oldcopper

Sounds right to me, though I was more interested in the price of curly-wurlies then! Have you got any more of those lists?

Thanks Rob, you've got a real collector's item there! I think it's 1975, reading the small print. Inflation 20-30% and John Minshull trying to book a holiday for 1975 in 1974. A couple of years before my time. I think my first one was 77 or possibly 76. Pale blue unfolded A4 with a spine binder (unlike later ones, all after that were just stapled until I stopped getting them in 82-83). I also remember he was very pleased with his new typewriter which could do all these new fonts. Mr MInshull (I was only a boy then!) always liked to big up a special coin on the front cover (like the Cromwell farthing here), one time he had a 1685 Charles II farthing and he really went to town on the description of that one!

People say John Minshull is somewhere in the US these days if he's still alive. I would love to see an old Farthing Specialist catalogue from the late 70's/early 80's. That would be a trip down memory lane, always an exciting event every 6 months or so when a new one turned up.

80K +premium =£100K. Mark Rasmussen had it in his list 9 (circa 2005 I'm guessing) for £37,500 (before he tried to sell it this time), so a near 200% rise in asking price over 15 years is pretty good going, well above inflation. I don't know what it fetched at its original Baldwin's sale of 1997, but would have been less than 37K (at a guess 25K hammer) I would presume. Anyway, I came to this site via Predecimal Foreplay - that's for the not so sprightly of us......

I was talking about this coin when I commented elsewhere and as I observed, the Internet live bid site said "current bid 80K" and "bid £85K." Which must have confused everyone as no-one had bid 80K. So I suppose someone would have picked it up for 80K afterwards. The coin looks lacquered to me but this hasn't been mentioned. Still, difficult to get a better one!

I don't know if anyone else noticed but I think St James internet bidding site was playing up or being incorrectly used by the auctioneers: eg if the opening ask was 80K, bid button should have said 80K; instead it said 85K, the next up, and the 80K "ask" was described as "80K opening bid". The absence of any bid was then confirmed when the coin end up "passed". So it wasn't the opening bid, it was the opening ask. No-one's going to bid 85K online when the coin is really available at 80K (but there was no button for that!) I think this happened quiet a few times.

Doesn't say anything about that on the website, don't forget it's the 11th today. I'd expect it to be up tomorrow as it's a timed auction. If not, then we need to worry...

OK, here's the link anyway: https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital BNJ/pdfs/1967_BNJ_36_26.pdf Perhaps it's in some addenda, or other section.

It's in British Numismatic Journal, 1967, p196-8 and is on a web as a PDF - it was a list of new varieties that Peck would presumably have added in a 3rd addition of his book, if he'd had time to update it. But unfortunately he died the next year. Also is 1882 penny no H, and other interesting ones. Put "Peck BNJ 1967" into Google and scroll down to "....miscellanea - British Numismatic Society"

He missed the gold bunhead halfpenny of 1887. Still everyone else seems to have missed this one. BNJ 1967 p196-8, Peck's addendum to his 2nd addition. Item 24 (ref BMC p440). Examined by Peck: Victoria halfpenny in gold, specimen of BMC 1843 (weight 226.9 grains). Owned by Spink at the time....what happened to that?

Should be similar to their normal auctions, customer number, password and internet connection.

I think it's I think Spink is just understaffed so the coins side is often a last minute job. The stamps catalogues seem to go up far earlier but I think stamps are bigger hitters than the coins for Spink on the whole. In my experience Spink are generally the last ones to get their coin catalogues ready in contrast to the other auctioneers. So a Spink catalogue will sometimes only turn up a week or even a few days before an auction as compared to several weeks for the typical DNW cat for example. Still, you've got 2 weeks to think about it from the start date. Hopefully that will be enough time!

I've seen snippets on Talking Pictures channel which sometimes shows it. I'll wait till the next showing!

Surely your favourite combination of trains and old black and white movies must be Will Hay's Oh Mr Porter, but that's a thirties film?

IMO it doesn't help that so little of the 1694-1701 coinage exists today in the higher grades - the usual bad production values and wear. A fully struck up and unworn W&M or William III final issue 1/2d (1699-1701) are magnificent. The trouble is the only fully detailed W&M halfpennies are the proofs (and the best 1694 proofs have virtually vanished since the Nicholson sale of 2004) and only a handful of exceptional currency pieces exist. The George I dump 1/2's are easier to find fully struck up and are neat coins I agree but the 2nd issue (plain strap) is very difficult and more often than not poorly struck on the laurels/hair, not so appealing thus. I've never really enjoyed the GI 1/4's as much but again the dumps and their proofs are generally the best struck and most appealing. IMO again, Roettier's and William Wyon's Britannias are definitely the most beautiful ones.

Heaton were also producing most of our regal copper coinage in these years.

It means Russian of course.

If memory serves me right, up to about 2001, 1853 proof pennies were more expensive than their 39 counterparts. Then over the next few years the 53s lost value. I thought at the time this was mainly due to the fact that of the few examples until the late 2000's to come to market, there weren't any good ones that I spotted. eg Colin Adam's (Spink 2003) had a big spot in front of the bust, and I think that started a trend which has only been reversed in the last few years. Of course there may have been other reasons, eg first year of issue of Vic pennies and a proof-only date, but the 39 is about twice as common as the 53, so the 53 should hold it's own to say the least. The 1841's are slightly heavier on thicker flans than most of the other proof pennies (that I've seen) so is a distinctive type. Sometimes people sell the no colon variety as a proof, but I don't know if the examples are 100% credible.

(Cu valency 1 is cuprous, valency 2 is cupric). Anyway, my main reaction is...uhhhh??

I saw the 1919KN at the last DNW where it went for £1000, colour was quite good, but somewhat optimistically called "full original colour". I was put off slightly by the bad definition/fuzziness of the reverse strike with the KN visible but virtually illegible. That's usually more a characteristic of the Heaton 18/19 pennies. Still, a rare coin in this condition.

I've always assumed verdigris was also known as ""carbon spots" because it is principally copper carbonate, which is that characteristic green colour, formed by reaction of the copper with oxygen and carbon dioxide (that's where the "carbon" bit in the carbonate comes from). The formation is catalysed by moisture (like the formation of rust), so keeping coins dry will inhibit its formation. As I said above, I think foreign matter landing on the surface has caused the verdigris plus perhaps Nickel reaction in this case. Seriously though, CGS should rigorously check the surfaces are speck free before sealing the slab. I think they should give a refund for this.

If you notice it's a chunk of foreign matter with verdigris radiating from it. So a speck of some oily corrosive material, almost certainly biological, has landed on the coin, during or just before slabbing, and started its insidious effect from there. Unfortunately that spot may spread out further over time, unless that central lump is removed.

Don't wish to be too picky but I thought there was a hint of an edge bruise between the 5 and the 9 of the date. Nice colour though. This Heritage "Lake Collection" offering was a very interesting one - the only coin I recognised or could spot from an old catalogue was the Dick Ford Jersey 1865 1/13 proof (Spink Auction ~1990). So I presume he bought this (I'm assuming it's a he) in 1990 or later via a dealer. I didn't recognise any of the rest of the copper so I think the collector probably had most of these for several decades.

It's that Pywell-Phillips/LCA one again. They just can't keep it down!

Just checked the other examples - as expected the 2 9's aren't touching so yours is from a different die and thus is more doubtful as a BRITAN-IA. The BM doesn't have a specimen but instead have a cut-out photo of a reverse of this type with Peck's acknowledgement written on the back that he agrees that the variety is valid. As for the 1697 missing N variety, the fact you can clearly see a faint N on the Peck plate coin indicates not one of Peck's finer moments! The obvious reason is uneven "camber" (is that the right word?) of the 2 dies giving a weak patch top left reverse when brought together. The one in the Bates collection resold early 2019 also showed part of a faint N (as do all others provided they're not too worn). So this variety shouldn't be classed as a missing letter variety: https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=326816