More Pennies

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

I don't think gold and early proof sets really count for many collectors - they're now mainly collected by investors from what I can see. Which of us is going to fork out the best part of 100k (or the best part of half a million upwards for a good 1839!) for one of the old proof sets? Especially as you could pick up a nice one for 10-25K 20 years ago.

Anyone seen the Philip Richardson mainly Soho collection now listed on DNW? There's 200 lots on there. Some nice coins....

I notice one anomaly, to do with the gilt 1797 inscribed edge KP5 penny. DNW refer to the coin as a one off, and the inscription was referred to in Peck as a later adulteration in a footnote. Now, whether it is or not I don't know, but In Baldwins 47 (Gregory II) one of these was the front cover coin, in beautiful and brilliant mint state no less. A stunner. However, a more ropey one turned up in their auction a few years later, scratched and edge knocked, but it was given exactly the same provenance as their supposedly unique earlier mint state one. This is the one in DNW.

So either someone bought it in Baldwins 47 (£2,800 hammer), kept it in their pocket for several years, then resold it (£460 hammer!), or more likely there are at least two of these coins in existence, both identically and incusely inscribed. In which case it is more likely that the edge is a contemporary and official addition. 

I have now you've pointed out that the coins have been posted. Had a feeling it would be a good collection and was right. Some magnificent items, and a once in a decade (or more) opportunity to obtain a few.  

[secret santa]

It's a pity that the catalogue doesn't contain a narrative description of Philip Richardson and his collection.

[Martinminerva]

On 8/6/2023 at 6:08 PM, 1949threepence said:

A F169 is on offer which doesn't appear to be on Richard's rare penny list.

I think it was! Specimen 20 and 21 appear to be the same coin... Look especially at the vertical scratch and dings above Britannia's helmet and head. But the photography of spec 20 is not the best!

[secret santa]

22 hours ago, oldcopper said:

I notice one anomaly, to do with the gilt 1797 inscribed edge KP5 penny. DNW refer to the coin as a one off, and the inscription was referred to in Peck as a later adulteration in a footnote. Now, whether it is or not I don't know, but In Baldwins 47 (Gregory II) one of these was the front cover coin, in beautiful and brilliant mint state no less. A stunner. However, a more ropey one turned up in their auction a few years later, scratched and edge knocked, but it was given exactly the same provenance as their supposedly unique earlier mint state one. This is the one in DNW.

Yes, Noonans are claiming their lot 527 is the same one you refer to (Gregory lot 258) in terms of the provenance.

[oldcopper]

11 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Yes, Noonans are claiming their lot 527 is the same one you refer to (Gregory lot 258) in terms of the provenance.

I should have asked at the time - it wasn't a bad coin apart from the defects.

[Rob]

That description is completely screwed up. First line says 1 of only 2 known. Last line says almost a certainly a one-off. OK. And the provenance descriptions say brilliant; brilliant; and Peck says mint state. This will be the A H F Baldwin coin. The last one is right, though not helped by the Baldwin 77 sale provenance given as all the wrong ones. A saleroom notice is required, methinks.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Martinminerva said:

I think it was! Specimen 20 and 21 appear to be the same coin... Look especially at the vertical scratch and dings above Britannia's helmet and head. But the photography of spec 20 is not the best!

Hmmm, yes a slight puzzler there. I can see the vertical line above Britannia's helmet which appears to be pretty much identical in both cases. But I can't see the two puncture type dings to the immediate right of them, on example 20. That might be my browser though. Also, as you say, the photography on example 20 is not the best.

You may well be right. See what Richard thinks.

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

It's a pity that the catalogue doesn't contain a narrative description of Philip Richardson and his collection.

It very much is, I agree. Most named sellers give their own written preview of the factors which started them off in the hobby, what interested them about the area they concentrated on, and why they ultimately decided to sell up. Those who want anonymity tend to call their collections by the area they live in, or some such, eg: the Elstree collection.

Of course, he may be dead, but surely then the collection would be noted as "the late Philip Richardson".  

[secret santa]

5 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Hmmm, yes a slight puzzler there. I can see the vertical line above Britannia's helmet which appears to be pretty much identical in both cases. But I can't see the two puncture type dings to the immediate right of them, on example 20. That might be my browser though. Also, as you say, the photography on example 20 is not the best.

You may well be right. See what Richard thinks.

I can't make up my mind, but I've emailed the guy who sent me the pics of example 20 to ask if he put it into LCA's sale.

[secret santa]

I've had a reply but the owner of example 20 sold it to Dave Craddock who may or may not have put it in to LCA.

So, the jury's still out.

[Martinminerva]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

So, the jury's still out.

Despite the awful photography of example 20, I'm convinced they're the same coin... Too many of the dings and scratches would seem to match up rather well - angle of lighting might account for why the deep dings on 21 seem much less deep and indistinct on 20. Plus of course the poor resolution and focus!

Fairly moot point anyway, whether there are 20 or 21 recorded specimens (I'm sure there'll be a good few others out there as yet un-spotted), but the fact they appeared on Richard's site sequentially just alerted me to the potential of them being one and the same!

[1949threepence]

11 hours ago, Martinminerva said:

Despite the awful photography of example 20, I'm convinced they're the same coin... Too many of the dings and scratches would seem to match up rather well - angle of lighting might account for why the deep dings on 21 seem much less deep and indistinct on 20. Plus of course the poor resolution and focus!

Fairly moot point anyway, whether there are 20 or 21 recorded specimens (I'm sure there'll be a good few others out there as yet un-spotted), but the fact they appeared on Richard's site sequentially just alerted me to the potential of them being one and the same!

I think it more probable than not, that you are correct. But not definitively so. 

[alfnail]

I see that someone got 'suckered' into buying this, it's a 😭shame!

1856 Queen Victoria Copper Penny. High Grade. | eBay

 

[Martinminerva]

1 hour ago, alfnail said:

I see that someone got 'suckered' into buying this, it's a 😭shame!

And this... (same seller):

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1826-King-Geo-IV-penny-coin-high-grade-/325742601973?nma=true&si=i8aQZwnOvkcF3efgsg06PXTkhUE%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Not good. Caveat emptor only goes so far... But the buyer has left positive feedback, so there's one (or several, with the underbidders) born every minute!

Edited August 12, 2023 by Martinminerva
typo

[1949threepence]

8 hours ago, alfnail said:

I see that someone got 'suckered' into buying this, it's a 😭shame!

1856 Queen Victoria Copper Penny. High Grade. | eBay

 

Most likely an enthusiastic but young and naive buyer, Ian. I see a lot of it on facebook.

[secret santa]

On 8/8/2023 at 9:47 AM, secret santa said:

It's a pity that the catalogue doesn't contain a narrative description of Philip Richardson and his collection.

I've just received the catalogue and it deserves to be prized as a very well illustrated set of coins. 

[secret santa]

On 8/8/2023 at 4:35 PM, secret santa said:

I can't make up my mind, but I've emailed the guy who sent me the pics of example 20 to ask if he put it into LCA's sale.

Re the discussion about 1909 F169 examples 20 and 21 being the same coin, the supplier of the picture of number 20 says that they are not.....

But that vertical line does look similar.........

[1949threepence]

4 hours ago, secret santa said:

I've just received the catalogue and it deserves to be prized as a very well illustrated set of coins. 

Some fantastic coins in that collection, including 2 of that rather strange 1806/1805 mule.

[oldcopper]

9 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Some fantastic coins in that collection, including 2 of that rather strange 1806/1805 mule.

One of them went for £2,200 in the Spink Sept 2015 auction, that provenance mentioned in the catalogue, as part of a collection (Andy Scott?). Nice coin in that case, a bit mottled on the reverse, but unfortunately quite a few other coins in that collection were artificially toned. And even worse was in one that I bought, the colour was more like painted on rather than baked in (however they do it!), as even a light dab of a cotton glove to remove a bit of debris resulted in a light brown area of under-copper suddenly appearing amongst all that colour! 

Unsurprisingly I was not happy, but rubbing that side on a carpet did make it look better if a little weird, and I sold it soon after. Then it reappeared in another dealer's tray at the LCF a few months later looking vastly "improved"! Poor coin.

The KT3 gilt is interesting - fantastic looking coin. I saw it at St James auction 2014 preview, and this is the only time I had ever seen this, but the coin had been shrink-wrapped, or perhaps "vacuum packed" in a cellophane or clingfilm type plastic skin. I asked Mr Fenton about this and he airily said it was for protection. It only occurred to me afterwards to wonder how you would take it off.

I presume it's not been slabbed still in its plastic skin,  though I notice DNW haven't mentioned the slabbing grade in their catalogue. "Unc details - clingfilmed" perhaps!?

 

[1949threepence]

3 hours ago, oldcopper said:

One of them went for £2,200 in the Spink Sept 2015 auction, that provenance mentioned in the catalogue, as part of a collection (Andy Scott?). Nice coin in that case, a bit mottled on the reverse, but unfortunately quite a few other coins in that collection were artificially toned. And even worse was in one that I bought, the colour was more like painted on rather than baked in (however they do it!), as even a light dab of a cotton glove to remove a bit of debris resulted in a light brown area of under-copper suddenly appearing amongst all that colour! 

Unsurprisingly I was not happy, but rubbing that side on a carpet did make it look better if a little weird, and I sold it soon after. Then it reappeared in another dealer's tray at the LCF a few months later looking vastly "improved"! Poor coin.

The KT3 gilt is interesting - fantastic looking coin. I saw it at St James auction 2014 preview, and this is the only time I had ever seen this, but the coin had been shrink-wrapped, or perhaps "vacuum packed" in a cellophane or clingfilm type plastic skin. I asked Mr Fenton about this and he airily said it was for protection. It only occurred to me afterwards to wonder how you would take it off.

I presume it's not been slabbed still in its plastic skin,  though I notice DNW haven't mentioned the slabbing grade in their catalogue. "Unc details - clingfilmed" perhaps!?

 

It astounds me that many dealers and sellers alike, have still not learned the adverse lessson of using plastic packaging for coins.....

....and that's just plastic envelopes. What you describe above sounds horrendously damaging.

Anyway, thanks for the info. 

[oldcopper]

20 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

It astounds me that many dealers and sellers alike, have still not learned the adverse lessson of using plastic packaging for coins.....

....and that's just plastic envelopes. What you describe above sounds horrendously damaging.

Anyway, thanks for the info. 

Though DNW say on the web that it's been graded by NCG without specifying a grade, now I've received the hard catalogue (£25 - ouch!) that isn't in it.

Some of the collection has been only recently slabbed (as they weren't bought as slabbed), but some of it is not slabbed, including some big items like the silver P.1086. And some coins have been removed from slabs. It seems quite random, and not dependant on date of purchase. It would be interesting to know why.

[1949threepence]

2 hours ago, oldcopper said:

Though DNW say on the web that it's been graded by NCG without specifying a grade, now I've received the hard catalogue (£25 - ouch!) that isn't in it.

Some of the collection has been only recently slabbed (as they weren't bought as slabbed), but some of it is not slabbed, including some big items like the silver P.1086. And some coins have been removed from slabs. It seems quite random, and not dependant on date of purchase. It would be interesting to know why.

Yes, it does seem random, as many of the coins aren't slabbed. Some were slabbed years ago and have already gone past the 10 year expiry date, and some have only just been done and have an expiry date of June 2033.I would think done at Noonan's behest after seeking Richardson's permission.

Interesting that the now slabbed 1806/1805, is "top pop" - no doubt because it's the only example there.

Might be worth making an enquiry about the KT3 in the sense of why no further expansion beyond the fact that it was slabbed by NGC. Is it now?  

[oldcopper]

5 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Yes, it does seem random, as many of the coins aren't slabbed. Some were slabbed years ago and have already gone past the 10 year expiry date, and some have only just been done and have an expiry date of June 2033.I would think done at Noonan's behest after seeking Richardson's permission.

Interesting that the now slabbed 1806/1805, is "top pop" - no doubt because it's the only example there.

Might be worth making an enquiry about the KT3 in the sense of why no further expansion beyond the fact that it was slabbed by NGC. Is it now?  

Yes, I expect I'll go and have a look at them at some stage.

[PWA 1967]

A couple of new ones for a date run i have been putting together since selling my others.

1893 and 1904 ,both hard years to find so nice.

[Peckris 2]

Superb 1904, which is REALLY difficult in top grade. 1893 is only difficult compared to the previous 5 or 6 years which are not hard to find.