More Pennies

[secret santa]

13 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I really appreciate provenance, but it is depressingly scarce, even on rare coins. 

Oh to buy a coin with a list of buyers, sellers and dates, with receipts. A dream. 

Absolutely, auction houses nowadays don't seem to value it or think that buyers might be interested. The 1933 penny is the only example that I can think of that attracts that level of information, but it is a bit special.

[Rob]

Here you go. A penny, albeit silver and hammered, but a decent provenance. Six quid in Cuff.

J D Cuff 1041, Sotheby 8/6/1854

E Wigan, collection bought Rollin & Feuardent 1872

H Webb 309, Sotheby 9/7/1894

H Clark 155, Sotheby 23/5/1898

A A Banes 57, Sotheby 30/10/1922

E H Wheeler 342, Sotheby 12/3/1930

C Corbally Browne 409, Sotheby 25/3/1935

W L Raynes 473, Glendining 15/2/1950

Spink 6, lot 589, 10/10/1979

R D Shuttlewood 301, Spink 15/3/2001

C Comber

[Rob]

44 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I really appreciate provenance, but it is depressingly scarce, even on rare coins. 

Oh to buy a coin with a list of buyers, sellers and dates, with receipts. A dream. 

 

32 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Absolutely, auction houses nowadays don't seem to value it or think that buyers might be interested. The 1933 penny is the only example that I can think of that attracts that level of information, but it is a bit special.

I think you have to put it into context for bronze pennies. Take a collector of pennies in 1894 as an example. You are still in the period of the bun head, so the design is essentially the same as in 1860. The value of an 1860 penny would be little more than a few pence even in 1894, so it is unlikely any of the major collections would have an example. A comparison would be a modern day major collection that had a 1988 to 2023 penny date run in it! Nobody would give a damn. You have to wait until the publication of things like Peck to provide the documentary background for what is essentially a date run collection with a few varieties for certain dates. A few acknowledged rarities with a healthy following will also help as it generates interest from people with deeper pockets. A collection has to be practically complete as per a reference and in high grade (or one of the highest available in the case of rarities) to become a recognised major collection. Historical major collections were type collections with a good smattering of 'best knowns'. It is therefore unlikely that many bronze pennies will have a pre-Peck provenance, and I would suggest that any proofs probably came from either Montagu's extensive milled collection sold through Spink in 1890 (and significantly, documented), or Saward (1910).

 

[1949threepence]

I wouldn't expect anything I buy to have provenance extending back to the 19th century. Nonetheless, some bronze/copper coins have been in major collections for decades, and it's always great to see some reference to that.

For example if you take the coin I've just bought - the BMC 2088. If the example sold by Freeman in 1984 (lot 252) came up for sale, the seller could quote ex Freeman October 1984, C.W.Peck, and Foster October 1953 as past owners.  

Occasionally the evidence is there, and even if sourced from more modest collections, it's always interesting. 

[PWA 1967]

Although advanced collectors may be able to tell if coins have been dipped watching some sell recently i am concerned new collectors dont know and paying to much.

Collectors maybe buying them thinking they are ok and maybe buying others from the same sellers.That IMO is fine if they know what they are buying ,however the prices people are paying i dont believe they do.

Begginers (or any collector for that matter ) IMO need to be able to tell what they are looking for as the sellers are not going to tell them they are dipping them.

Anyone have any opinion on these ?

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by PWA 1967

[PWA 1967]

This is the farthing a couple of days before it was re-sold for a lot more 👎

1849 Queen Victoria Farthing | eBay

I have no problem people buying them and selling for a profit its what makes the world go round ,however some people are buying them and altering the appearance solely to perhaps mislead people,it would not be so bad on the odd one maybe BUT there are loads of them.

Edited January 12, 2023 by PWA 1967

[mrbadexample]

Is it just me who thinks that's not a bad job of removing the crud from the farthing? 

[PWA 1967]

7 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

Is it just me who thinks that's not a bad job of removing the crud from the farthing? 

Thats the problem Jon ,they have done a good job BUT then hidden the cleaning by dipping it.

[mick1271]

7 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

Is it just me who thinks that's not a bad job of removing the crud from the farthing? 

I think they have done a decent job too .It might look worse in natural light though .

[Coinery]

On 1/10/2023 at 11:18 PM, Rob said:

Here you go. A penny, albeit silver and hammered, but a decent provenance. Six quid in Cuff.

J D Cuff 1041, Sotheby 8/6/1854

E Wigan, collection bought Rollin & Feuardent 1872

H Webb 309, Sotheby 9/7/1894

H Clark 155, Sotheby 23/5/1898

A A Banes 57, Sotheby 30/10/1922

E H Wheeler 342, Sotheby 12/3/1930

C Corbally Browne 409, Sotheby 25/3/1935

W L Raynes 473, Glendining 15/2/1950

Spink 6, lot 589, 10/10/1979

R D Shuttlewood 301, Spink 15/3/2001

C Comber

I don’t think I’ve even seen one of these before, a stunning example, right up there I should think? Whatever happened to Mary’s bust, that she had Diana/Kate grace in her premarital coinage, only to morph into a troll following her marriage to Philip a year later?

[PWA 1967]

31 minutes ago, mick1271 said:

I think they have done a decent job too .It might look worse in natural light though .

No thats exactly how it looks Mick ,as i mentioned if someone wants to buy them dipped because they think they look good ,thats entirely up to them.

Just a shame maybe if they didnt know that when they come to sell them they dont get as much.

[secret santa]

On a different subject, I have been studying the obverse 4 missing leaf types where all the examples that I've seen bear slight traces of the "missing" leaf and a weakened linear circle above the missing leaf. The example in Michael Gouby's book, however, shows a complete linear circle:

However, close examination suggests that these 2 pictures are of the same coin - compare the shading and the dark spot on the right hand side. Perhaps the 2nd picture was doctored (definitely not by Michael) to illustrate what the missing leaf might look like. Michael agrees with me and intends to include a different picture in any future updates to his book.

I therefore think that the genuine missing leaf types look like this, with weakened linear circle:

Which is probably what would be expected from a partially filled die in that area of the coin.

Edited January 26, 2023 by secret santa
additional text

[Coinery]

4 hours ago, secret santa said:

On a different subject, I have been studying the obverse 4 missing leaf types where all the examples that I've seen bear slight traces of the "missing" leaf and a weakened linear circle above the missing leaf. The example in Michael Gouby's book, however, shows a complete linear circle:

However, close examination suggests that these 2 pictures are of the same coin - compare the shading and the dark spot on the right hand side. Perhaps the 2nd picture was doctored (definitely not by Michael) to illustrate what the missing leaf might look like. Michael agrees with me and intends to include a different picture in any future updates to his book.

I therefore think that the genuine missing leaf types look like this, with weakened linear circle:

Which is probably what would be expected from a partially filled die in that area of the coin.

Looking at the highlights I’d say it’s not only the same coin, but even the same photo used for both examples!

[Peckris 2]

8 hours ago, secret santa said:

On a different subject, I have been studying the obverse 4 missing leaf types where all the examples that I've seen bear slight traces of the "missing" leaf and a weakened linear circle above the missing leaf. The example in Michael Gouby's book, however, shows a complete linear circle:

However, close examination suggests that these 2 pictures are of the same coin - compare the shading and the dark spot on the right hand side. Perhaps the 2nd picture was doctored (definitely not by Michael) to illustrate what the missing leaf might look like. Michael agrees with me and intends to include a different picture in any future updates to his book.

I therefore think that the genuine missing leaf types look like this, with weakened linear circle:

Which is probably what would be expected from a partially filled die in that area of the coin.

well spotted.

[secret santa]

13 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

Could you please tell me.... this is Obverse VI F with reverse VI f ? 

It is obverse 4 (Gouby F) and the pictured coins are F24 - Freeman 4+F (Gouby F+f), but the same missing leaf has been seen on (2) specimens of F22 (Freeman 4+D; Gouby F+d).

(no-one uses roman numerals to identify obverse types)

[terrysoldpennies]

I think the H must have been added seperatelly to each working die as I have found 1881 coins with it positioned all over the place.

[1949threepence]

This company (Cambridgeshire Coins) is so careless and let an 1862 F38 go for just £4.00 !!!

Admittedly not in brilliant condition, but a bargain nonetheless. 

Previously they let an 1897 high tide penny in GEF with lustre, go for about £45 - missed that.

The site is worth regularly checking for bargains. 

link

 

[Martinminerva]

Well spotted! Was this recently or a while ago? I take it you got it?

I spotted and "bought" the 1897 HT some time ago, but it never arrived and they refunded me without question or delay. I think they realised their mistake...

Edited February 17, 2023 by Martinminerva

[secret santa]

10 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

The site is worth regularly checking for bargains. 

But you have to have a lot of time and patience to trawl through them !

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Martinminerva said:

Well spotted! Was this recently or a while ago? I take it you got it?

I spotted and "bought" the 1897 HT some time ago, but it never arrived and they refunded me without question or delay. I think they realised their mistake...

No, I didn't get it, and apologies because my post above doesn't make that clear. I just happened to notice, amongst all the other crap looking 1862 pennies, that one had sold, and I wondered why. Didn't take long to find out !  

Sorry you didn't get the 1897 HT. Another example of wondering why that specific coin had "sold". Although from what you say, it sounds as though some funny business was going on. Maybe somebody alerted them as to what it was, just as you bought it off the website. I know I felt disappointed that someone had "beaten me to it", as it was in the days before I'd got one, although the point is moot as you were unsuccessful.

The only bargain I managed to nab from there, before it went elsewhere, was a very decent Bramah 26a (no serifs to the I of Britannia)   

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

But you have to have a lot of time and patience to trawl through them !

You certainly do, especially as the photography is quite dark and you have to open up each one to take a proper "confirmatory" look.  

[alfnail]

Again unimpressed with Noonans penny descriptions:-

Coins and Historical Medals (4 & 5 April 2023): Lot 499 | Noonans Mayfair

 

[secret santa]

I have emailed them to correct this description and also the F24 missing leaf described as reverse D. Lot 497 also looks deeply suspicious - 1841 no colon proof ???

[1949threepence]

45 minutes ago, secret santa said:

I have emailed them to correct this description and also the F24 missing leaf described as reverse D. Lot 497 also looks deeply suspicious - 1841 no colon proof ???

Just doesn't look right for a proof does it - the breasts look worn away for a start, and really nothing to distinguish even an impaired proof of this date, from a currency strike, as far as I know. I still maintain that NGC are just taking the grading applicant's word and not checking them out independently.

The Noonan's missing leaf F24 description is laughable. As you say they put reverse D instead of F and didn't even bother at all with a Freeman No !

As for the 1858 large rose "small date", the date is misattributed so often. 

 

[Rob]

Apart from stating obvious, which is a piece of c**p and fit for ebay, what is it? It isn't an F33 as it came marked. I think I'm happy it's obverse F with the signature below, but is it reverse d or f? TIA.

 

[secret santa]

My money's on reverse D - from the rocks either side of the lighthouse. And the remains of the W of LCW.