Rob

They're a bit bright for me. What many people find incomprehensible is the premium paid by some folks for these. A reality check is in order given the ease with which you too could achieve the same results with a bit of effort. There does seem to be a significant anti-rainbow collecting element from the posts above which is encouraging. I think it was a Churchill crown that someone in the US wanted 5 or 6 hundred dollars for with a similar colour scheme. (greattoning or somebody like that) Nobody in their right mind would pay more than a couple of quid for a good one. Most will remain unloved forever. Well done Eme-bag for spotting a marketing opportunity and patenting the idea. http://www.eme-bag.com/about.php

Hmm .. there is that aspect isn't there? The buyer might need to dig deep to keep the standard of the rest of the collection on a par. After all, it would be sad to have one coin that outshines all the others, no? Not really. If you go for an expensive denomination such as the 5 guineas or similar you are only looking a four or five dozen pieces for a complete set. You probably wouldn't make it either. Murdoch had the most complete collection of 5 guineas, but was still a handful short. Many top collections can only afford to have single figure numbers of coins such as these. TBH there aren't that many different types to collect either, and those that are can be elusive. A fine sovereign of each of the monarchs from Henry VII to James I is only half a dozen pieces. You would need to add in a few other denominations to make it more rounded. Money is unlikely to be much of a restriction either. If you are happy spending 6 figures on a few pieces, much of the rest will come in for about the price of another one.

Using my limited resources for the period 1839 - 1887, the sale references I have specifically pertaining to the Una & the Lion are as follows: 1. Sotheby 23/2/1844 Thomas Thomas lot 1034. 'Only 10 of these pieces are said to have been struck and it differs from that in the set, in having a plain edge and in other trifling detail: weight 1oz. 4dwts. 10grs. The field has unfortunately received a trifling injury; it is otherwise fine (£6/2/6). 2. Sotheby 8/6/1854 J D Cuff lot 1795 is a plain edge silver proof from the Una die, reads DIRIGE lot 1810. Reads DIRIGIT with inscribed edge. lot 1811 ditto with plain edge, both this and the previous lot without the garter on the Queen's shoulder. 3. Sotheby 13/7/1875 J E M Rishton, lot 175, Victoria proof crown,half crown, shilling, sixpence and groat 1839, plain edges, a very fine set. lot 176, pattern £5 piece, reads DIRIGE, with the garter on her shoulder. Plain edge. lot 183, Mint proof set in case. This is in the silver section, as is the previous lot 176, so we can assume that 176 is silver because there is also a gold section to the sale. 4. Sotheby 21/4/1879 Wm. Yorke Moore lot 348, pattern crown with badge of the Garter lot 367, gold £5 DIRIGIT without garter star, plain edge lot 368, gold as above with inscribed edge DECVS etc and of much greater weight (thick flan presumably) lot 370 set in case £5 to farthing 5. Sotheby 2/2/1880, G Sparkes lot 175, Proof £5 in silver, inscribed edge 6. Sotheby 27/5/1880 Lake Price lot 205, Gold, DIRIGE, with garter, edge inscribed in small letters. 7. Lord Hastings - one full set 8. Sotheby 7/4/1881, Halliburton Young lot 541, gold. DIRIGIT, without garter, plain edge only 10 presumed struck. (ex-Wigan, collection sold to Rollin & Feuardent 1872) lot 542, gold, DIRIGE, with garter star, plain edge. From the Marshall cabinet. 9. Sotheby 3/5/1876, Harrower Johnson lot 402, silver DIRIGE, with garter on shoulder plain edge. lot 424, gold DIRIGE, with garter, edge inscribed. Ornamented diadem and fillet. lots 425 & 426, gold. DIRIGIT, without garter, plain edge, plain fillet lot 436, Set in Morocco case. bt Webb. The sets are usually just described as such without elaboration. William Brice Duplicates Sotheby 15/6/1881 146 was a lot of plain edge proofs, 2/6d, 1/-, 6d, 4d and a maundy set. 149 was a lot of 6 copper proofs dated 1868 - penny, halfpenny, farthing, 1/2, 1/3 & 1/4. bt. Lincoln (a dealer). The question is whether they were copper or bronze. Sections were divided into a generic gold, silver and copper, but the presence of proofs of other years suggets that the two terms were interchangeable. Digressing somewhat, Peck lists all 1868 proofs as bronze, whilst Freeman lists copper proofs for the farthing and penny. Peck's hand-written notes had copper, but subsequently erased and replaced with Bronze. Freeman doesn't give an analysis for allegedly copper pieces, so I wonder if an analysis was actually done? Ruding 3rd. ed. (1840) p.132 states that the order of council made on the 8/6/1838 stipulated a £5, £1 & £1/2 should be all of the same type and have the wreath and crowned shield reverse, with the £5 inscribed DECVS etc. The new coinage (£5 - 1/4d) was proclaimed on 5th July. On the 18th of July, a proclamation was passed directing that the double sovereign, sovereign and half shall be received and pass as current money. Where did the double sovereign come from as there are no currency £2 pieces in the first coinage? There is no mention of the Una & Lion reverse on the £5 and the plates cast no light on this. on first impression I'm not sure there is much to be established from this small amount of data. Rishton 175 may possibly indicate that the plain edge proofs were from a silver short set. Brice's duplicates are the same except for the crown, but these are likely to be the lesser of his examples suggesting mix and match had already taken place. The Thomas description implies the boxed sets were edged and the plain ones single pieces(?)

All set for the Morgan Dollar Slabbing Convention? https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=914&q=paints+colors+dulux&oq=paints+colors+dulux&gs_l=img.3...40933.42429.1.43056.6.2.0.4.0.0.127.171.1j1.2.0....0...1ac.1.35.img..5.7.521.sx4-Hs-ZkKM#hl=en&q=paints+colors+dulux+with+dog&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=Zm5xIWS-LQBf8M%253A%3BcPrMIbpQle2SZM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.becausexm.com%252Fuploads%252Fimage%252Ffile%252F695%252Fbanner_Dulux_CR_CS_Banner_3.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.becausexm.com%252Fwork%252Fdulux-colour-run%3B1360%3B520 The colours are remarkably lifelike when applied. WELL DONE DULUX.

If he only has 3 20p pieces without a date on the tails side, he can't have done much shopping in the last 5 years.

The bottom of the 1853 earhole is apparently a different shape, but this is a photographic red herring. All are the same shape under a loupe.

Apologies for the usual photographic skills, but in an attempt to show some colour differences here are 4 halfpennies imaged together. Top row is 1839/41 and 1839/43. Bottom row is Norweb's 1853 copper proof discussed in the latest SNC as being doubtful if bronzed, and finally a currency 1858/6 with virtually full lustre to help put the colours into perspective. If you combine this image with the thread on the 1839/41 proof in the unlisted varieties section, that scanned image is a less glossy version of the milky chocolate colour the coin is in hand, but is not wildly out. As you will see, in comparison to the 39/43 it is much lighter in colour. Any proof that approaches the colour of the 39/41 would be useful if an image of both sides was available as would any image of an 1839 proof halfpenny with an inverted die axis.

Pass. I guess the same question could be asked of 1853. The 1839 being the first set could have been popular, just as 1970 and 1971 sets are more popular than other modern years

There are some serious colour differences there. Are they so diverse in hand?

Nice provenance, as you might expect. It's a bit depressing when you get BM duplicates as one of the names in the provenance. So many superior pieces now reside away from the prying eyes of numismatists and unobtainable for the collector.

I've not had any problems with Downies

I think the post immediately following the OP was ok - 'Salamander because it looks the most natural'. Post 13 is good too. - 'I rarely pay more than a 10% premium for post-mint improvements.' To be honest, the one above may be ok unless the poster of that thread knows otherwise, and I think another may be ok - all assuming the reverses are ok too. The others require a sick bag on permanent standby.

I would just like to throw in a possible spanner regarding late strikings. As we know, the coppers stopped in 1860, so any dies resurrected for a late run of sets would be at least 20 years old if contemporary with the 3rd YH/1839 sixpence die pair. Although this is not a problem if the dies were properly stored in grease, somewhat less likely is that sufficient dies would have been put aside for further runs of proof sets, which are only a small branch of the Mint's work. i.e. I think it unlikely that dies for obsolete currency types would be retained on the off-chance that a proof set might be required a generation hence. Therefore it might be prudent to carry out a bit of lateral thinking here and consider all possibilities, however hair-brained they may seem at first glance. Reinventing the wheel is allowed. One possibility is that only late silver sets were made. Another is that the proof sets were made to order in anticipation of the end of the copper currency in 1859-60. A third possibility is that they were made up to say 1868 given the existence of the 1868 fractional farthing proofs of that year. These are a real anomaly given they have used the old design for halves and quarters at a time when they were striking the bronze coinage to the modern design for all denominations (1d, 1/2d, 1/4d & third 1/4d). Maybe they were struck for completion of the small coins? (not convinced). Using ESC & Davies which are the most convenient references here, the 1868 silver denominations known in proof form are - none. In fact this is conspicuously a non-proof year for silver. Furthermore, there were two aluminium third farthings listed in Peck from the Saward sale in 1910, now untraced. They probably went west, but more importantly, aluminium wasn't commercially available until the early 1880s as far as I know. Were these 1868 strikings therefore actually struck later? The 1868 cupro-nickel pieces tie in with the trials for the Jamaican currency introduced in 1869, and so I think these stand alone as an issue that satisfies the date criteria. There were proofs of some silver in 1862 (2/6d, 2/-, both in plain & milled edge, 4d plain edge), and 1867 (2/-, 1/-, both plain & milled, and 6d milled). The latter date would tie in well with the 1867 bronzed proof pennies, halfpennies and farthings of the modern type. The absence of third farthing bronzed proofs is consistent with no coins struck of this date, suggesting the latter dies were not even prepared in anticipation. There are a few proofs known for 1870. This probably ties in with the Minton pattern pennies dated 1862, 1865 and 1870. As all use the same obverse die, it is likely that a few reverse dies were cleaned up and used all at the same time. One short period stands out in the case of the silver, (1879-1881). This period has proofs struck of 2/6d, 2/-, 1/-, 6d, 3d. Only the 3d is not known for 1881 (I think). You also get both milled and plain edge proofs of this date. At this time the mint had an equipment upgrade where the Soho presses were replaced, which is why the 1882 pennies are rare for example and the obvious sub-contracting to Heatons also applies. This also coincides with a period when the last two digits of the date were no longer punched in. This should give us a terminal date for the potential production of 1839 sets. It beggars belief that dies would be adapted to fit the new equipment, or could the new equipment use the old dies without modification? We also have to consider the pre-occupations of the mint at various times. There was a lot of design and development leading up to 1860 with the decimal patterns appearing dated 1857-1859, and the 1860 bronze(d) patterns. There was also the political consideration of the Latin Monetary Union in the late 1860s for which a number of Royal Mint patterns in decidedly continental denominations were produced. Establishing which Una & the Lion is found in any particular complete 1839 original set could be really helpful with the chronology as Spink list 8 types dated 1839. They obviously would not have produced 8 concurrent types of £5, therefore some chronology should be possible, particularly as the early sales (post-1839) often listed the £5 pieces separately, elaborately described, implying they were issued singly to order, as well as in sets. (And what goes for one denomination, could easily work for all the others). There is a lot of info to be gleaned in this area, even for the 1841 proofs from sales in 1841. Uniform plain edge proofs are likely to be found in sets, just as a uniform milled edge set is likely. Maybe John can help with some chronological order based on emblem degradation or similar. The answers are out there, it just needs a bit of thought.

What snobbery is associated with the 1983 mule? It's just another thing to collect if decimals, bronze, errors or RM sets is your chosen area.

This one looks currency to my mind. The 3 is large enough to be a reworked 2. It clearly isn't a cleanly punched 3 made using a full digit punch.

Under £100. It was in circulation 1957-63, so not particularly old. Obviously some serial numbers/replacements go for more, but a bog standard one is very affordable in any grade.

I'm not convinced about whether this variety exists or not. Whilst the majority of them show the Garter Star as well within the 4 shields or the rays extending out between the shields for the large Garter, the example in sale 122 is significant as it has both long and short rays (as defined above), so clearly this one is somewhat hermaphroditic. The obvious explanation would be die fill, but I'm not convinced that is the full story either from the image. If the rays were applied individually, then all bets would be off.

The question of later strikes is a difficult one in the case of 1853 sets because they are so much rarer than the 1839s. There is reason to believe the 1839 sets were made throughout the currency of the YH bust until superseded by the JH coinage in 1887 on the grounds that one 1839 sixpence die pairing uses an obverse with the last YH (ESC 1738). You also find the 1839 proof halfpenny using recut dies from 1841 and 1843, the former at least has an inverted die axis which may be indicative of a very late strike, and is by far the rarest of the three. However, I'm not convinced that there were sufficient numbers of 1853 sets to warrant cutting so many dies for the groat. Two dies possibly, three is unlikely. A simple off the top of the head survey of 1853 proof halfpennies for example produces no more than one or occasionally two a year. Some years see half a dozen 1839s. Obviously some of these are the same piece re-surfacing, but 1853 is clearly significantly rarer. There was an article in the latest Circular concerning the rarity of the 1853 bronzed proofs. The number of sales (not coins) recorded for 1839 pennies was 104 bronzed; 1841 pennies - 15 bronzed, 10 copper; 1853 pennies - 62 copper, 3 bronzed; 1856 pennies - 15 copper; 1859 pennies - 15 copper. 1853. The halfpennies yielded 4 occurrences of potential bronzed pieces. One probable was subsequently confirmed, along with another confirmed. The fourth (doubtful) piece I was able to confirm as a copper proof (Norweb 1774). Farthings showed 3 confirmed and one probable bronzed proof. The question now is whether this info can be productively employed. Clearly it shows both copper and bronzed issues for the 1853 proofs. Whether the bronzed pieces are a reflection of a different date of manufacture is a moot point. Ideally we could do with a full set in an original box to have any hope of dating the individual coins. It is possible that 1853 sets could be produced later to order, just as the 1839s obviously were. Possibly significant is the colour of my 1839/41. This has a completely different colouration to any other 1839 proof I've seen to date. So different in fact, that I would like to compare in the hand with any bronzed 1853 piece to see if there is any possibility of them being contemporary.

Could be, Scott? However, as you know, a better (or another) example would need to come to light to confirm??? It would be a relatively easy die to source, I'd think, as the lettering on GVLIELMVS, especially the S, makes it pretty distinctive?You're the man to find it, Scott! You'll have enough W3 copper to cover all the dies at the rate you're going! You often find them with traces of what appears to be underlying letters, but generally the quality is so grim that you would hesitate to make an attribution. It's quite possibly a trace of an underlying E, (the comparable halfpenny with the same L over a possible E exists for 1700 too), but not to be confused with the clear GVLIEEMVS error.

Don't think it happens very often, but as to whether it has much added value..................? Probably a couple of quid to an error collector.

966 listings on eBay as I write. - some b*****d's holding on to the other 209,000.

If that sale happened today, it is reasonable to assume that you could buy a Ferrari with the proceeds. An excellent sale of material from George III onwards. 5 guineas down to farthings et infra. Lots of patterns, proofs, tokens, colonial issues etc. in addition to normal currency.

Bought is a very long word. i.e it doesn't fit very well onto a ticket, particularly if you also have to include a cumbersome auction house name, lot number, date and sale name as well. So for example - Bought Baron Philippe de Ferrari La Renotiere 355, Sotheby Wilkinson & Hodge 27/3/1922 is quite a mouthful. Somewhat easier would be Bt Ferrari 355, Sotheby 27/3/1922 Every little helps.

Tried that and it seems to work ok. i.e. a saved html file is genuinely saved as it appears in the download and not just a link. Thanks.

Probably the collar came adrift during the strike. Or someone has filed them down.