Leaderboard

Pure, non-PC, brilliance from the Python Gang. The tap-dancing bit in the middle just kills me every time.

Slightly off-topic, but still relevant. I think base coins have been collected throughout history. The lack of early documentation should not mean that numismatics was invented a few hundred years ago. e.g. The Bolsena hoard found 1890 in northern Italy contained several hundred Roman bronzes in top grade covering a period of roughly 170 years from Augustus onwards. There is no way that these were coins taken from circulation shortly before they were lost to their Roman(?) owner because sestertii and other bronzes were the currency workhorses that would rapidly wear with everyday use. Individual wealth was tied up in silver and gold. i.e. the bronzes had to be collected, and more importantly, they must have had a succession of owners, implying an established hobby, and by extension a rudimentary knowledge of coins from an historical angle. Everything unproven is by definition conjecture, but it would be unreasonable to either assume or dismiss a reasoned argument given we only know a fraction of what actually happened 2, 3, 400 years ago or earlier

It's an area ripe for study. Certainly collectors in Victorian times (as opposed to mere "putters away" of new types) didn't really bother with their own base metal coinage, and the rarity of BU bun pennies possibly bears this out. Had that changed by 1913? Very difficult to say, but it may be that "putters away" of 1913 pennies accounted for the survival of now rare varieties in high grade, the circulated examples of which were swept up in 1971. I absolutely agree with the case of people putting away examples of new reigns when they first appeared, which helps explain why the 1902LT penny is relatively easy to find in top grades, it being the earlier variety and therefore the first to appear.

And the picture to compare portraits.....

The more likely word is "NOW!"

That is a rare find! It has the hard to acquire "circular counting machine scratch" above the Queens ear!

Well you can't beat a bit of nose when sniffing out bargains......

"special striking" might be a better term

No doubt there will be other opinions, but Phill I can tell you that one thing about the RM: they are not consistent. By that I mean that there seem to be some sets that are well and thoughtfully put together by them as VIP, but others seemingly original that are not as of good a quality. Then there is each individual coin, wherein factors such as how early on in the life of a die it was struck and if a particular specimen was given just a bit more care by the operators. Also, no doubt coins that may have been intended as VIP may have found their way into "ordinary" sets. I have talked with my good friend Steve H. many times in the past about such phenomena as RM proofs of silver and copper 20th C. are a focus of mine, and we (if I may speak for him) are of the opinion that it is not always possible to differentiate on individual merit alone if a particular coin is an ordinary proof or a VIP proof particularly if a specimen that may be the former is of early and good strike with plenty of extra field reflectivity, milling crispness and frosted devices; the latter phenomenon is referred to by some as DMPL, or deep mirror proof like. This may represent a buying opportunity as individual coins come up that are under appreciated as to their quality. A related problem however is that many of the crowns in particular are actually these DMPL coins that are slabbed and sold as VIP, when they may not be. I would caution against paying fancy prices for these. BTW, I personally do not like the term "VIP", and perhaps it is the liberal in me...