oldcopper

I think the truth has definitely changed with this one in the last 4 months.

Yes, shame the blue toner has added >$10K to the price!

Put us all out of our misery:

Just spotted this at Atlas: anyone recognise it? (trick question, I do): a snip at $14,500 for the discerning collector PR65BN.

And could be the ANNA SLABBA INCOMPETENS legend variety.

Hope it's not one of those fake Godless that were doing the rounds not so long ago in "NEF" condition. The colour does seem suspiciously uniform!

Looked at Peck earlier and the of two obverses it could be, KH22 and KH23, Peck says the only difference is a flaw on the first G of GEORGIUS in KH23 - I can't seen it at all in Peck's plaster cast photograph of KH23! Perhaps other people can spot it. However, your photographs give better resolution I suspect, and I can't see any flaw on these either.

I've just checked and P.1242 is KH21 and has 3 dots instead of a K on the truncation. https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?lot_uid=404661

I haven't got Peck to hand but from memory isn't P.1242 the copper proof with a sequence of dots instead of or next to the K? It's not the 1233-1235 series as it lacks the die flaw on the drapery (I can't see it), so is it the bronzed analogue (P.1244?) of the gilt P.1243. I take it it's got an engrailed edge. There may be other choices though but P.1244 is the common alternative to P.1234 I guess. From memory again I say quickly!

Thanks Rob - very interesting. Fascinating about the removal of the graffiti and possible plugging.

He's missing some biggies - Anne Vigo 5 guineas, Wm IV crown in gold. I think it's more a type set from the look of it. It looks like the Slaney Petition crown, not the better Glenister one. But on the whole, I might consider swapping my collection for his......

Yes, amazing! I recognise the 1853 proof set, with that distinctive die flawed halfpenny - ex Norweb and The New York Sale of several years ago. Surprised he hasn't given provenances, some of these pieces must have pretty spectacular ones.

It's just been withdrawn.

Well spotted!! It is that coin with all its plasticky quirks. Latest offer £1.18. Could go lower! That seller's page needs to go direct to DNW, this is what they say, memo to DNW: our store only sell for the copy coin, so please do not treat it as the original coin,I sell these replica coins just to make your collection more perfect.

They need to quickly stick on a saleroom notice saying it has been withdrawn.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.