Leaderboard

Whilst the interest in collecting from change may fade away, the interest in rarities, especially nice ones, is likely to be subsumed into the general collector desire for quality rarities seen across all spheres. Otherwise, how do you explain the prices paid for hammered coins, none of which circulated in living memory. Their desirability stems from the history and all coins are part of that same history. Not all denominations have a large following, but one day their turn will come when relative rarities are fully appreciated. Take halfpennies. Much rarer than pennies in top grade because alongside farthings, they were the mainstay of the working class cash economy. That means a high grade example is always a good long term bet given they weren't normally set aside and collected per se. It is a common thread throughout history. Look at Roman sestertii as an example. These were the circulating base coinage of the Roman era, and again, not something the rich and famous would set aside. However, the Bolsena Hoard found in the late 19th century in northern Italy provides ample evidence that even 1700 years ago someone thought them collectable. As the hoard contained a large number of top grade sestertii spanning a few centuries, it beggars belief that they were collected from circulation. The hoard only makes sense as a collection. i.e. we are just the latest in a long history of people who collect from interest, rather than as an investment. As I wrote in my testimony to Cope part 2. We 'met' on ebay. He, as my regular nemesis, eventually asking if I was a copper collector. Silly and obvious really. When we had both bid over twice book on a lustrous 1718 halfpenny that came back in the sale as a 65RB, it was clear that we both appreciated the relative quality of the coin, and how infrequently they turn up. High grade modern pennies will also fall into that same collectable category once enough have been melted and are no longer readily available, and this might happen sooner than you think. In the past 20 years, I estimate that I have consigned somewhere near a ton of bronze to be melted of all denominations. Why? Because nobody wanted them, so you melt to free up cash. The odd rare piece will have gone through undetected, but the vast majority will have been worth scrap value. I am not alone in having done this. This will increase the relative abundance of the rarities over time. Every dog has its day, and as far as I can see, always will do so on a recurring basis.

I now have my own New model crown and a total beauty it is to I got it for less than three figures so am really happy its in about EF grade

I have been giving my unwanted pennies to a charity shop (animal not human they are too greedy) and when I go in to see how they fared they are always sold out, apparently its youngsters going in to buy them, so maybe its an upward trend, hopefully

The problem with spurious Mint emissions is that a deliberate anomalous product commands a much higher price than a random blank picked up and thrown in the bucket for use. i.e. if you could prove it was a striking specifically tied to a certain mint action, such as trying out a regular mix on a different thickness blank, or a test for a new currency contract from a foreign country, you will do better than the unintended oddball. Wrong flans occur regularly, which is not surprising given the billions of blanks cut every year. Clearly even a hundred wrong'uns would be extremely rare, but in the context of mint operations would only amount to a rounding error if checked for weight. So to consider the above point, it is definitely not common, certainly excessively rare (in the context of a currency issue) and maybe even unique. The problem lies in documentation, because errors are by definition, not struck for the records.

Currency. Too many things wrong for a proof. Using Peck's arguments for proof examples, the 1 should be clear of the sea, no flaws and should have a grained edge (which both currency and proofs have). The rims aren't good enough either. Peck also states the currency as having a grained edge in a deep groove, whilst saying the proof is merely grained. Normally this means light oblique graining in the centre of the edge, not in a groove. However, if it wasn't in a groove, there would be no reason to mention the other criteria as this alone would suffice. Muddy waters here. Prooflike examples are frequently encountered, but that is normally an early strike using fresh dies. Not surprising if you think about it, as a resetting of the press will probably require the force to be adjusted to reflect the new positions of the dies, which despite being nearly there, are inevitably going to be a few microns out as a minimum. Think physical length and diameter together with the depth of the relief.

that would go back into the melting pot as a badly struck coin if the mint were doing their job right

14 people watching ! Good luck

I missed it when listed as a BIN which was a pity, Good luck 😀👍.

To me thats what will keep these few and far between and the premium up. @RChris I have had another look tonight trying to find a country the RM has struck coins of a similar weigt and size without any luck.

It has a tiny A+M on the bottom rev exergue which means its a joint effort between Allan and Moore

No reserve......I figure these things will realise their current value. As I said in my OP, I may be wrong but I get the impression demand is not what it was 10 -20 years ago. Am I wrong?

What size is it?

It may or may not attract enough interest to eventually be classed as a variety. Do some research, write an article, and who knows? Gouby listed the 1946 ONE' and claimed it was scarcer than the 1926ME. I used his note in my ultimately successful effort to get Spink to include it in the Standard Catalogue, which would have increased collector interest several times over.

Damn, that's lovely. I'm really much more into silver than bronze coins but that one is so lovely that all I can say is "thank you" for sharing it.

Here are a couple of pennies from the Minster Auction Stu references elsewhere. The first I think is a class 2, though I am unsure which. It has particularly long side fleurs, wedge shaped contraction marks and reversed ‘N’s and I think that the ‘N’ in ‘DNS’ is double barred.

extreme /ɪkˈstriːm/ The word extreme generally describes something that is of the greatest possible degree, intensity, or the farthest from the norm. It can act as either an adjective or a noun, with specific nuances depending on how it is used. [1, 2] Pretty much ‘what it says on the tin’ to quote the old advert. Not easy set a reference point as to what any particular individual would consider extreme as there will be variation of opinion but with experience you will recognise degrees of misalignment of die repairs that are beyond the norm. I would for example consider the F10 ‘triple F’ Penny to be extreme, the side by side 1’s of 1861 and similar.

"Your coin will be carefully packaged in protective materials". WHY???

Rev

And here a penny of Berwick, class Blunt 4a, Withers 5a, pellet on breast and unusual crescent shaped hair. Slightly unusual portrait, any thoughts? Jerry

And the reverse;

Move on!

Just wondered if I could prick the interest of fellow Charles I halfcrown collectors, or ask for opinions I have been concentrating on Tower Mint types this last year or so, here's a montage of my best so far. Some are Brooker and/or Bull plate coins.

Another newbie, apparently a rare die pairing and the illustrated coin for Bull 104a, bt SR Porter 1986 Rose over plume / rose, 14.98g

For your delectation, the latest addition to my small collection of Hereford mint coins, an Aethelred II penny, moneyer Leofgar, from a German auction (total £500 appx). Jerry

I'm struggling to identify this admittedly very well worn piece, which is clearly a York mint issue of (probably ?) Edward III's florin coinage. The reverse has a quatrefoil in the centre, with a fine cross in its centre. I've only ever seen examples before with a pellet or nothing there. Any help much appreciated !

Hello all, Recently picked up this hammered halfpenny. I'm pretty sure it's Henry V due to the annulets on either side of the crown; wrong portrait style for Henry IV. Can't decide if it's class A (emaciated bust, rare) or class C though. I'm leaning towards class A because the annulets don't appear to be broken, and the portrait style seems different to class C coins I've seen photographed online. Anyone know of a photographed class A specimen to confirm ? Thanks, J

A 9mm across half penny. How on earth were these used as currency. It was a real pain to find in the mud! I can really understand how someone would have lost this.

Hello all ! I'm struggling to identify this rather badly struck short cross penny. The mint is obviously London, and I think the moneyer is IOHAN as the final two letters of his name appear to be "AN". The portrait looks like a class 5c (John) to me - but there are no IOHAN ON LUND coins of John, just of Henry II, and the king's hairstyle doesn't look like any of the Henry II types. Anyone got any clues ?

I had this brought to me in the market today. I think I have it right as Henry III voided Long Cross of Class 5 and by Ion of Canterbury, but I am not sure which sub-class. Can someone please help me?

Obverse

Hello chaps, Please could I ask one of the experts a question or two about my Edward I pennies I won today on the Spink auction? First question... where it say in the provenance ii) Elmore-Jones, Glendining, 10 April 1984, lot 1582 - £65 does that mean that the second coin in the description is ex Elmore-Jones collection? Edward I (1272-1307), Pennies (6), Berwick, local dies issue, 1.35g (S.1415); also, Durham, class 9b1, 1.46g (cf. N.1037.1 {for type}; S.1421); additionally, Newcastle (4), class 9b1 (2) with star, 1.38g; and without, 1.31g (N.1037.1; S.1408); also, 9b1/10ab mule, 1.48g (N.1037/38; S.1408/9); lastly, class 10ab, 1.25g, reading hb (N.1039; S.1409), generally very fine, all toned (6). provenance ii) Elmore-Jones, Glendining, 10 April 1984, lot 1582 - £65 Secondly, please could I have a more detailed ID on coin number 5. It's listed as a Newcastle 10ab, but I'd like to know which one of the subgroups if possible (i.e. 10ab1-6). Many thanks, Descartes

has seen better days but thats 3 whole ones from the same area, along with some cut halfs, and my second hammy this year

Hi, I found this coin a couple of weeks back but have only just recently spotted that it reads Henrics and not Henricus. So far I haven’t been able to find any parallels and was hoping you guys might be able to help, thanks. Richard

Hawarden is my preferred choice. Hawarden is 5 miles west of Chester and was in Royalist hands for all bar a few days throughout the war. Crucially, it was also on the road from Mostyn to Chester. Mostyn was where the first contingent of Irish troops under Sir Michael Earnley disembarked around 18-20th November 1643, recapturing Hawarden from Myddleton's parliamentary force on the way to Chester. There are two other HC options in the vicinity - Holt and Halton castles, but Hawarden alone has the necessary body of troops required to justify striking a lot of halfcrowns. 2500 Irish troops couldn't be paid from petty cash, though there is no documentary evidence I am aware of to say they were definitely paid prior to the replacement of Lord Capel at Chester on the 6th December 1643 with Lord Byron. The latter did report to Charles that he had ensured that each common soldier was given food and lodgings, a new suit and half a crown. It may also be pertinent that the locals in Chester were unhappy with the arrival of so many Irish troops, so there would have been a reason to keep them outside the city. The Coat of Arms of the Earldom of Cheshire was three gerbs, note the distinction from those of Chester which additionally has a sword as seen on the CHST below and declaration halfcrowns. If you look at a well struck up mark on the HC halfcrowns, they could equally be construed as three gerbs. See pic below. The punches for these appear to be the same as those used for some of the lion claws on the York reverses. The detail of the HC halfcrown is very much in the style of Thomas Rawlins, and there is some indication of a possible TR monogram signature on the York halfcrowns which are after all a 'Briot' style, though as Briot's understudy, this could equally apply to Rawlins. If you consider the rendering of the horse's mane on the type 6 & 7 halfcrowns at York, they are essentially the same as the HC horse's mane, so I would say it is odds on the same engraver. If you compare them with the York 1C halfcrown for examlpe, they are like chalk and cheese. As I think Rawlins was at York until the autumn of 1643, and the troops arrived from Ireland in the November, this planned in advance, there would be ample time for Rawlins to make the journey down to Chester. As I noted in my article, there appears to be the trace of a lion with three holes for the eyes and mouth and a leg under the O of CAROLVS. If this is just a coincidental flaw, it would be unfortunate, but I don't think it is. Additionally, if it was recut from a York die, there is no way it would be unused for over 2 years. What I am absolutely convinced about however, is that Hartlebury is a non-starter, being the Bishop's residence and essentially unfortifiable. And the 'siege' lasted one day.