oldcopper

DNW sometimes put in a minimum bid for a non-starter (ie put a bid on it themselves if none other is forthcoming), so possibly no-one bought the 1860 F6a proof penny. I know this because they offered me a swap for a coin I bought a few years ago (someone else had put in a considerably higher max bid on the internet but their computer system had missed it - oops). Anyway, their offered swap was a "discounted" coin that supposedly sold at their auction the day before. Fortunately I'd paid for the coin by then so I wasn't tempted - their swap coin was not very tempting either (a corroded tin farthing), discount or no discount! Probably most auctioneers do this - I knew LCA did.

I agree - but I think it looks more worn if there is lightness on the high points and is often graded accordingly.

Thanks, that's a new one to me. Perhaps a facet of US coinage more than here?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by die-adjustment strikes - is this double-striking?

If the worn high points are a different colour, it's "wear". If they've toned down to the same colour as the rest of the coin, it's a "soft strike". So I think in many cases it's a load of blarney - I don't think in many cases anyone can tell the difference, especially, say, of early copper. Anyway, to me it's academic, the coin should be graded in relation to a really good example, whether it's thought of as soft strike or worn. Same standards should apply, they're both a weakness and result in a bad appearance. Unfortunately, in the slabbing world, I don't think they've come across many really good examples (I'm thinking of 17th C copper here). That's why you see eg Charles II halfpennies, graded VF here, getting MS grades over there. In the case of weak areas on otherwise strongly struck coins, again this is a grey area with some people taking it into account more than others. And don't start me on tin! My advice is, find an example you like, and pay accordingly. Due to all the variables, the assigned grade can be somewhat random. I've seen examples change grade markedly over the years, and from the same dealers as well.

It should be 5%. I did manage to reclaim it a couple of years ago when Fedex mistakenly charged 20%, but it took some time. You've also got to insure the shipment yourself if you don't want to take the risk.

That's the difference I always spot, as it's really easy. I don't think it's mentioned in Peck though. Peck will list other differences but probably harder to see straightaway.

Yes, I've just looked at the London Coins source picture and it is KP17, P1123.

I would call it as a Soho proof due to the small curved line coming down from the King's ear. This is indicative of one of the KP types but as I haven't got Peck to hand I can't specify which (it may be the one with P1123 in it).

It's still mainly (~70%) bronze though. They did add some bronze penny groups recently.

The normal N variety is much rarer than the reversed N, so that's an even better find.

I think Heritage stick on the estimates when the bidding starts (23rd July)

I've bought a couple of coins from them - very happy with them.

Here's that "mule" I mentioned: https://www.spink.com/lot/16004000792 The moral of the story is: professional cataloguers don't always know what they're talking about!

For that F6a, they're obviously going on the reflective surface only. With the deterioration of beading and wear on Britannia plus no special sharpness, hopefully the description will get corrected before long. Unless they know something we don't..... A few years ago, Spink sold a described beaded/toothed mule penny (as described and illustrated) for 1600 hammer (if I remember rightly).....except it wasn't, it was a simple F10, with the slightly different toothed borders each side. Oh dear!

The trouble is, what you can see under the verdigris....looks even worse!

In case you're wondering how I know it's got a thin line emanating from either end, I have an example with this die flaw which I can look at under strong magnification!

Sorry, the link doesn't work, but I can copy the picture: it's Lot 2871, auction 7/12/2014. If you can't see this, check out the LC archive.

The strange oval lump above the final colon is a die crack with a thin raised line running from either end of it. Here is an example from London Coins: http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=149&l=2399&f=r&s=l Most .W.W pennies don't have this lump so whether it is from a different die or just the later stage of the main die, I don't know. Detailed comparison would be needed. As to the scarcity of WW versus 1837, Bramah states that out of every 100 Wm IV pennies, 59 are 1831 and 11 are 1837. Then he gives the ratio of 1831's as approx. 4:1 non-WW : WW, (ie giving about 12 WW's out of 59 1831's). This indicates that the WW and 1837 are about the same rarity. I would think that the much great availability of good condition 37's over WW's is probably due to the 37's being kept as mementos as the King died in June 1837.

Yes, the .W.W is much rarer than the 1837. I have hardly ever seen a really superb one - this is definitely one of the better ones.

Has anyone else noticed something strange about Lot 107, the 1853 proof halfpenny, in Spink's recent U.S. Numismatic Collectors' Series 17th April 2018 (Auction 340)? Sadly, I cannot paste the images (as I have the computer savviness of a 4-year-old), but you can see it on Spink's Prices Realised section. Don't think I've ever seen a copper Vic Halfpenny with such obvious missing stops, sort of brings the "proof" description into question as well.

An interesting anomaly then, if the stops weren't filed off later (doesn't look that way though, clean fields where the stops should be) and I wouldn't have thought three blocked stops would suddenly appear without any intermediate stages being known. I hope the buyer appreciates it. Perhaps we'll see it slabbed at $3K in a couple of weeks at you-know-where. I agree that it's very unlikely to be a proof unless it was some pointless Mint trial (Excuse me, Mr Chief Engraver, I've missed out one and a half colons if that's OK. Yes, no problem!).

I did enquire of Spink USA (before I noticed the missing stops!) and the coin is reverse upright, so it's not P1540. As we all know, the pennies, pre-1850 especially, suffer from missing stops, but to see it on a halfpenny is definitely unusual. Possibly it's a Bramah variety, I'll check when I get home. I ran through London Coins archive for 1853 halfpennies (currency and proofs) and all those photographed had complete stops.

Sorry, it has just opened after I submitted the above message. Geronimo!

https://www.spink.com/lot/340000107 Thanks Rob, though it doesn't seem to want to open for me. Am I doing this right?