Rob

£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

Diva Faustina Junior Sestertius The portrait is simply stunning.

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.

This happens frequently and the rarer the coin, the less often they come up and the more infrequent the realistic price revisions. The coin I bought in Spink yesterday appears to be the only example available, yet has been priced at VF in Spink about £150 over the quite frequently encountered Rawlins signed 1646/5 for quite a long time. Given the last time this particular coin was at Spink was in 1995, I guess they didn't have a lot to go on. Another thing is that there is a relentless flight to quality and so any coins above the run of the mill grades for that type will not obey any pricing rules - if there are any! Prices are only a guide, so every sale has its buyers who may be more or less determined to buy. Anyone who does a bit of basic research will know what prices are regularly achieved for those coins relevant to their collecting criteria and by extension will recognise an above average example which will inevitably influence the price they are willing to pay. Average coins which are not difficult to obtain will always have downwards pressure as people wait for the next example to come along. Above average is inherently more desirable to more people.

Predominantly yes I would say. CNG and other US buyers have been very strong bidders for at least 3 years now. The thing is, British coins are underpriced when viewed from an American perspective. There the top pieces routinely sell for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. That is why you get someone paying what to us seems like silly money. For example the $60K spent on the proof Victoria £2 (or £5?) just because it was slabbed as a 67 which in an American context isn't a huge price to pay considering the mintage. Or the 1901 1d that made $600 a year ago on the basis of the grade number. A lot of the nice pieces have made their way west for a while now, and once slabbed it is an uphill task to repatriate them because the number dictates the price people are willing to pay. You can add in the desire to reduce bank balances by anyone flush with money due to economic uncertainties and the herd mentality ensures that demand far outstrips supply with prices responding in the time honoured fashion.

Prices at Spink today were strong (all prices are hammer). The Brady collection of groats saw some strong prices amongst the lots on offer. The 6 Edward I groats realised between £3600 and £10500 hammer. Lot 33, the Edward III treaty groat hammered at £1850, or about x10 the VF price for this issue which blew me out the water as I only had it down as a £1K bid, though was described by Patrick Finn in his list as the best example you are ever likely to encounter. The three Henry IV light coinage pieces (lots 64-66) made £7200, £19K and £4400 respectively - all well in excess of estimate. The very rare Henry VI unmarked issue made £5200 against an estimate of £2500-3500. The rather nice Edward IV light coinage Norwich groat made over double its £500 estimate and the Richard III coins all made well in excess of estimate. A price of less than £2K for any Richard III groat looks unlikely for the foreseeable future. The Lambert Simnel (lot 242) made £4800 and Perkin Warbeck in the following lot made £7K. The Henry VIII Tournai groat realised £2800 against £1000-1500 and the Gros of Tournai under English rule made the highest price of £22K against £5-6K estimate. The Thomas Wolsey groat (lot 305) made £1650 which is a lot for a not particularly scarce coin. The Mary sole rule coins were a real surprise making £850, £1100 and £1000, particularly when the most expensive one had scratches in front of the bust. The strength continued through Elizabeth and into Charles I with the really attractive Worcester (lot 377) making £4600 against an estimate of £1200-1500 and a total cost to the purchaser of nearly £5800 - or three and a half times current Spink book prices. Very few things failed to beat the estimate and in most cases comfortably exceeded it. I did win one lot (369) which was the Rawlins signed bust with the normal style declaration reverse, but had to pay quite heavily for it at over double estimate and book. However, I was quite pleased to get it as it appears to be the only example available and at least has a decent provenance.

1728 R&P - A tad optimistic on grade here. 1728 R&P 1728 R&P 1686 halfpenny (item 028) 1686 halfpenny

I'm more than happy that so many people like milled coinage. I shall deny myself the pleasures of owning delights such as this from the most inappropriately named seller ever, and console myself with the hardship of owning crap like this Aethelred II late transitional CRVX penny from Oxford. Further evidence should it be required with regard to the original question - yes, hammered can be better than VF.

£1882 (inc buyer's premium) nearly six years ago. And in case anyone thinks I'm in Rob's league, the next highest I've paid is less than a third of that. Which is probably the AVSSPCE shilling you beat me to. I haven't forgotten.

I'm not sure it would. Most people I know have their collecting limited due to the funds available unless they have made a conscious decision to only collect a restricted range in a certain grade. A few people like top quality coins, but can't afford huge numbers of them, so overcome this hurdle by collecting say all the mint state Ed.VII florins, then sell them and move on to another restricted collection of say Victorian halfcrowns. In this way they manage to acquire and appreciate the top quality in any series collected, but by continually changing direction provide themselves with an ongoing target. It's not a bad idea if you image each collection when formed and means that over time you can have a very large but virtual collection. If you have the means to collect extensively and expensively, then using others to hunt down the coins you can't find is a reasonable way forward. One feature of the high end coins is that they are rarely abundant. You need to put out a wants list, just like anyone else would, if there is to be any chance of acquiring certain pieces. If you are desperate for a Cromwell halfcrown in gold to complete the reign for example, it would help if you advertise the fact as it will then find its way to you. If you wait for one to appear on ebay, you might not be so lucky.

erm...£68...for a 1903 halfcrown. I suppose that makes me an average pleb on eBay No it doesn't Declan and well you know it. It isn't the cost of Ebay purchases, rather the finer points of numismatics that are missing from many listings such as identifying the monarch on a coin, or the denomination, or even the country sometimes. Tickets don't come into it for most when the basics are missing for starters.

We are all ordinary collectors on here, just that some things cost more than others and it's a case of each to their own. Thanks to the diarrhoeic output of the Royal Mint coupled to my insistence of obtaining an example of each attributed designer's handiwork, fully one in five or more of all purchases are under a tenner and do nothing for the quality of the collection. Some things cost a few pounds, some a few hunderds or a few thousands, but when the time comes to sell they will in all probability still be worth what you paid for them. Don't get me wrong, if I could buy £10 notes for a fiver, I'd do it all day long.

The thing about a provenance is that unless you paid silly money in the first place, a bit of time spent establishing the provenance is a one way ticket. At worst you have a coin worth the same as it was before, but with the right names attached it will only add value. No provenance has ever detracted from a coin's value.

I'll keep my eyes open, but think you might be struggling. Scarce, yes, but not really rare and premium quality no, so less chance of an image.