a paler sort of "wan" brown then it's toned copper.

There are examples that could be either, sometimes it's very hard or impossible to tell. I'm talking about the traditional bronzed colouration of the official issues, Soho or Royal mint, not the often golden brown of Taylor's restrikes.

[Kipster]

I see. Thank you. This is the coin in question from the NGC registry:

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6673730-006/64/

I'd say it was the same brown colouration as the 1831 of mine, with perhaps just a bit more warmth to it.

[oldcopper]

1 hour ago, Kipster said:

I see. Thank you. This is the coin in question from the NGC registry:

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6673730-006/64/

I'd say it was the same brown colouration as the 1831 of mine, with perhaps just a bit more warmth to it.

Yes, that's definitely bronzed, and easier for the pre-1853 Wyon proofs as there aren't many copper ones around.

[Kipster]

39 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

Yes, that's definitely bronzed, and easier for the pre-1853 Wyon proofs as there aren't many copper ones around.

Thanks for confirming it.

I've had a confirmation email back from NGC saying it's been passed over to their registry people to investigate, so will just wait and see what they say. 

[copper123]

The strange thing about bronzed proofs is we know little or nothing about how they were made both the soho period and the later 1831 and victoria proofs are really  anoying

Edited May 19, 2023 by copper123

[Kipster]

Just had this reply so would welcome some opinion please.

 

 

[Rob]

I'll buy 1826 copper proofs at a 15% discount to bronzed proofs all day long - that is assuming I can find one.

[Kipster]

17 hours ago, Rob said:

I'll buy 1826 copper proofs at a 15% discount to bronzed proofs all day long - that is assuming I can find one.

Absolutely.

So if I'm reading this correctly, they state that there was an estimated mintage of 150 for the bronzed proof. According to their population report, they have graded 26 specimens of this variety, which equates to almost 18% of that mintage figure! Highly improbable. If the mintage was 1.5m, then maybe.

I would say they have these arse about face.

[Rob]

26 graded bronzed pieces is quite possible, because the number extant will be nominally the same as the number struck. Maybe one or two have disappeared for whatever reason, but it's unlikely any will have circulated. You might be able to reduce that number on account of resubmissions that had previously been cracked out. A significant number of examples that cross the pond will get slabbed.

[Kipster]

Reply just received from NGC following my email:

They asked for photos, so I simply took their photos off the registry and voila. 🤷‍♂️

[copper123]

22 hours ago, Kipster said:

Reply just received from NGC following my email:

They asked for photos, so I simply took their photos off the registry and voila. 🤷‍♂️

dead right too

[shagreen]

Hi - I have attached copper and bronzed proofs pictures from the Verene collection, as the bronzing was actually a chemical dip, the surfaces are much more even in colour - allowing for toning variation given the 200 years passage of time. Will send next the same two farthings in opposite lighting - yes its hard to photograph. The copper farthing is ex Peck

[shagreen]

Here are the same two proof farthing obverses from the Verene collection under different lighting, with the copper version again presented as the upper coin. The use of a chemical dip in bronzing does produce a more even color/tone - again complicated by variation in toning over time

Edited June 3, 2023 by shagreen
missing pics

[shagreen]

[Nonmortuus]

Good luck with the reholder...I sent a coin back to NGC at their request due to a foreign object in the slab. They didnt remove this object and reslab as they said they would. It was just returned to me with pretty much 'tough' as the answer.

[Kipster]

On 6/3/2023 at 7:33 AM, shagreen said:

Thanks for posting these. I'm confident they are wrong at NGC.

22 hours ago, Nonmortuus said:

Good luck with the reholder...I sent a coin back to NGC at their request due to a foreign object in the slab. They didnt remove this object and reslab as they said they would. It was just returned to me with pretty much 'tough' as the answer.

I'll see what happens. I'm actually taking it into the London office for them to sort out with the States, so hopefully there'll be no issue. I also have a similar issue with another farthing I have which seems to have some crumb like debris on Victoria's chest. I've told them I wanted it removed and the London office have said they will deal with it, but time will tell. I have said that I don't want it coming back as a details grade, so don't mess about with it if it will.

Who knows what they'll do.

[oldcopper]

17 hours ago, Kipster said:

Thanks for posting these. I'm confident they are wrong at NGC.

I'll see what happens. I'm actually taking it into the London office for them to sort out with the States, so hopefully there'll be no issue. I also have a similar issue with another farthing I have which seems to have some crumb like debris on Victoria's chest. I've told them I wanted it removed and the London office have said they will deal with it, but time will tell. I have said that I don't want it coming back as a details grade, so don't mess about with it if it will.

Who knows what they'll do.

All three of Peck's 1826 copper proofs were in the Verene collection, all ex the June 2012 Spink auction and before ex Glendinings in a 60's auction (I think as one lot then?). They are beautiful multi-coloured coins.