Leaderboard

I think the penny is nice, uncirculated but pretty ordinary otherwise, let’s generously say £200 worth. The slab, however, is very rare, you don’t see many MS67 1934 penny slabs and it must be worth at least £1200 to a dedicated slab collector, unless NGC decide to produce some more. Jerry 🙄

Other reference numbers Other reference: IOW2019-7-283 Might this have been found on the Isle of Wight?

I have always maintained that it is not possible to definitively identify a proof striking of a "normal metal" copper or bronze coin from a photograph unless it is totally pristine. We have all seen the same coin portrayed differently according to the conditions and technology used. The exception might be where a proof die is recognisably different from the working dies used to strike circulation coins. And I'm not sure that I've ever seen such a "different" proof striking. Coupled with the fact that there are probably no existing specimens of freshly struck Victorian circulation coins that have been immediately taken out of circulation and preserved in a collection, it is hard to know how close to "proof condition" an early, well-preserved circulation coin might be. Some of the bronzed proofs are clearly identifiable as proofs but probably because they definitely have never seen circulation. I bid on that 1859 penny at LCA but might have bid higher had I been able to examine it in hand. I did buy an 1860 F6A proof penny from DNW this year but not before I'd discussed its condition with DNW staff and also obtained a guarantee that I could return if not convinced. In hand it has very reflective and "polished" surfaces that satisfy me that it's a proof but photographs just do not capture that aspect. My 1861 F37 proof penny has very sharp edges and teeth but photos of it don't look particularly proof-like, although Colin Adams, who owned the coin previously, clearly considered it to be a proof. Bottom line is that you need to look at it in hand and decide for yourself.

Unbelievable ,i was watching it thinking it might make £450 ish and when it went over £1K ,could not believe what i was looking at. However you look at it though it was a good result for the seller.

Best answer so far......

Someone numerically dyslexic thought they'd got a 1933 for a bargain price?

Peter Andrew alerted me to the 1934 penny that sold in the Heritage auction for $1620 !!!!!!!!!!! https://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-george-v-penny-1934-ms67-brown-ngc-/a/232150-63471.s?ic=homepage-myrecommendations-WorldCoins-item-052114&tab=MyRecommendations-080216

Assume nothing. There were two plume marked 2a halfcrowns in lot 268 (bought by Crowther), one VF and the other nearly so but small. Both had the number of pellets as stops listed, and it doesn't match. We can be reasonably confident the coin was Burstal's despite this inconsistency as the ticket has FOL plus the number and that matches FOL 112 on the two tickets imaged in Eaglen's article. An explanation of what FOL means would be useful with the number change. It's worth noting that one of the tickets in the BNJ with FOL 112 on it was acquired from Seaby in 1948, so this may have been acquired prior to that date. Other disposals noted in Manville & Robertson were made in 1957, but that was milled silver, and 1984 was hammered gold. I don't have old man Burstal's catalogue, so can't check that. On somewhat more solid ground. Hawkins 2a and Francis 2a with mm. plume are the same. Not in Francis is correct. None of the 17 obverse readings used HIBE. The 5 after the lower 2a must refer to the Francis harp type as it is the only flat fronted harp he listed. He doesn't list a plume marked reverse with 5 pellets left/1 pellet right of mark, but notes 2 reverses for the following mark rose. The first has a different harp to that seen, but significantly this harp is used on the second rose marked reverse (Francis 5), with the added bonus of Francis noting that it has a pellet each side of and between C R. I think we can eliminate the 5 as referring to the reverse number as the mark is wrong. It is therefore worth checking any rose marked examples with this pellet feature to see if this is the same die recut with the new mark. If it is, it would probably place the die right at the end of plume. Brooker 301 uses the same harp, but is a different reverse die. He didn't have an obverse reading HIBE either. S2113 places that prior to 1977 when the Seaby references changed. Thinking out loud, I wonder if he passed a number of coins to offspring, as the number of Tower halfcrowns in the '68 sale was little more than a type collection exercise.