Rob

It is probably no coincidence that it was an unsold lot with an estimate of £500-600 when his collection went through the saleroom. Bearing that in mind the price is probably right.

The price of an almost certainly unique gold coin that had been off the market for 104 years until it resurfaced in 2008 is completely unrelated to the expected price of a run-of-the-mill pattern. The actual price of the gold piece was £32500 hammer (£38226.50 with premium), plus the commission charged by the person acting for him/her in the saleroom.

It doesn't look to be in the best condition. There are a couple of rim marks, a couple of spots and a fingerprint on the reverse. The angled image also results in bright spots at the top of both sides. Given the above, I would automatically assume it was hiding something. If you had a better presentation and what I perceive was wrong, then it would be worth bidding higher, but £400 is adequate for the item as seen.

This is a 1799 halfpenny, so the ship will be different, but you can see where the stays are to be found.

Nope. He means the stays between the foremast and the pointy bit at the front.

Interesting, Rob. The finish on your left hand piece is very similar to the finish on my coin which is a red-brown and very uniform in appearance. Certainly no evidence of mottling or discolouration whatsoever, in fact it has a beautiful even colouration (although this really isn't as evident in the scans as in hand!). As Derek says, Peck has bronzed as being rarer but this may be not be true. I'm tending toward P1327 then. One final question. Does anyone have a close-up photo (and it would have to be a close-up as it's practically invisible!) of the 2 or 3 stays from foremast to bowsprit? Even colouration would lean towards bronzed which is P1326. I don't have any proof 1806 pennies, so can't help on the stay front. Get a glass on it and count them. Obviously there should be 3 if Peck is correct, but the image in the book isn't clear enough. I've attached an image of the ship on a P1326 I used to own, but again it isn't clear enough. The ship punches are specific to the type or types of proof, but the currency pieces must have had the ship engraved by hand as over 50 ship varieties are recorded.

Hi again who do i need to talk to about this book please . Me. PM sent.

I agree 100%. If I buy a coin it is on the basis of the worst side, so my grading glass is always half empty.

You can't go by Peck's rarity attributions any more than you can rely on ESC or Freeman etc. All of these references were compiled when data had to be compiled from relatively limited resources. Today, with the internet and most auctions on-line, not to mention dealers' websitesites, it is possible to reassess the rarity values even though we still don't and can't have the full picture. Tha Adams penny collection had both P1326 and P1327, the bronzed is markedly browner and the copper dark, but the picture quality is such that I wouldn't rely on it for a comparison. The images are available in the archived catalogue section.

I thought the cat laid it.

All bar the 1903 are around the EF level, but the 1903 is better. The images aren't high res enough to clearly see the wear, but the first point to go is the fingers on 20th century bronze. There is obvious wear on 4 of the 5, but not on the 1903. Prices - Colin is the best man for this as I'm not an ardent follower of farthings. Spink list Ed.VII farthings at about £12 each in EF, but that seems a bit optimistic and I certainly wouldn't entertain paying that much.

I wouldn't have done that as it is too cheap. In fact I would have increased it rather than reduce it. For anyone who needs one of these it is a bargain at that price. I'm not interested as I have a few of them.

direct flash

brighter light

This might help. 3 images in different lighting levels. I know it isn't your coin, but the period is correct and the colours are not atypical to others I have seen of these types. The copper can have a range of tones from light to virtually black. The latter usually has a degree of associated iridesence. KP31 is clearly a Late Soho product as the 1 & 0 are defective, presumably from a filled die. Attached are a pair of Late Soho halfpennies in an attempt to match the finish employed with the period, KH37 (P1365 bronzed on the left) and KH39 (P1367 copper on the right). The bronzed piece on the left is redder in colour and markedly different to the copper which has a more mottled appearance.

This is always a contentious issue. If you laid out a dozen coins (6 copper, 6 bronzed) side by side you would probably end up with 4 definite coppers, 4 definite bronzed and 4 definite maybes. The waters are further muddied by the colour depending on the period in which they were struck. Soho and Taylor produced markedly different colour bronzed flans. Soho produced different coloured bronzed flans at different times. Most of the time you can tell, but it is always better in the hand. It ticks the boxes for a P1326 or P1327, but I wouldn't like to say which from the image. The whole reason for bronzing is to provide a uniform colour across the surface. This is frequently applied to medals. Copper can tone in wildly differing shades and it is this lack of uniformity which lead to bronzing in the first place.

Her vacant gaze would indicate she's probably watching Eastenders somewhere off-coin! Good call, she's facing in the right direction. Presumably seated in Trafalgar Square with one of the lions ready to prod all those itinerant revellers skinny-dipping in the fountains.

I didn't give it a full EF because the helmet is a bit flat and the right breast seems a bit flatter than usual. A couple of spots have no bearing on the grade, but are less than desirable. I too would buy a coin like this as VF all day long. Not sure about the lustre. It has a couple of fingerprints though, so might have as they show up on lustre better than on toned copper, but best of all on a polished coin. (Which this isn't I hasten to add).

Frankly, it's a b****y good job we don't all collect the same things in the same grade. On the reasonable assumption that the acceptable coins would be those in the best condition, 99% of all coins would be melted as unfit for purpose, and every collector would be allowed one BU 1967 penny plus another coin of his/her choice and according to their wallet because that's all there would be to go around.

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection. Strictly speaking it's a pattern, so not a real gap as such. Nonsense. Patterns are every bit as real as currency and have equal status in the collection. They add a nice bit of variety as well, which gets away from the serried ranks of the me too date runs. It isn't an overly long list of designers either. From the 12th century up to the end of £sd I have a list of about 75 people whose names could be attributed to the design. Unfortunately, given the diarrhoeic output of HM's Royal Mint, we now have an almost identical number post 1970 resulting in an enforced 'me too' subset within the list as a result of the Olympic 50ps and others. 50p is in danger of becoming the commonest denomination in the collection, which can't be right and certainly isn't desirable. In the long term though the 50p must inevitably be overtaken by the penny - even the modern ones have a place. Only among those who collect them, which you must admit is only a fraction of collectors of dates and types. For example, I'm only interested in late 18th Century copper patterns, most else leaves me cold - I wouldn't cross the road for a George V double florin or early 60s cent (unless someone gave me them!) I realise that, though many serious currency collections have the odd pattern or two. A denomination collection almost certainly will, a general collection is less likely to in my opinion. For most people the lack of patterns is down to cost at the budget collector end of the spectrum and unfamiliarity amongst those willing to spend a bit more. There is no defined price guide for them unlike currency, so there is no widespread appreciation of what is out there and how much a piece will set you back. For that you have to do your homework which is important given that some only cost a few hundred pounds, yet others will set you back 5 figures. I think the fear of getting burnt puts many off, though a lot of currency pieces trade for considerably bigger numbers than proofs or patterns. The other reason is probably related to the surprisingly large number of people at fairs who ask me for coins in fine or thereabouts indicating a fairly active collector base spending nominal amounts whilst gaining as much diversity as possible. A collection of low grade currency would sit uncomfortably with a collection of FDC or thereabouts proofs and patterns which of course is the norm for the latter.

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection. Strictly speaking it's a pattern, so not a real gap as such. Nonsense. Patterns are every bit as real as currency and have equal status in the collection. They add a nice bit of variety as well, which gets away from the serried ranks of the me too date runs. It isn't an overly long list of designers either. From the 12th century up to the end of £sd I have a list of about 75 people whose names could be attributed to the design. Unfortunately, given the diarrhoeic output of HM's Royal Mint, we now have an almost identical number post 1970 resulting in an enforced 'me too' subset within the list as a result of the Olympic 50ps and others. 50p is in danger of becoming the commonest denomination in the collection, which can't be right and certainly isn't desirable. In the long term though the 50p must inevitably be overtaken by the penny - even the modern ones have a place.

Hobson's Choice Vicky. There isn't any other design by Lavrillier in the UK series. Ugly or not it's a gap to be filled for the attributed designer section of the collection.

That's because it is the easier, alternative and cheapest way to get the 1933. One of the biggest mistakes I ever made was not going for the Adams example in his sale. Peter Simon picked it up for £8500 hammer - only bidder . A bargain.

I think I probably would have put £35 and make an offer. £25 seems a bit cheap.