Menger

More likely than what? Michael Gouby’s theory is rather that both 1847/8 and 1848/7 are made with 1847 dies, and both struck in 1848 - but yes the added 8 in the former is not properly over-struck. That makes sense to me. But supposedly the 1847/8 is a much rarer coin and has other distinguishing features (and at least two varieties itself). For this reason it gets distinguished in the reference books - although confusingly sometimes called 1847/6.

Not specifically addressing your question, but somewhat related: I would persevere with NGC. I did and while it took a few follow ups they revisited their categorization of many 1847/8 groats (including mine) v 1848/7 groats, to make the former rarer than the latter. At about the same time they obliterated their 1847 and 1848 3d categories (relegating these wholesale to Maundy - to my great satisfaction) and seemingly they similarly thinned out their 1841 and 1846 3d populations. There seemed to be a recognition that the British population reports need work.

Agreed. Unless there is step change in increased productivity caused by AI and they spend their twilight years in milk and honey.

I think that is right. “Time preference” as the Austrians call it: we are hard wired to want more over less; which boils down to something today rather than tomorrow (we may not be here tomorrow) - unless we perceive what we might get tomorrow as more (better) than what we will get today. In collecting, waiting hopefully pays off (we may get more (better) in the end) but we all have a breaking point where optimism and patience gives way to opportunity and gratification. All this reflects the human condition. That will not change. But as the world becomes more virtual and instantaneous, I expect we will attach evermore value to tangible relics and the long game …

An early, proof-like strike still deserves a premium though. Indeed, it may be more scarce than a genuine proof. So I don’t steer completely clear.

Yes it is possible people just go nuts in auctions when confronted by a bid one increment higher that their max. I am skeptical this is the general state of affairs that explains higher trends in price. From my own introspection, when I have been tempted to bid more than I planned, I would say in retrospect that the process actually better flushed out bids from me that properly reflected the max I would actually pay (rather than hoped to pay). On that theory, I have never bought a coin in an auction for more than just a bit more than someone else actually valued it at that time. (Save for the odd coin I have managed to get with no other bids). My sense is auctions are generally very effective at real price discovery - but with a huge caveat that the market must be liquid (I.e., there must be at least two tangero). This may not be the case for more specialist varieties and wot not. I just picked up 3 modest (but scarce) coins at Noonans that went for a fraction of what I was prepared to pay - my dance partner(s) just failed to show up. Perhaps the music (small silver) was a bit out of fashion? Not that I care.

So the dealers then compete in auctions with the guy they hope to sell to - thus bidding up price?

It takes two to tango, surely?

Yes. It was. It is also a comment on price - and whether price fairly reflects value. With TPG, there is clearly a gap: the market wants TPG (it reduces risk) but TPG often misses value (such as “nice” coins - or coins that some British collector thinks deserve a better grade). That creates an arbitrage opportunity for you to use your noggin and exploit - but in time I expect technology will close the gap and price will more correctly reflect value. That will be good for everyone. The future will be a crack-out.

No doubt some of the price rise since the onset of Covid reflects the liquidity that was pumped into the system - some of that rise will go out with the tide. Longer term, I expect an evermore virtual world will create more demand for irreplaceable artifacts from the old world - like coins. I also expect the price gap between top quality and the rest will widen as technology connects more demand to a fairly static and scarce supply. The great arbitrage will be to recognize the quality that the grading companies miss: this may be technical (under-grading) or rare varieties (that TPG does not yet recognize) or the current undervaluation of particularly “nice” coins that are below the radar of TPG (based on a purely technical grade) - but may well be validated by future technologies that have more nuance (such as AI). The future is a crack-out.

Indeed. Patriotism is a belief in something bigger, it provides individual meaning and group solidarity. As such it has much in common with religion and ideology. Humans need something to cohere and to avoid nihilism (or to avoid being engulfed by manias - as we have recently witnessed). An inclusive patriotism such as Britishness (I.e., not based on race, religion or ideology) seems to me potentially more inclusive and durable than alternatives such identity politics, “social justice”, climate activism or scientistism. It has certainly proven its worth over the centuries and to this day. I have lived in Cuba, France, Japan and the UK and in all of these I feel a sense of nation is critical to the vibrancy of the culture and people’s well-being. As George Orwell noted in the Lion and the Unicorn - the left has tended to scoff at patriotism as inferior to ideology. I think Orwell was perspicacious in recognizing that his freedom to freely hold an ideology at the time depended on British patriotism. (Or a sense of “Englishness” as he called it in his essay).

Hmmm. Didn’t infection rates increase after the jab roll out? Most people I know (except myself) got it only after being vaccinated. Personally I know nobody who had any major issue with Covid, but I do know half a dozen people who developed problems after the vaccine - including POTS, Mast Cell Activation Syndrome, hypotension, hearing loss, palpitations, placental abruption. So my sense is the roll out to everyone (not just the vulnerable, like my mum) was reckless. More politics than science. However, temporal correlation is not causation, and anecdote is statistically irrelevant, so please take my observations with a pinch of salt. Perhaps it was all safe and effective just as planned …

I don’t think people begrudge paying for what they don’t directly benefit from so much as paying for something that they feel condescends them. You may be right. Perhaps nothing will be done. Or the BBC may just fade away. However, I fear that the Garry episode has emboldened; it may double down - then go with a pop!

I don't think any impartially is deliberate. Rather, analogous to a fish in water: a particular worldview and value set at the BBC (and many other establishment institutions) has become so pervasive that it has ceased to be perceived as a particular worldview and value set at all. Except by the half of the country that don’t share it. That is a problem for a license fee model - hence why the top brass were keen to mute Gary.

I dunno. I suspect the bosses at the beeb are concerned that Gary rather reflects consensus opinion within the organization. They are acutely aware of the political embarrassment of this for their funding - predicated as it is on impartiality - hence their manoeuvres to silence Gary. The BBC staff that circulated the wagons are, like Gary, simply less strategic than the top brass. Surely.

Yup. But here you are using “racism” in its conventional sense. The whole basis of “racism” in the newfangled sense (which has been adopted by at least the woke left, BLM - and much of the corporate sector in the west - as well as the universities, civil service, military, among others) is that “intent” or “individual belief” (or ideology) is not a relevant. What matters is disparate outcomes (or participation) between racial groups. That is racist. In this way capitalism, the West, golf and the countryside have each been called “racist”. I dare say coin collecting is a little racist too by the same metric. Got to keep up with the times!

I guess the modern definition of racism (at least on the left?) focuses on disparities of outcome between racial groups. This is why, say, “whiteness” (aka bourgeois culture) can be regarded as “racist” - because it is seen as exclusionary of other culture in its effect (not intent). As such, the intent of “racists” is no longer a relevant factor - one can be racist irrespective of intent. So there may be more racists than bigots (I.e., racists who are not bigots) - as bigotry requires an intent to unreasonable and obstinately hold onto bad ideas. Ama wrong? (Only teasing. Of course racists are bigots. Not least advocates of discrimination policies, quotas and wot not.)

BBC policies are just seeking to protect our national institution. Ideally, the BBC would allow broadcasters to express personal politics - such that we could receive a diversity of perspectives. The BBC is more realistic: a lack of diversity would undermine claims to impartiality, put at risk the £12 public funding - and so the existence of the BBC.

I think these are “proof” - but they are horizontal axis strikes; maundy in the proof sets of this year were vertical axis strikes. I thus suspect these coins were part of one of the 1839 proof sets reportedly produced in later years. To me this adds to the fascination of the coins. Sadly I am missing the penny (they came with what was clearly a standard Maundy penny - without the same mirror fields, polish marks and frosty devices). Please let me know if you have or ever see a horizontal axis struck “proof” (like) penny that is available!! The die crack in the 3d is identical to that in an NGC graded proof Maundy set currently for sale by Atlas Numismatics - and I suspect that set also was a later strike. (Which would explain the imperfections such as the die crack and less than perfect denticles). I am interested if anyone else in the forum has a different theory on what these may be - or has seen similar.

It cannot be studied empirically because human preferences vary one person to the next and don’t stay still even for any one person. The amount I will bid is different from you and may change minute to minute - even for identical coins. Logically, however, we can deduce that if someone values a coin more than a given sum of money and less than a incrementally greater sum of money (at a point in time) their bid will (counter factually) go up and down inversely with BP. Presenting only the hammer price in an auction (rather than the total with BP, as Heritage does) cannot change this logic but may cause people to make “mistakes” and bid a sum of money that they value more than the coin. I have done that many times - but I would suggest that it may not be a case of forgetting the BP; rather, in the split second of the bid, I valued the coin more than the money. It was after the hammer fell that I reappraised, my preferences changed - and my hunger switched to regret. The excitement of auctions are designed to exploit this human foible. It is a price we pay for the game - and possibly worth the adrenaline in my view.

I don’t believe BP makes a jot of difference for dealers (when buying) because I don’t think BP affects the overall price. Buyers adjust their bids to factor in the BP - so the overall price stays the same. BP only affects dealers who then on-sell through an auction - because they effectively pay it at that time (as a seller) to receive their net proceeds.

Me too. I adjust my bids in light of the total hammer and BP. That is why BP is really a seller’s fee - not a buyer’s fee. If buyers bid the same no matter the premium it would effectively be a fee on buyers - but that is not the case.

“Buyers’ premium” is really just another form of “Sellers’ fee”, because generally buyers care only about how big a pie they need to exchange for a coin - not a jot how the pie is sliced between the auction house, seller and tax man. It is possible larger or smaller buyers’ premium could have a psychological effect in a particular instance - but in the long run and over buyers broadly, bigger fees just means lower bids and vice versa. Indirectly, because larger buyers fees reduce net proceeds to sellers, it may constrain supply - which will in turn bid up prices, so self correct - but not necessarily so if the auction house merits its cut by better matching supply and demand; and not if other auction houses do better for less.

My boys (9 and 12) are nuts about collecting Pokémon cards. They have no real interest in coins, but they fully grasp the collecting passion. I suspect that passion is part of the human condition, affects a small minority more than most - and perhaps men more than women. I don’t think money evolving from gold to coins to cheques to credit cards to something else will have any impact at all. I don’t think the association between money and what we collect is relevant - unless you collect the coins of your youth. I collect mainly Victorian. I expect premium tangible artifacts from pre-digital times will only become more sought after as the world becomes evermore virtual - and as networks evolve to better connect sellers and buyers. In this context (short term bubbles apart) coins are well placed for a host of reasons: scarcity, size, prettiness, durability, sophistication of the numismatic art. I also think numismatics will benefit from the inevitable end of woke historical revisionism, once it has run its course - as many societies go through cycles of embracing or rejecting their history. (Perhaps numismatics are already beneficiaries as a refuge to that.) I don’t see woke revisionism lasting in my kids’ generation. They and their friends seem as mythed by it as me. A renaissance may be due …

In my collecting sphere, the same could be said for the various proof groats (from 1837, 1853, 1857 and 1862) with anachronistic obverses from later decades. They are “fakes” in a sense, but possibly more valuable than the real McCoy because of their added rarity. On the other hand, high prices for the Maundy masquerading as key date 3d are a case of the market having imperfect knowledge - which I expect will correct.