Slaney 2

[Rob]

A more detailed look at the SG list suggests that it is a bit disingenuous. Apparently the only St. Martin of Lincoln silver penny in private hands has returned 12.1% over the period, whilst the equally common Henry III gold penny has done over 15%. Yeh, right. The Scarboroughs are not freely circulating either. There are a lot of pieces on that list for which the return is a lick your finger and see which way the wind is blowing number.

[azda]

I think its safe to say that Most of these coins are out of reach of the "normal" coin collector

[jaggy]

A more detailed look at the SG list suggests that it is a bit disingenuous. Apparently the only St. Martin of Lincoln silver penny in private hands has returned 12.1% over the period, whilst the equally common Henry III gold penny has done over 15%. Yeh, right. The Scarboroughs are not freely circulating either. There are a lot of pieces on that list for which the return is a lick your finger and see which way the wind is blowing number.

The other problem with 'returns' is that you cannot really 'mark to market' for a piece that is so rare that there is no market. So the value that gets put on it is what you think someone might pay rather than a solid history of similar coins fetching given prices over a period of time.

[Rob]

I think its safe to say that Most of these coins are out of reach of the "normal" coin collector

A significant number are out of reach of any collector. There are some commoner pieces on the list such as the Henry VIII testoon or 1841 halfcrown, many of which are held by ordinary collectors.

It is mainly a list of seriously rare coins. It's safe to say that if the 'investment' chaps stuck to that list, they would take a very long time to build up a portfolio. The plantagenet hammered gold is fairly abundant as is some of the milled, but the tudor gold section contains some serious rarities as does the Saxon.

[jaggy]

I think its safe to say that Most of these coins are out of reach of the "normal" coin collector

A significant number are out of reach of any collector. There are some commoner pieces on the list such as the Henry VIII testoon or 1841 halfcrown, many of which are held by ordinary collectors.

It is mainly a list of seriously rare coins. It's safe to say that if the 'investment' chaps stuck to that list, they would take a very long time to build up a portfolio. The plantagenet hammered gold is fairly abundant as is some of the milled, but the tudor gold section contains some serious rarities as does the Saxon.

They would also take a long time to make any money because, with very few exceptions, the only people who could really afford their prices would be other investors.

[Rob]

A more detailed look at the SG list suggests that it is a bit disingenuous. Apparently the only St. Martin of Lincoln silver penny in private hands has returned 12.1% over the period, whilst the equally common Henry III gold penny has done over 15%. Yeh, right. The Scarboroughs are not freely circulating either. There are a lot of pieces on that list for which the return is a lick your finger and see which way the wind is blowing number.

The other problem with 'returns' is that you cannot really 'mark to market' for a piece that is so rare that there is no market. So the value that gets put on it is what you think someone might pay rather than a solid history of similar coins fetching given prices over a period of time.

Correct. It is the same conundrum from the stratospheric pieces all the way down to a grotty washer of which there is only one known - there is no market to provide a guide price. I often have people visit the table, but shy away from a pattern because they aren't comfortable paying £xxx for a piece that isn't listed in the standard price guides. It is probably a good job, as they might become unaffordable across the board once everyone has a reference point, given their absolute rarity in many cases.

[Prax]

Funnily enough the biggest buyer of the day at the slaney sale was a representative of an consortium. Infact there were two their often bidding against each other. The main one bought most of the expensive coins offered.

That's interesting. considering you were at the sale and are well informed it would help if you could expand further please.

Infact there were two their often bidding against each other. The main one bought most of the expensive coins offered.

[VickySilver]

You know I looked at that SG list of 200, and will cite the 1935 Crown struck in gold as one that HAS NOT increased steadily as indicated but rather performed "up and down" in auctions. I'm not sure of their emphases on some of the listed items as Rob has alluded to. However, the general point as broached by Prax is well taken.

I noted that Baldwin's even before being absorbed into the SG group (boo hoo!) had begun some sort of investment consortium - I wonder how many there actually are?

I'm a bit in the boat with Jaggy in that there are not a lot of pieces I require but admit to being a bit fearful when the remaining bits come up & recall recent fights over coins in my area like the 1850 shilling in highest grades....

[azda]

An 1850 in EF or more would be a scary price, just checked Londons realised prices and a recent VG/FINE went for £1600. I'm surprised there is no 1854 or 63 Florins on the SG list yet a 1905 halfcrown is.

It would also be interesting to make a FORUM 100/200 list for the more affordable coins for the normal collector

Edited May 17, 2015 by azda

[jaggy]

An 1850 in EF or more would be a scary price, just checked Londons realised prices and a recent VG/FINE went for £1600. I'm surprised there is no 1854 or 63 Florins on the SG list yet a 1905 halfcrown is.

It would also be interesting to make a FORUM 100/200 list for the more affordable coins for the normal collector

That would be a tricky one because we all have different interests. I could probably give you a top 50/100 for 'affordable' sixpences. Then again, my definition of 'affordable' might be different to yours.

[azda]

An 1850 in EF or more would be a scary price, just checked Londons realised prices and a recent VG/FINE went for £1600. I'm surprised there is no 1854 or 63 Florins on the SG list yet a 1905 halfcrown is.

It would also be interesting to make a FORUM 100/200 list for the more affordable coins for the normal collector

That would be a tricky one because we all have different interests. I could probably give you a top 50/100 for 'affordable' sixpences. Then again, my definition of 'affordable' might be different to yours.

£1000 is affordable

[Coinery]

What an enlightening thread this is turning out to be. I wish I had something to add to it...I'm all ears though.

[Coppers]

I am relieved to see that there was not much if anything in the way of milled copper/bronze on that list. Others have mentioned that they were only able to find one coin on the list of any interest to them as collectors. If these are the coins that this investment group is pursuing I'm not so certain we have anything to fear.

[Paulus]

What an enlightening thread this is turning out to be. I wish I had something to add to it...I'm all ears though.

Likewise!

[mhcoins]

Funnily enough the biggest buyer of the day at the slaney sale was a representative of an consortium. Infact there were two their often bidding against each other. The main one bought most of the expensive coins offered.

That's interesting. considering you were at the sale and are well informed it would help if you could expand further please.

Infact there were two their often bidding against each other. The main one bought most of the expensive coins offered.

Without wishing to name names, "bidder 61" a virtually unknown figure at the start of the sale, sat in the corner and pratically bought all of the top end coins, like the 1820 gold five pounds, the Anne five guineas, the 1699 five guineas etc etc. I would hate to guess just how much he spent in the end. Both "bidder 61" and a Japanese buyer literally chased up the prices on all of the so called star coins of the sale. As investors they seemed to have, like someone mentioned earlier, a criteria of high grade and rare material only. There bidding patterns reminded me of such as on storage wars where one would shout £5000 the the next £10,000.

Ultimately these two buyer won't effect the collectors markets which most of us on here are involved in. They aren't interested in normal every day pieces.

[Rob]

'By the window' was a frequent comment from Richard.

[Prax]

Funnily enough the biggest buyer of the day at the slaney sale was a representative of an consortium. Infact there were two their often bidding against each other. The main one bought most of the expensive coins offered.

That's interesting. considering you were at the sale and are well informed it would help if you could expand further please.

Infact there were two their often bidding against each other. The main one bought most of the expensive coins offered.

Without wishing to name names, "bidder 61" a virtually unknown figure at the start of the sale, sat in the corner and pratically bought all of the top end coins, like the 1820 gold five pounds, the Anne five guineas, the 1699 five guineas etc etc. I would hate to guess just how much he spent in the end. Both "bidder 61" and a Japanese buyer literally chased up the prices on all of the so called star coins of the sale. As investors they seemed to have, like someone mentioned earlier, a criteria of high grade and rare material only. There bidding patterns reminded me of such as on storage wars where one would shout £5000 the the next £10,000.

Ultimately these two buyer won't effect the collectors markets which most of us on here are involved in. They aren't interested in normal every day pieces.

Thanks MH

[Nicholas]

Arrived today from Slaney 2. Different in person..

[mhcoins]

That was one of my favorites in the sale, although it went above my expectations. Are you pleased with it ?

I'm sure you have already noticed but there are a few red wax deposits on both the obverse and reverse

[Rob]

That was one of my favorites in the sale, although it went above my expectations. Are you pleased with it ?

I'm sure you have already noticed but there are a few red wax deposits on both the obverse and reverse

It was illustrated in the Bliss sale lot 368, 22/3/1916 bt Spink.

From there it trundles back to Trattle 1832 lot 640 via Durrant 589 (1847), Martin 263 (1858), Bergne 669 (1873), Rostron 247 (1892) and Clark 218 (1898)

Super provenance.

[Nicholas]

I like it very much. Oh but I definitely paid too much, no question and meant no more bids that day...

Yes there seems to be red wax everywhere and different shades of red. Was this the method of "photographing the coin in the 1800's?

Don't know how you did it Rob but your provenance analysis is mind boggling. Are there old images of this coin in very old catalogues?

[Rob]

Only Bliss (which is where the wax will be from), but the above provenance is given in the catalogue. Montagu was the first illustrated sale in 1895-7.

[shagreen]

I wonder about the wax too as I see it on some of my better 19thC pieces again small blobs and the odd line. I thought it was from the fact we are talking pre incandescent lighting and candles were the go. How did collectors examine a coin at night back then??

[Rob]

Only Bliss (which is where the wax will be from), but the above provenance is given in the catalogue. Montagu was the first illustrated sale in 1895-7.

Actually, the wax could be either from the above or also Hamilton Smith (1919) or Wheeler (1930), both of which were given in the Slaney catalogue

[TomGoodheart]

I wonder about the wax too as I see it on some of my better 19thC pieces again small blobs and the odd line. I thought it was from the fact we are talking pre incandescent lighting and candles were the go. How did collectors examine a coin at night back then??

Paraffin lamps were in more common use from the end of the 1850s I believe. They would have provided sufficient light for close work and certainly an improvement on candles.

If it's red wax (or less commonly yellow) it's likely from where a cast was made of the coin. Then, to avoid the problems of different levels of reflectivity or toning the cast was photographed rather than the coin.

It's not a guaranteed way to tell if a coin was illustrated in a sales catalogue (or possibly journal article) but it does suggest the possibility and that further research may be merited.

In terms of dating, I guess we're talking about any illustrated catalogues prior to 1960 or so, is that about right Rob?

Nice coin by the way Nicholas. Shame they don't make them like that any more.

.

Edited June 3, 2015 by TomGoodheart