Rob

Morning all. One of the boxes to tick for the collection is an example of the so-called 'lacquered proof' described by Peck for George I farthings (P789) and halfpennies (P773). I haven't mde up my mind whether they are a genuine mint issue, or simply a selection of coins that were lacquered(?) in antiquity by persons unknown. The first would mean a place in the collection for an example, the second not. A summary of my thinking on these pieces is laid out below. Thoughts anyone? Thoughts on Lacquered G1 coppers On the question of lacquered halfpennies and farthings, I have not yet made up my mind regarding their authenticity as a mint product. Take the farthings first. Colin Cooke's 464 (CNG 93, lot 1891) and Baldwin's item BM20470 are struck from a completely different die pair, but both claim to be lacquered proofs. The obverse die has the S of GEORGIVS under the hair on one (ex-CC) and not the other, whilst the reverse die has a huge flaw or two on the Baldwin coin but not on the Cooke piece and the exergue line hits the toothed border at a different relative position on the left side. Therefore neither has a die link to suggest production at the same moment in time, which you would expect in the case of a special product or test. The Baldwin LP 1/4d does share the same obverse die as the 1717 & 1718 silver farthings, which would confirm that the Baldwin piece is a proof. Peck notes that they are a glossy brown with a mottled surface under the microscope. The 1717 LP 1/4d on Baldwin’s site has an obviously mottled surface from the image provided, but the reverse die is flawed and totally different to other silver or copper proofs seen. The ex-CC coin has the S of GEORGIVS partially underneath the laurels, as does the plate coin in Peck. Again, it appears to confirm proof status. The question therefore is down to whether the lacquer (assuming the description is correct) was mint applied, or at the whims of various previous owners. There are 2(3) obverse dies involved on the dump issue farthings. 1. With the S underneath the laurels – CC463, 464(LP). Peck plate coin P787. All 1717. 2. With the S just clear to the left of the laurels (later strike of 1 after die polishing?). CC462. 3. S with clear space to the laurels. CC455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461. Bald BM20470(LP), Z42539. (1717 & 1718) Reverse dies are as follows. 1. Badly flawed, lower exergue line touching inner circle. 1717 Bald BM20470(LP) 2. No flaws, exergue on inner circle, laurel closer to A than N.(1717) Bald Z42539, CC459, 460, 462, 463 3. short exergue line, no flaws. (1718) Z37110(thin Ag), CC456. CC455(1718 Cu) 4. short exergue line, laurel closer to N. CC461, Moving on to halfpennies, the Baldwin coin has a small flaw by the N of NIA whilst Nicholson's (175) doesn't look like it does, but I can't be certain. The remainder is in general agreement. A coin in a private collection is a die duplicate of BN175 based on the presence of a small lump by the N of NIA and a couple of spots. It is possible that the coin on Baldwin’s website, Z37116 is from the same dies in a different state. The question I am asking is whether these are deliberately done by the mint or not? If a mint product I would expect them to be made at the same time using the same die pair which they patently aren't looking at the farthings above. The jury is out on the halfpennies at the moment, but I would like to know what the various BM and HM pieces look like before I consider buying. If the pieces Peck used to attribute the variety are not from the same dies and those coins doing the rounds are already shown to be from various die pairs, it suggests that they are just a selection of lacquered pieces done in antiquity and so not really collectable as discrete varieties. i.e. they are only collectable because Peck says they are, having given lacquered 1717 coins a reference number. The argument given by Peck for allocating a reference number was that they were initially thought to have been lacquered in Victorian times, but Hunter's demise in 1783 meant they must predate this period. What doesn't seem to have been considered is that lacquering could be an older practise than previously thought. I need to find out which dies are used for the BM and HM pieces and check to see if the Baldwin LP 1/2d has a ticket indicating whether this is the J coin. If anyone has any input to this argument such as an example which purports to be a lacquered proof, please feel free to contribute. Thanks.

May have been dipped, maybe not. It's difficult to tell from the image, but it certainly hasn't been polished on the obverse.

That was much better than I was expecting from our Tommy! Yes, but it's currency and worth a tenner, or about 300 less than he is asking. That's a huge markup.

1881. Spink books these at £20 in fine and bullion value is about a fiver, so anywhere in between is ok . You haven't paid over the odds.

1806 Proof Halfpenny Yeh, right. I've asked which Peck number it is. I suspect the follow-up question will be are you a complete twat or just a partial one? But - must give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Another example from Dundee's finest.

That's crap. It isn't even good enough for a museum copy.

There's no VAT on books. Not sure about import duty.

I was going to call you fussy until i saw Clives reply I thought William I coins were generally rare anyway, or am i mistaken? The W1 prices in Spink are a good proxy for rarity for issue - so the profiles, sword and canopy are generally more difficult to acquire. Within all types there are seriously rare mints for the issue, irrespective of type rarity. That's why a seemingly normal estimate appears to go OTT on occasions. The same applies to other reigns, so in the case of the seriously common Cnut series, Aethelred LSC & CRVX etc. you will often see things going for 5-10x what the book says and which determines the price to be paid by the uninitiated. For W1 PAXS coins, the Beaworth hoard is a good proxy for absolute rarity.

Sorry to be a cynic, but it looks too good to be true. Especially the fact it's on eBay - with a coin like that, why not sell through Baldwins or Spink? Because it's regular bread and butter coin at an auction. Not a rare mint, not a rare type and you get your money in a week or two rather than 6 months. Sure it's scarce, but the return is likely to be little different than selling through an auction house, just quicker. Plus a lot of sellers on eBay wouldn't have a clue about Spink or DNW etc

Difficult to confirm because you no longer have the coin, but on the bottom example are we looking at a recut G2 reverse die with a recut 2 over a 9 or possibly an underlying 1 for 1761 where the die wasn't used? Debbie and Peter - thanks. I must try to remember ebay and the piles of shite found thereon. I'm afraid I have virtually blanked it for the past few years. Interesting point. I always suspected a 1 but, as you say, a 9 is more likely. The mintages of the various denominations can't have been too high and so it is easy to envisage the dies being recut for further use. The intermittent dates encountered suggest that demand wasn't that high. Going back to an earlier thread that I posted on the 1766 penny, I remain convinced that this is the unused 1765 die recut, or at least the die used for my coin. The big problem here is that no one has done a study. Dave Seaman would probably be the best authority on this, so must remember to ask the question next time I see him.

Difficult to confirm because you no longer have the coin, but on the bottom example are we looking at a recut G2 reverse die with a recut 2 over a 9 or possibly an underlying 1 for 1761 where the die wasn't used? Debbie and Peter - thanks. I must try to remember ebay and the piles of shite found thereon. I'm afraid I have virtually blanked it for the past few years.

The detail is ok, but it might be slightly porous looking at the obverse legend.

I think it's a 1. You have serifs top left bottom right on a 1 and the two vertical section is usually quite thin and leaning backwards. I think the vertical stroke on yours is too fat and straight for a 2.

It's about right.

Not to mention the 'supper rare' (sic) description.

Thanks Scott.

OK chaps and chapesses, we all know that the early milled small change is riddled with spelling errors. Does anyone else have a 1762 3d and if so is it struck from the same reverse die with F/R in FR or are there a number of dies? Ta.

And equally can't spell - note "luster" for "lustre" Blimey, even at the quoted 'aUNC' his asking price is a tad on the high side! In some parts of the world -- that is the correct spelling Sorry, balls up on the quote

Without a few examples coming to market there isn't a clearly defined price for them, but given the mint makes things in batches it would seem likely that a batch was made before the dies were changed. This would imply a value of about the same as the undated 20p's with a reduction because it is less obvious than the no date coins. Unless it catches the imagination of the general public it will only appeal to collectors which will reduce the price paid considerably as it is likely the supply will outstrip demand from this quarter.

Can't be done - decent stuff sells, but the crap gets continually recycled via "free listing" weekends Rob, Peter - you both miss my point, I'm not complaining about the relisting BUT recycled listings make any attempt at statistics impossible. Court's suevey is valid because his samples were on the way to the melting pot - ie no coin was counted twice Well, maybe there is an outside chance to do a survey by trying to replicate the experiment. You can certainly collect as many piles of low grade pennies as possible and ensure they get melted and hence not double counted. That would be good for everyone as the supply of crap far outweighs the number of collectors and their demand. What you cannot overcome is the 40 years of cherry-picking to remove the rarities from the accumulated piles. You are comparing two different populations - the first was for circulating coinage, the second non-circulating collected accumulations by people with a probable interest in coins. That will inevitably skew the results.

In his (1972) article he states "the project started 4 years ago" but they knocked off for 6 months to do halfpennies - never seen any results from that survey though Pity he didn't include the veil head Vicky pennies either - there were still shedloads of them in circulation at the time Can't be done - decent stuff sells, but the crap gets continually recycled via "free listing" weekends For many items that is the only realistic way to sell. Very few items are desirable enough to ensure that they sell first time round for what would be fair market value elsewhere, and for the rest that would invariably mean starting at 99p and selling at any price. If people don't use a free listing weekend they incur fees. What are they - 10%? Whatever it isn't zero, so you would be an idiot not to list when the cost is zero and it negates the failure to sell. It means you can load the costs incurred onto the postage. You have to ship using a signed for method for anything collectable, though I think that winners of practical items are less likely to abuse non-delivery claims. That's a minimum of £2 these days, and for anything over a kg £5. People moan a lot about the postage costs on ebay, but it is only fair for sellers to protect themselves and for buyers to acknowledge this right.

Repunched letters and numerals are common as it was done to extend the life of the die. As regards your date, it is impossible to say without removing all the crud blocking the digits.

I stopped going to Croydon in about 2004-5 when I found far too many descriptions that were over-generous and downright wrong. One sale had a 1905 halfcrown described as UNC, that I suspect had a provenance of Attila the Hun given the large chop mark across the head. The coins were typically things that go quite cheaply in the larger salerooms (which is where they get much material from), listed in a generous grade. Very few things that I have bought or looked at previously were good enough to be keepers, with many uncs being 'nearly there' for example.

Thanks Rob, just ordered a copy from Galata for £8 (a lot cheaper than £50+ for Pridmore ) My copy has 5p on the cover, which came as part of a larger parcel of books. It's a super little reference volume, even if only 40 pages of less than A5 size.

Guernsey Coinage by W. Exley, printed in 1968 by The Guernsey Press. It describes all the dies up to 1966 and also includes the sequencing established for the 1864 8 doubles dies. Included in the blurb is a note that quote, "Marshall-Fraser and Pridmore separate the obverse dies fairly successfully, but practically ignore variations in the reverse." It would suggest on the basis of the above note that this is a better reference. Who knows? Another reference is Currencies of the Anglo-Norman Isles, by A L T McCammon (1984) ISBN 0907605133