More Pennies

[1949threepence]

53 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Over a year ago I wrote to Spink suggesting some additional varieties to include in the Penny sections of their "Coins of England" annual catalogues.

I listed the following types with pictures of the interesting features:

1847 Medusa, 1858 large rose, 1860 ONF, 1862 3 plumes, 1862 VIGTORIA, 1862 B over R, 1863 open 3 and 1909 F169. I felt that they were all worthy of mention with associated values as they exist in collectable numbers, and offered advice from my records on recent prices paid for these types. I thought that Medusa would be a certainty.

Today I received a reply saying that they would include only the 1858 large rose and the 1862 VIGTORIA, despite already including 1863 over 1 (a much less obvious type) and 1903 open 3.

Rather disappointing.

I'm amazed they've not included the Medusa.

[Peckris 2]

To be fair, the ONF is just a broken die, but I'm amazed they didn't include the 1862 B over R - it's a fairly obvious variety.

[DaveG38]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

Over a year ago I wrote to Spink suggesting some additional varieties to include in the Penny sections of their "Coins of England" annual catalogues.

I listed the following types with pictures of the interesting features:

1847 Medusa, 1858 large rose, 1860 ONF, 1862 3 plumes, 1862 VIGTORIA, 1862 B over R, 1863 open 3 and 1909 F169. I felt that they were all worthy of mention with associated values as they exist in collectable numbers, and offered advice from my records on recent prices paid for these types. I thought that Medusa would be a certainty.

Today I received a reply saying that they would include only the 1858 large rose and the 1862 VIGTORIA, despite already including 1863 over 1 (a much less obvious type) and 1903 open 3.

Rather disappointing.

I'm not surprised. I have tried to get them to include the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny, for which their laughable reply was that they couldn't possibly include every minor variety. So, a major legend change is a 'minor varient', but the tiny differences in the early Victorian pennies are 'major' and worthy of inclusion. Spink are a joke and not worth the effort.

[Michael-Roo]

11 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

I'm not surprised. I have tried to get them to include the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny, for which their laughable reply was that they couldn't possibly include every minor variety. So, a major legend change is a 'minor varient', but the tiny differences in the early Victorian pennies are 'major' and worthy of inclusion. Spink are a joke and not worth the effort.

 

'Minor'? Ridiculous.

How many confirmed examples do we now have, seven, eight? They've included the 1694 MVRIA halfpenny for many years even though, until a recent fourth came to light, only three were known.

And if we're talking about early milled minor varieties, and whether or not they are deemed worthy of inclusion, just one 'off the top of my head' example of many, I'd suggest they might like to reconsider would be their 1675 farthing, no stop after CAROLVS. Again, been listed for years, and given a value, yet has anyone here ever seen one? I haven't, nor am I aware of anyone who has.

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by Michael-Roo

[oldcopper]

43 minutes ago, Michael-Roo said:

 

'Minor'? Ridiculous.

How many confirmed examples do we now have, seven, eight? They've included the 1694 MVRIA halfpenny for many years even though, until a recent fourth came to light, only three were known.

And if we're talking about minor varieties I'd suggest they reconsider their inclusion of a 1675 farthing, no stop after CAROLVS. Again, been in there for years, and given a value, yet has anyone here ever seen one? I haven't, nor am I aware of anyone who has.

 

I've never seen a clear William III BRIVANNIA halfpenny, although this is still listed in some catalogues. More likely a damaged T in the cases I've seen, with no telltale middle gap.

Spink are inconsistent, they don't list copper patterns, although some of these (the Medusa and the DEI GRATIA eg) were seemingly just released as currency. Yet for instance 1826 George IV/Wm IV crowns, and all the 5 and 2 guineas/5 and 2 pounds (except 1823 £2) from George III to Una and the Lion, though patterns, are listed and priced. If I remember rightly (haven't bought a Spink catalogue  for some years) several edge/border varieties of the Una and the Lion are listed and priced. The staff are probably too busy to re-write it to any extent. 

[secret santa]

26 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

Spink are inconsistent, they don't list copper patterns

Yes, that's why they don't want to list Medusa. I've now pointed out to them that it's not really a pattern - there are only circulated specimens in existence, whereas genuine patterns tend to survive in near FDC condition.

[PWA 1967]

One i recently purchased ,not the best grade or condition 😀

F16 5+D ONF and looking at Richards Rare penny site i wasnt aware there was so few known.

Edited July 19, 2023 by PWA 1967

[Peckris 2]

On 7/19/2023 at 2:54 PM, PWA 1967 said:

One i recently purchased ,not the best grade or condition 😀

F16 5+D ONF and looking at Richards Rare penny site i wasnt aware there was so few known.

were you doing the washing up when you posted this? I've never before seen an example of an 1860 PINNY...

[terrysoldpennies]

I picked this 1933 penny up a while back now , but forgot at the time to share it with you .  It would be nice if it were the real Mc Coy,  but a pretty good modified example I think .

[PWA 1967]

6 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

were you doing the washing up when you posted this? I've never before seen an example of an 1860 PINNY...

What it does show is how its often hard to determin a coin variety / type from a picture ,sellers pictures which were lightened show the detail much better.

The E in Penny is complete even though it appears not to be on my picture.

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by PWA 1967

[1949threepence]

I note the September LCA catalogue is now out on their website. For the accomplished collector, it's a bit run of the mill to be honest. But for those who aren't quite there, some interesting possibilities.

There's a hgh grade F14 LCW under foot, but with very prominent die cracks. There's also a distinctly suspect slabbed 1863 touted as a proof, but with poor photography. 

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

[DaveG38]

38 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I note the September LCA catalogue is now out on their website. For the accomplished collector, it's a bit run of the mill to be honest. But for those who aren't quite there, some interesting possibilities.

There's a hgh grade F14 LCW under foot, but with very prominent die cracks. There's also a distinctly suspect slabbed 1863 touted as a proof, but with poor photography. 

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

Run of the mill!! The first lots I found were the 1826 and 1831 proof sets - estimated at £60-120k and £35-70k. If they are run of the mill, then my collection must be regarded as meagre and scarcely worth the trouble of collecting. However, I do take your point regarding the rest.

[1949threepence]

46 minutes ago, DaveG38 said:

Run of the mill!! The first lots I found were the 1826 and 1831 proof sets - estimated at £60-120k and £35-70k. If they are run of the mill, then my collection must be regarded as meagre and scarcely worth the trouble of collecting. However, I do take your point regarding the rest.

Oh sure - I was only referring to the pennies in the auction, which is why is I posted it on the "More Pennies" thread.

I agree there are some spectacular proof sets

Edited August 6, 2023 by 1949threepence

[DaveG38]

10 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Oh sure - I was only referring to the pennies in the auction, which is why is I posted it on the "More Pennies" thread.

I agree there are some spectacular proof sets

Ah, sorry, I didn't see the title of the thread.

[oldcopper]

15 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

Ah, sorry, I didn't see the title of the thread.

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. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by oldcopper

[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.