oldcopper

They need to quickly stick on a saleroom notice saying it has been withdrawn. Presumably the catalogue had made it to the printers before they were informed. Hopefully they're not going to "double down". I presume the faker changed parts of the design so as to evade the accusation of making an intentional counterfeit. I'd love to know its "provenance" and who entered it for sale right at the last minute - did they buy it in good faith (and then who from?) or are they trying to pull a fast one?

This is coming up in the next DNW general sale - an 1859 proof penny, or is it? It's either an exciting new variety to rival the Medusa penny, or it's a fake. I'm going with fake, but perhaps it needs to be seen in the hand. It's got poor blobby legends, especially the date, nothing like the real 1859 proof date. Badly drawn underneath of Victoria's eye, back fillet more bordered, under-fillet finely lined. Also the top of the ponytail isn't struck up properly plus part of her hair by the temple. These bits are struck up on currency but if it is a much later striking, maybe they wouldn't necessarily be. The reverse, raised peripheries on the shield bars, different and wavy scale edging. The weight is 19.96g; this is very overweight, some 1841 proofs are just over 19g, but I don't know any Victoria copper penny this heavy. And it looks like a Patina-type copy. But maybe I'm wrong - perhaps some Mint employee was playing around with the currency dies in the 1860's. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=626&lot_uid=418653 Here's that recent London Coins proof penny for comparison: and an 1859 currency penny for comparison: https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?lot_uid=399839

Sorry my memory failed me - Spink graded it EF with weak patches at the Hopetown House sale, but it did go for less than the 1672 and 1675's also graded EF in that sale. The last bit stands though - that's definitely true about lustre!

It was ex Hopetown House 1989 Spink auction where Spink also graded it VF. So DNW probably just lifted the grade. At that sale, there were better Charles II halfpennies, so that probably depressed the grade. I think that's psychology though - I find the same with lustre, a lustrous coin looks far brighter if placed next to a lower lustre example but not so good when placed next to a more lustrous one.

Here's another: This was graded VF in 2013 DNW auction, MS63 in Heritage Auctions 2014 sale. You can see where the grading comes from for both auction companies, but one takes the poor strike (and perhaps stain) into account and the other doesn't.

I wonder what the slabbers were thinking. Perhaps it's better in the hand.

Never checked out Auction World before - they had another 1841 proof penny this time last year as well on sixbid archive - but that looks like copper rather than bronzed PF63 - 520000Y. I liked their completely uncleaned 1826 proof halfcrown PF62

although if that's the hammer price, once you've paid the premium plus import tax etc, it'll be over 5K. Still worth it - they're >10x rarer than the 1839.

That is a very good price. I'd have bought it.

Prices were as usual very high for many things - the 1730 silver farthing went for $7,500 hammer which is ~£7,000 including premium etc. They are rarer than the George I equivalents but that was still a lot!

A Spink SNC from the 70's or 80's specifically commented on these 1889 proof pennies, saying that they thought from their appearance they were not genuine proofs. I don't know which issue the comment was in, and they may have been mistaken but that was one of their cataloguer's views.

I have seen a similar "marbled" effect on 1850's proof Victoria pennies before - Mark Rasmussen's 1859 proof in list 14: and the 1856 proof penny last sold LCA 2009: The only thing that I would be concerned about with LCA's 1859 proof is the apparent wear ie lighter tone to the highpoints of the hair. But it might look different in the hand.

Coming up in the Feb DNW auction, this bun head penny is described as being on a halfpenny flan. It looks too big for that but maybe I'm wrong. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=625&lot_uid=411115

His mummy's just said he can't go to Peppa Pig World.

Whatever they were drinking they've spilled it all over the coin!

There are various collections in there separately listed, so I think they'll be in there. Not much for me either though.

Very nice - doesn't look as if Spink's die flaw is a die flaw then.

A shilling bust on this pattern halfpenny coming up at Spink. Must be the only time a shilling bust has ever occurred on a pattern for the copper coinage, unless you count those Charles II pattern 1663 "halfpennies" which are probably pattern shillings in copper anyway. https://live.spink.com/lots/view/4-452X7J/victoria-1837-1901-pattern-halfpenny-1859-by-j-wyon-victoria-dei-gratia-no-stops-fille And anyone fancy the no less than 6 1967 pennies, some lustrous, also in that sale! I'm amazed Spink have listed them separately.

Bubbling can be a sign of a cast, caused by trapped air bubbles. if so this would be a forgery. I'm not an expert though, and you should see it in the hand. Also, are you buying it from a reputable source?

Funnily enough I was just looking at SNC June 1987 for something else, and there was an Almost EF one for £140 - so high grade ones do exist. They didn't notice the DFF, but you can see it in the photo.

Yes, it's a fantastic example as they go, but as you say far too marked to justify that grade. It was the jackpot for someone! It would have been nice to get some background info on S. Burchall, whose 200-year-old collection this was. DNW didn't reveal his name when they originally auctioned his coins, so why now? I will ask them the next time I see them.

I think it went for £440 on checking my catalogue, and it went for £900 this time. I quite fancied it but dropped out at £800, beautiful green toning and only one other known according to Martin's survey. Of course I didn't even give it a second glance at that Baldwins sale.

And Colin had all the patterns as well, very comprehensive. It may be that as Ian Sawden only collected the majority of this stuff in a 3 or 4 year window in general about 10 years ago, so he just got hold of as nice stuff as possible that (a) was available at the time, and (b) that he wasn't outbid on. So quite an achievement in that brief timespan. I'm surprised he got so much of his stuff from London Coins if he lived abroad, because they don't have online bidding, so he would have had to get someone to bid for him each time, unless he was temporarily living in the UK at the time. Still he certainly scored with those florin patterns, many bought from LC! One thing he did miss out on (unless he bought and sold it) was the lot immediately following the gilt twopence in the DNW 2010 sale. This was the lustrous currency 2d which went for £850 hammer. It then turned up at Heritage Auctions 6 months later slabbed as an MS66 RB (despite a noticeable depression in the field on the obverse) and fetched > $7000! Now why didn't I bid on that......

Fantastic stuff and curious why Ian Sawden limited his Soho collection to pre-1800, so no 1805 patterns or proofs etc of the 1806/7 issue. Was it personal preference? Excepting the 1780 Droz halfpennies and proofs of similar template to currency pieces, there were few distinctive patterns either, especially pennies - just one helmeted Britannia and one large head 1797 cartwheel penny (and that a restrike) for instance. The 1831 .W.W. went for nearly £1500 all in! One of the nicer ones of course, but still relatively marked compared to the better examples of the main varieties. Mine has an interesting raised die flaw above the last reverse colon, have seen it occasionally elsewhere. Here's LC's only photographed example of another one (not mine):

I wonder who won lot 101, did it carry on to the next page? "Cards" must have meant something else, as gilding them seems a little excessive! Anyone got any bronzed envelopes?