Rob

Sensible man if you can maintain the quality standards. Not so sure about keeping the collection small though. Much easier said than done.

The first issue of Cu-Ni is difficult to find in true mint state that hasn't toned down. It took me over 5 years of concerted effort trying to find a 1947S shilling. The current price is a tenner, but I would happily buy untoned examples at that price all day long. Someone must be hoarding them.

My take on the current market conditions is that the general economic situation means that for the many ordinary' collectors cash is being squeezed and so purchases have to either be fewer or in a lower grade. For the series collector who 'must have' a particular coin to fill a gap, subject to the above, price probably isn't so much of an issue. And for the wealthy, and this must include 'investors' then price probably isn't an issue, but condition is. The net result, if I'm right, is that top grade will hold its price and maybe even accelerate, as will rarer pieces even in lower grade, but for more run-of-the-mill dates in middle range condition prices will likely stagnate at their present level or will ease back as the 'ordinary' collector slows down on his purchases. As is always the case. Even relatively wealthy collectors will suffer some effects from the economic squeeze. Many collectors paying larger sums are older people close to retirement, whose annuities are producing less and less income compared to the rates on offer even 5 years ago. The out and out wealthy are unlikely to be affected, but I can see the likelihood of all bar these having to reduce their purchases. The bottom dredgers are less likely to be affected because low grade purchases costing a few pounds at most are never going to break the bank. If anything, this group stands a better chance of obtaining washers with detail as a bonus.

One swallow doesn't make a summer. Not having examined them closely I can't say, but the higher buyer's premium may also be a factor. When you have to add 24% to the hammer price it suddenly becomes quite expensive. £320 used to be £376, now it's nearly £400. It all adds up. Maybe fashions are changing and people have had their fill of halfcrowns. The groats in the Spink sale were costing big money at close to twice book in many instances. My one lot cost me £1736 against a book price of £850. Yes, I know the prices haven't been looked at seriously for a while, but if anyone said to me before the sale they would mostly go for double book or sometimes more, I would have laughed.

A decent range on offer there across the board for all periods, but I would question some of the grading though. Do they have a reputation for overgrading or not? G,day Rob. Sorry I did not get back to you earlier,I have not looked in for a few days.Regarding the reputation for overgrading, I have not heard one way or the other.I will ask around.I have bought a few things through them but as Tom said they seem to put their reserves & estimates a little high in my opinion.They usually have quite a bit left for sale after the auction. Thanks Joey, but don't bust a gut as I haven't found anything suitable for my needs, so won't be bidding in any case.

Diva Faustina Junior Sestertius The portrait is simply stunning.

£632.50 incl. premium Cheers Rob!! 12 minutes to find the answer. Very impressive, Rob! Less than 2 minutes to find the answer and post a reply. The biggest delay is usually in registering there is a question to answer.

We've got one. Most coin acquisitions of the week are bargains in the eyes of the purchasers. Rarely do you push the boat out to acquire a coin at any cost, though it has to happen sometimes when needs must.

This one of Lord Lucan riding Shergar to Hannover.

In a nutshell no. The early MSC was indeed a list of coins for sale, but Willis (not Wallis) didn't start collecting until the 1930s. Post-war, the names of winning bidders are included in the priced catalogues, but prior to that you are reliant on hand annotations.

The man for this would be Rob, he has a lot of old catalogues including Glendinnings I don't have all the Glens catalogues. I am still missing one from 1974 and have many gaps pre 1950. Symonds' lots were 1-139, but there were other coins in the sale from other vendors. Provenances for Symonds are a problem, because he was collecting from around 1900 or a bit earlier until he died in 1933. Unless there were tickets included it is virtually impossible to trace the lots from old catalogues due to so few being illustrated - certainly for run of the mill items such as Cromwell shillings, Gothic Crowns and G4 crowns. You can probabaly count on one hand the number of these items illustrated in early catalogues because they are so common, even in high grade. 1. Cromwell shilling lot 94, EF and illustrated. Made £180. 4. 1847 Gothic Crown lot 108, brilliant. Made £320. 5. 1821 Crown lot 106, EF, toned. Made £115. 3. 1726 Crown, EF, toned. Made £500. EF in the Sanderson catalogue and illustrated there. I don't have Lockett's milled catalogue - keep missing out when one becomes available as it is always in demand. 2. 1831 Proof or Pattern Crown. Almost as struck, some faint hairlines and other minor marks, a brilliant frosted proof, nicely toned. Illustrated. Made £3000. Willis had 5 1831 crowns, so tracing it will be difficult even if he is known to have purchased an 1831 crown in a particular sale. I do know it isn't Lingford 535. I've got spare copies of Willis II and Glens 30/10/1974 for sale, but Symonds is out of stock.

Thumbing through the catalogue last night I couldn't help noticing it. I checked to a few times to see if I could say it wasn't a crack, but failed. I guess that's why the estimate is what it is - no crack and you could double it. In VF it's a £150-200 coin, virtually as struck you can comfortably add a 0. The estimate is 1750 euros Rob, doubt you can add another 0 onto that No, the added 0 applied to the VF price. The crack appears to extend all the way to the centre on the obverse. That will knock it back and 1750 is probably a reasonable estimete. Without the crack, a sestertius in that condition has to be worth over £2K and depending on the name £3K or even more. Silver in high grade is quite common, but bronze isn't.

£632.50 incl. premium

Thumbing through the catalogue last night I couldn't help noticing it. I checked to a few times to see if I could say it wasn't a crack, but failed. I guess that's why the estimate is what it is - no crack and you could double it. In VF it's a £150-200 coin, virtually as struck you can comfortably add a 0.

Farthings, the new bun pennies.

1841 £3800 1862 £4600 1902 £75 1903 £1550 1904 £1900 1905 £5200 1906 £320 1907 £320 1908 £640 1909 £340 1910 £380

I'm afraid you are all at sea with this one Dave - that is a regular profile groat with a cross crosslet mark. Geoff's coin is this one, the Gros struck at Tournai following its capture in 1513 and dated 1513 in the reverse legend. It was lot 290 in last week's Spink sale of the Brady collection of groats. Brady 290 I've done a bit of research going back to the 1760s and it appears from all sources that there are a total of 3 known. The first reference was in Snelling where a coin was illustrated depicting this in the section devoted to "Coins struck by the English Princes in France from Henry IV to Henry VIII plate 2 no.26. The notes in this section record that there were only two known, one in the cabinet of the Duke of Devonshire and another formerly held by themselves and now in the collection of Mr Benjamin Bartlett. The illustration in Snelling shows that Brady 290 was not the same coin as the one depicted because the areas of weakness do not match. Whether the coin illustrated in Snelling was that of the Duke of Devonshire or the second, I am not sure at present. However, Samuel Tyssen is known to have bought at the Bartlett sale in 1787 and I would suggest it is probable that the second coin is the same as in Tyssen's sale where it was lot 3087 and bought by Young for £11/11/-. Young was a dealer. The next reference I have is the illustration in Ruding (3rd ed. 1840) Supplement pt.2 plate XII no.9 where it is clear that the picture is of a very good approximation to Brady 290 having a similar profile, and given the Snelling coin is completely different in shape the chances of 2 similarly irregular pieces is remote. Ruding is silent on the source of the coin illustrated as far as I can establish, which is unfortunate. The provenance is not certain at this point as the next sale reference I can find for one of these coins is Cuff 2190 (1854) which was bought by Cureton, a dealer. Unfortunately my library has many holes prior to Montagu (1895) and so it will require further work to establish the various owners down the years. At the Cuff sale it was recorded as coming from the Thomas sale which by default usually means Thomas Thomas (Sotheby Feb.1844), however there is no lot description fitting this particular type of Tournai groat in the catalogue. The only Tournai groat is lot 169 where it is noted as coming from the Henderson cabinet (several sales 1818-30), but the Ruding reference is the relatively common pl.7 no.13 with the profile bust. It is possible that it could have been sold in Thomas' two sales of Foreign Coins in July the same year, or the cataloguer could have made a mistake with the reference. Alternatives listed in Manville & Robertson could be Rev Thomas 1793, Col. Thomas 1820 and Nathaniel Thomas in 1795 but Thomas Thomas would be the first choice. The Duke of Devonshire's collection was sold in 1844. I assume the BM has an example, but don't know where it would have come from, though they were active in the salerooms of the period. Moving to the Montagu sale in 1895, the coin was purchased by Spink. The provenance given in the opening post, which was mostly taken from the Spink catalogue, is wrong. Morrieson 225 was a lot of 7 Henry VII groats with the anchor mark. Additionally he did not have a Tournai groat of this type. His only Tournai groat was a first type with the profile (lot 255). The only oddball from this period appears to have been a Perkin Warbeck groat in lot 235. The Philippi sale gives a provenance of Ex Boyne 1896, Morrieson 1933, Shepherd, Montagu, Murdoch and Dr Carter. Morrieson is wrong, Boyne I cannot confirm, but was only a few months after Montagu, Shepherd is also given in the Montagu catalogue and Murdoch part 1 is a glaring omission in my library, so again can't confirm. The illustration confirms the coin as being the same. I haven't had time to check the many sales in the frist half of the last century. Make of this what you will, but it's a starting point.

Steady on old chap, you might not like proofs or patterns but they are a world away from the overpriced packaged tat that you get from the last two names mentioned. They deal in things aimed at the public who don't know one coin from the next, so a medallion is just as good in their eyes. That isn't the same as a special striking of a genuine coin, after all, you can spend proofs if you so desire.

A decent range on offer there across the board for all periods, but I would question some of the grading though. Do they have a reputation for overgrading or not?

Convention has it that if you use a hyphen between stated grades, it applies to the overall coin, i.e. both sides are the same. Otherwise, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you!, it's a / with the obverse first and reverse second. True, I wasn't paying attention and replying on the fly between jobs. Ok, so it's a decent VF, but still not gVF and only a full grade or so over. Therefore, the only question is, what would the price of a Fine coin relative to a decent VF be? A gap of over £5K in this instance seems reasonable given the absolute rarity of the item irrespective of whether you would personally want to pay £3-4K for a farthing in fine. £2K seems too cheap though. If a coin is that rare would the price differential between grades be that great, and would it be more a case of do you want one or don't you. That's the point, though if its authenticity was questionable, then you would have been better off steering clear altogether as that allegation would continue to hang over it into the future.

Coins maybe. Land certainly. They aren't making it any more and if the right quality allows you to grow your own fruit and veg. The amount of money that is being printed has to result in inflation for the future. That's going to affect your food prices dramatically and food is something you can't do without. If you double the money in circulation, then prices must necessarily follow when there is no increase in physical assets held.

Convention has it that if you use a hyphen between stated grades, it applies to the overall coin, i.e. both sides are the same. Otherwise, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you!, it's a / with the obverse first and reverse second. True, I wasn't paying attention and replying on the fly between jobs. Ok, so it's a decent VF, but still not gVF and only a full grade or so over. Therefore, the only question is, what would the price of a Fine coin relative to a decent VF be? A gap of over £5K in this instance seems reasonable given the absolute rarity of the item irrespective of whether you would personally want to pay £3-4K for a farthing in fine. £2K seems too cheap though.

In the case of the 1693 you already had a guide for VF-gVF, so the only questions that needed answering were 'how many are available and what grades are they?' If all are similar in grade then a reasonable assumption would be the date of the last sale, the price achieved and a multiplier to account for across the board price changes since that date together with a mark down for the lower grade of this piece. If something is sought after (and it's probably fair to say a 1693 is sought after), then maybe half the VF price would be a reasonable target. There are more than a handful of serious farthing collectors out there, plus the esoteric always appeals to someone who wants a quality collection in numismatic terms. Not everything has to be in high grade to appeal if rare enough, though it does help if it looks ok. I would have thought £3-4K incl. premium would not be excessive. At £2K I would have been over the moon if bidding and won it. I know where you are coming from on the question of certain key dates, but the problem with these is that the price is likely to be determined by the number of serious collectors present on the day and hence volatile. On the plus side, if Spink quote say £300 for a coin in their annual tome and you know full well that they always exceed that at auction, then it's clearly time to monitor their website and the Circular closely as you may well pick up one cheaply. They may list higher prices on their site than those quoted in the book, but are unlikely to exceed them by a vast amount. Do the spadework and it will pay off. I would have a problem paying 4k for a coin in F when a GVF would cost 9k. 4k for a farthing and it would have to be unique (and have eye appeal) The grade was VF-gVF. I don't know which side was VF and which gVF, but I use the assumption you use the lower graded side as the base rather than the higher and with only a handful known, I think £3K plus premium would not be so far short of the mark if genuinely rare, after all it is only a grade up. It would need eye appeal though if low grade and certainly not have any faults. Personally I think 9K for a VF-gVF farthing is a lot of money anyway, but if that is where the market is then so be it.

In the case of the 1693 you already had a guide for VF-gVF, so the only questions that needed answering were 'how many are available and what grades are they?' If all are similar in grade then a reasonable assumption would be the date of the last sale, the price achieved and a multiplier to account for across the board price changes since that date together with a mark down for the lower grade of this piece. If something is sought after (and it's probably fair to say a 1693 is sought after), then maybe half the VF price would be a reasonable target. There are more than a handful of serious farthing collectors out there, plus the esoteric always appeals to someone who wants a quality collection in numismatic terms. Not everything has to be in high grade to appeal if rare enough, though it does help if it looks ok. I would have thought £3-4K incl. premium would not be excessive. At £2K I would have been over the moon if bidding and won it. I know where you are coming from on the question of certain key dates, but the problem with these is that the price is likely to be determined by the number of serious collectors present on the day and hence volatile. On the plus side, if Spink quote say £300 for a coin in their annual tome and you know full well that they always exceed that at auction, then it's clearly time to monitor their website and the Circular closely as you may well pick up one cheaply. They may list higher prices on their site than those quoted in the book, but are unlikely to exceed them by a vast amount. Do the spadework and it will pay off.

I'm not sure why you are grumbling. The mere fact that you are aware of a price differential between quoted and reality means there is always a bit of scope for arbitrage. If the quoted price is too low, then just accept that you will have to pay more. After all, if you have paid a couple thousand for a 1934 crown or the 1989 proof set, then a sum less than this shouldn't be too much of a problem. The fact that you recognise the price in the books is way too low will give you an advantage over those who don't want to pay more than the reassuring figure quoted in whatever reference. People put off by quoted figures are competition eliminated - that's a reduction in the size of the problem because when you see a coin that's hard to find the chances are that others are looking for the same thing. Many collectors use price guides as a sort of comfort blanket when in reality it should never be more than a rule of thumb reference for the most commonly seen items. If CCGB quotes a price that is lower than Spink, many will not pay Spink prices because the other book says you can get it cheaper. The reality is though that both could be wrong as neither (can) take into account eye appeal, nor hope to comprehensively cover the market. Prices can be and frequently are out by a factor of two in either direction.