More Pennies

[Rob]

6 minutes ago, secret santa said:

I don't trust "specimen" strikes...........

why not?

[secret santa]

2 hours ago, Rob said:

why not?

I'm sure that some coins that I've seen claiming to be specimen strikes are no more than early sharp strikes. I'm comfortable recognising proofs but not specimens.

[Rob]

6 minutes ago, secret santa said:

I'm sure that some coins that I've seen claiming to be specimen strikes are no more than early sharp strikes. I'm comfortable recognising proofs but not specimens.

OK. So one of these has reflective prooflike fields

[Rob]

And the other has quite reflective fields

[Rob]

But neither is as sharp as the 1879

[secret santa]

So, which is which, Rob ?

[Rob]

1 minute ago, secret santa said:

So, which is which, Rob ?

The left is the specimen. They are distinctly different in hand. I suppose it is like comparing the modern RM sets. I know the proofs today have frosted design whereas the uncirculated sets don't, but the fields are markedly more polished on the proofs and the detail is crisper. I don't think it is a case of a specimen being struck fewer times with the same dies because the fields are ultimately better on the proofs, something that would be unaffected by repeated stamping, whereas multiple strikes would ensure the metal reaches every nook and cranny.

For the record, you can see your own reflection in all three of the above reverse fields (because they are concave), so prooflike or proof surface differences are down to polishing to a finer degree. The detail is progressively sharper.

[secret santa]

So, the top coins is a proof ?

The second one a currency coin ?

The third one the specimen. What is the 4th one (1879) ?

I guess I'll need to see a specimen in hand next to a proof to fully understand the difference. Photos just don't do it.

[Rob]

5 minutes ago, secret santa said:

So, the top coins is a proof ?

The second one a currency coin ?

The third one the specimen. What is the 4th one (1879) ?

I guess I'll need to see a specimen in hand next to a proof to fully understand the difference. Photos just don't do it.

There are three coins. Top is the specimen, second the currrency, third picture is the top coin plus the 1879 proof. The first two were done on a scanner, the last is a photo. Can't compare the three at the moment in one image because my camera is playing up. The specimen is Freeman's coin that he used as the basis for his F329A, but I'm going with those who feel it isn't a proof when compared with others. Comparing the two 76s, one is obviously a much better piece and I can see why it might be considered a proof, but not when alongside a different date. Problem here of course is that there are no proofs for 76 which are comparable with the 79. The argument could therefore be made that Heatons couldn't or didn't make enough effort to get it right........... and so the argument rumbles on.

[Nordle11]

Did anyone see this 1893 over 2? Sold for £317 on ebay.

It's been relisted by the winner, at £1,250!

[PWA 1967]

6 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

Did anyone see this 1893 over 2? Sold for £317 on ebay.

It's been relisted by the winner, at £1,250!

Dont know why he doesnt round it off and ask for £2 K.

Seller can asks what he wants ,he has outbid me on a couple that were relisted straight away.

But you would think he would atleast change the pictures.

[jelida]

6 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

Did anyone see this 1893 over 2? Sold for £317 on ebay.

It's been relisted by the winner, at £1,250!

He's actually asking £1550, he's referencing the £1250 which was in EF.  I did think it went cheaply at £317, but these prices are mad! Dave Craddock has had one similar at £500 for a while.

Jerry

[Nutsaboutcoins]

On 4/6/2016 at 11:23 AM, PWA 1967 said:

A 1933 lavrillier penny in the next Baldwin auction Lot 1070 although the write up on numisbids is worth a read.

Estimate £35K 

Sorry again i cant put the link up but home alone as the wife in Spain 

Pete.

Does anyone know what this fetched?

[secret santa]

£60K plus commission

[1949threepence]

On 5/2/2016 at 10:21 AM, secret santa said:

So, the top coins is a proof ?

The second one a currency coin ?

The third one the specimen. What is the 4th one (1879) ?

I guess I'll need to see a specimen in hand next to a proof to fully understand the difference. Photos just don't do it.

Out of interest, I bought what was touted as a Freeman 129 in the December 2013 LCA. It's a lovely coin, but after careful examining, and taking account of information from other sources, I don't think it's a proof, but I'm confident it is a specimen strike. In a conversation with Martin Platt about this on facebook a couple of years back, and he too doesn't think it's a true "proof", which he highlights as nearly always having a thicker than normal rim. Moreover, interestingly, when listing the late Roland Harris collection, Gouby disagrees that two of his three 1889 proofs, were in fact proofs - not sure whether 129's or not, as Gouby has his own unique method of classification, and no Freeman equivalent is given on those pages.

Anyway, here's the coin I bought as a Freeman 129, Lot No 2166:-

Reverse

 Obverse

    

[PWA 1967]

12 minutes ago, secret santa said:

£60K plus commission

Thats blown my mind ....i didnt think it would even reach the estimate

[Rob]

14 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Out of interest, I bought what was touted as a Freeman 129 in the December 2013 LCA. It's a lovely coin, but after careful examining, and taking account of information from other sources, I don't think it's a proof, but I'm confident it is a specimen strike. In a conversation with Martin Platt about this on facebook a couple of years back, and he too doesn't think it's a true "proof", which he highlights as nearly always having a thicker than normal rim. Moreover, interestingly, when listing the late Roland Harris collection, Gouby disagrees that two of his three 1889 proofs, were in fact proofs - not sure whether 129's or not, as Gouby has his own unique method of classification, and no Freeman equivalent is given on those pages.

Anyway, here's the coin I bought as a Freeman 129, Lot No 2166:-

Reverse

 Obverse

    

I concur. Leaving aside the thickness of the rims, proof pennies usually have sharp rims/edges. This doesn't.

[1949threepence]

42 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Thats blown my mind ....i didnt think it would even reach the estimate

Link is here Pete. If it's out of sequence, scroll down to Lot No 1070.

£60k is amazing, but I thought it might fetch over £50k to be honest. 

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by 1949threepence
missing word

[1949threepence]

On 5/2/2016 at 10:37 AM, Rob said:

There are three coins. Top is the specimen, second the currrency, third picture is the top coin plus the 1879 proof. The first two were done on a scanner, the last is a photo. Can't compare the three at the moment in one image because my camera is playing up. The specimen is Freeman's coin that he used as the basis for his F329A, but I'm going with those who feel it isn't a proof when compared with others. Comparing the two 76s, one is obviously a much better piece and I can see why it might be considered a proof, but not when alongside a different date. Problem here of course is that there are no proofs for 76 which are comparable with the 79. The argument could therefore be made that Heatons couldn't or didn't make enough effort to get it right........... and so the argument rumbles on.

This is what is said about Heatons and specimen strikes, by (I assume) Neil Paisley of Colin Cooke with regard to Steve's 1874H Freeman 74 "proof" for auction:-

Quote

Specimen Issue. BMC 1698. F 74. Dies 7+H. Small rim nick at 3 o'clock. Virtually As Struck with some lustre.
Ex D. Wallis Collection, DNW Auction 83, 30 September 2009, lot 3372 [from J. Welsh January 2000]. Periodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished specimen coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369)

  

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

32 minutes ago, Rob said:

I concur. Leaving aside the thickness of the rims, proof pennies usually have sharp rims/edges. This doesn't.

I would never be content buying that coin as a proof. .....

[Nutsaboutcoins]

On 4/6/2016 at 11:23 AM, PWA 1967 said:

8 hours ago, secret santa said:

£60K plus commission

Thanks Secret Santa, that is one heck of a price. (not sure why my reply looks like PWA's )

Edited May 5, 2016 by Nutsaboutcoins
added text

[1949threepence]

8 hours ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

I would never be content buying that coin as a proof. .....

I wouldn't be now, either. But I'd like to see an actual true F129 "proof" and compare the two, side by side. My specimen against the real proof. Out of pure interest.  

[jacinbox]

 

10 hours ago, secret santa said:

£60K plus commission

[PWA 1967]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

I wouldn't be now, either. But I'd like to see an actual true F129 "proof" and compare the two, side by side. My specimen against the real proof. Out of pure interest.  

One listed in the Colin Adams sale Mike.

Spink July 2003 Lot 299.

Not sure if the picture will help.

Pete.

[Nordle11]

36 minutes ago, jacinbox said:

 

That's what I said