Menger

I suspect graffiti/cleaning appears to afflict rarer coins because more common coins that have graffiti or cleaning have over time been jettisoned from the worldwide pool of collectible coins. Graffiti is not an evolutionary advantage in coin-world - unless particularly artful. A Bansky perhaps …

Thanks. That is right. ESC lists it as 3357 R5. I also have a 1853 proof groat muled with the forth young head 3d obverse (attached). As these young head obverses did not appear until the late 1860’s and 70’s respectively, presumably the coins were some kind of restrike / hanky panky by the mint. That is why I wonder if the lines reflect some deliberate scoring by the mint - some kind of lining up muled parts as they experiment to create a new Frankenstein? The legend on the reverse of the 1862 is all over the place - with the U back to front!

Thanks. The lines on the 4d seem quite considered though - as if somehow dividing up the design to some end. That is clearly the case in the US coin example above. I wonder if the mints themselves engaged in such exercises. It would certainly take some skill to mark up a tiny groat.

Correction - The mule is 3d obverse young head #3 not #2 as stated above.

Someone kindly shared this - which seems more accomplished.

The heavy scoring

Close up

The effigy on the 2d in my 1852 Maundy set appears to be punched down 0.7mm too much across the top of the head, brow and nose. I have not come across this “error” before. Have you?

No. You may be able to see in the photo - there is a straight edge along the hair, brow and nose. If is clearly part of the original minting - as I say, as if a punch for the effigy had been pressed into the die just a little too far and thus imprinting not only the effigy but a straight section of the punch tool. (I have no idea if that is how a die is actually made). NGC graded it MS66 so they seem to have seen it as original minting process. For what it is worth, the other pieces in the Maundy set are entirely normal. I will have to keep an eye out to see if other 2d in other 1852 Maundy sets have this same feature.

Sorry - perhaps it is not clear in the photo. The effigy has a “rim” around it (especially around the hair, brow and nose) as if the entire device has been pushed down too far into the die. I am not sure how the mint makes such a device on a die - but if it punches it in (as for the legend) it looks as if the man with the hammer gave it one or two whacks too many.

To add to my rant (and clarify) - without a value aside speculative value, there is nothing for the market to peg a value to. My sense is this will prevent crypto attainting price stability - critical for a store of value and so for money. And so the original investment assumption was flawed. In other words, It is a tulip not gold. You are welcome, Elon.

As I see it, the fundamental, initial assumption behind investment in Bitcoin was that it will become “money”. People have then speculated on its continued price rises. By “money”, I mean “a generally accepted means of exchange”. I think to become a “generally accepted means of exchange”, people would also need to value it also as a “store of value” (otherwise, a chunk of people will not accept it in exchange - so it won’t become “money”). I don’t believe it will ever be a “store of value” as unlike other money it has no value aside a means of exchange (as gold can be put in teeth; even fiat money can be used to settle tax liabilities) - except evidently as a means of speculation. This absence of value aside its use as means of exchange (except for speculation) means (unlike gold and fiat) it can (in theory) have zero value. As a purely speculative instrument (not “money” and not “store of value”), I expect it will test that zero value one day.

My guess is that crypto will touch zero before my said PF66+ 1934 3d from the Spink sale. But the crypto may be worth a bit more first.

There may be people who will only buy from one place or another - but I don’t think that captures fully what is going on. Personally I will buy from anywhere (auction, dealer, private, eBay) and I will pay what I can afford over what I think is the market price - on the basis that I value it more than the market and / or (wishfully thinking) the market will perhaps catch up with me one day … I suspect what is also going on is that there is more information available (albeit imperfect, including a putative grade) and more accessible means of buying globally. The result is that discerning buyers are creating price differentials between what they want (illogical as it may seem to others) and what they don’t. Or at least what they know about and what they don’t.

Cheers. I had to Google Norweb - it is good to see such a prestigious collector had an eye for these coins. My sense also has been that the proof George V 3d (which are the only ones I follow) were going relatively cheaply in auction records relative to the quality and scarcity. So perhaps higher prices were to be expected. Then again, while these do have very high rarity ratings, that needs to be attenuated by the fact that they are available for half a dozen years and so not cumulatively as rare as the R number might suggest. Either way, it will be interesting to see if the prices revert or stay aloft.

I took the 3d. Quite a bit more than I paid for a 1935 PF66 3d a year or so ago. But then I paid less than I expected over the weekend for a high grade Hogarth & Erichsen 3d token - so it averaged out at what I was expecting. NGC did not seem to have any other PF 3d for 1934 so perhaps they are a little scarcer. In any case, it was all less than the ¥4m for 1838 gold 3d that sold today at Auction World in Tokyo.

I believe I have seen it work the other way too - in that some proofs get wrongly slabbed as MS grades by TPG companies that are either conservative or beholden to only listed varieties. Where that is the case, and an auction house catalogues it as a proof, an opportunity may arise to buy the coin when the other bids are on the slab. I guess the challenge is knowing when the slab is the one which is wrong!

I will try to track down your discussions on the topic of Maundy v currency 3d. As a collector of both Maundy and 3d and 4d it is a topic dear to my heart. The reason I moved to focus on Maundy sets was precisely the difficulty in identifying true currency 1840s and 1850s 3d, especially for the key dates. I had thought the irregular colons in the 1848 3d in the Portland collection may have distinguished it from the more regular colons I have seen in Maundy sets that year - but it seems you are less convinced. At least 4d don’t suffer the same affliction.

Were there any in particular you were concerned about? I noted that the 1847 3d had the same die crack through the 3 on the reverse as the Maundy 3d in the same collection. The 1848 3d seemed good condition for a currency but it did not have the same regular colons that seem to be a feature of many Maundy 3d of that year. I bought bought 3ds: 1854, 1855 and 1858 - I am certain the first two are currency. The 1858 is a little refined but it does have the same look as a 1861 young head one that I own and know to be currency (because the Maundy had YH2 that year, I believe).

It was a fantastic sale. I managed to get several in the auction and then picked up several more (at a higher price) on eBay. Not optimal. I was interested to see that the 1887 YH4 proof 3d (graded MS) was reauctioned in September. I will be looking out for other pieces from the collection’, especially the threehalfpences and some of the Maundy. Very nice pieces all around.