Rob

Not necessarily.

Because the cost of silver dipped brass is considerably cheaper than pure silver. Originally the coin would have had a silver wash applied to make it pass as a genuine 5/- piece. The silver price at this time fluctuated considerable. The initial used of countermarked 8 reales pieces wer made current for 4/9 in 1797, but by 1800 the silver price was 5/6 for the same thing. The 1804 5/- dollar was current for what it said, but by the end of the decade was up at around 5/6 again. Brass is not really obviously less dense than silver when weighed in the hand, so there would have been a good chance of the counterfeiter succeeding in getting them into the market place unless the recipient was able to compare with a genuine piece.

The standard of the legends on this first issue farthing was fairly dire. It would probably be correct to say that a coin with evenly spaced and aligned single cut letters is a comparative rarity. Most have the legend recut, frequently at odd angles. The second mark is due to clashed dies where the machinery has operated without a blank between the dies. This has resulted in an impression of Britannia's shoulder (from the reverse die) being punched onto the obverse die which has therefore been present on all subsequent impressions taken from this die. Again, quite a common feature.

£50 is too much. Grade I'd put at about VF for wear but with the dings knock it back to the gFine price. It looks to have had a clean in the past too. Try about £10 max to buy, less to sell.

This quote from his sales pitch seems a bit cheeky. Although many businesses make additional profits on shipping & handling, I find it distasteful and therefore refuse to do so. For individual raw coins it will always be 60¢ to anywhere in the U.S. and $1 to anywhere outside the U.S. . The opening price of $5000 is clearly not OTT. I was going to say that it probably is the only 1670 farthing listed, but if you look hard you should be able to find another - incorrectly described as a 1672, 1673 etc. and in a suitably dire grade

You can if the book is wrong

I think I'll have 5 lots of 10@£19 please and not 50 for £96

They seem true to their blurb. They buy a £50 coin, slab it and call it a £100 coin. (see other thread where you can buy a 1967 2/6d for £25 or whatever). The investment in my opinion is theirs. They buy coins at regular prices and then double them because they have put a number on the individual coin. Nice money if you can get it, but a bit disingenuous for the inexperienced punter who is the person most likely to be drawn into this on investment grounds. His investment will only double if the market as a whole rises in line because collectors in general will not pay a vast premium for something they are able to grade for themselves and so price accordingly. They are trying to drive the market higher by claiming an elite product. As has been said many times before, do your homework and the third party's homework becomes irrelevant.

Slabbed coins may enjoy a markedly higher resale value in the US, but I do not believe that is the case in the UK and in fact the opposite may be true. I always knock a bit off a slabbed coin if I am buying it for the collection because you don't know what the edge is going to be like when extracted. I have a few pieces that had edge defects hidden by the holder so now err on the side of caution. If the slab is for resale then that is a different matter because the risk of a dodgy edge is passed to the purchaser.

I like my coins to be available for research. All that goes out the window when you can no longer check for over cut lettering, traces of an underlying coin or even check whether the edge is correct. As for weighing it to compare with a known coin's weight - forget it. The idea of a slabbed photo is a non starter for the reasons outlined by Red Riley.

I don't think it would make much difference in the case of a unique or nearly so coin. If the grades look similar in the picture, a collector looking for an upgrade already has experience of what a particular grade looks like, so any unexpected increase in attributed grade is likely to be down to TPG inconsistency. If that person doesn't have a clue then it doesn't matter what the grade is on the slab, he will buy it at the going price and have a shock, pleasant or otherwise when the time comes to sell. We can't live in a nanny state. Establishing personal views on rarity is a fundamental part of research, that is why I have a library of a few thousand catalogues. Again, we can't live a life free of the dangers of the market place. If I make a miscalculation in the price I pay or am prepared to pay based on misguided research then it is a case of mea culpa. I certainly don't expect others to think for me. It's why I don't win as many lots as I would like. I may know a coin is rare, but not having done a definitive check on the population frequently end up bidding short. It is also why I am prepared to bid more for some pieces than apparent logic may dictate. I concede that the slabbed populations do give an indication of relative rarity, but only at the top end because lower grade coins aren't worth the expense in general. A reduction in the number of points between MS60 and MS70 would be more beneficial in my view. If you were to group 63 & 64, 65 & 66, and 67 and over you would end up with something like good extremely fine, unc and gem, though arguments would always ensue as to whether mine is better than yours etc. When it comes to grading, that found on ebay can be disregarded. We all know that the average seller knows little or nothing about grading and if obviously cleaned or hairlined there isn't a problem except for the unitiated. We also know that some dealers are better at grading than others. (I sent back two pieces today that were overgraded). Regarding the grades found in old catalogues, this has long been known to be variable. Examples exist of both under or overgrading throughout history, and so an indicator saying it is better than usual for the type is very helpful. A good example is a hammered halfcrown I bought just over a month ago. In Montagu it was graded VF, in Hamilton-Smith an unusually fine specimen, in Lockett mint state, in Willis very fine and Lloyd Bennett gave it good very fine or better. That is a fairly diverse set of opinions; I settled for somewhere around gVF because as usual parts were not fully struck up, yet other parts had only the tiniest amount of cabinet friction. Another point to consider in old catalogues is that collecting copper or small silver was considered somewhat oddball by the main salerooms and dealers, so it is likely that their grading of these items was equally contemptuous. Inconsistency is not a new problem, and the latest examples thrown up by the TPGs and others are just a modern incarnation of an old problem. It is something that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. In my view the ideal solution would be for all collectors to learn adequately and all sellers be required to take back pieces within a certain time limit if the customer is not happy. Make both parties responsible for their actions and don't leave it to a third party. Sadly it will never happen though because people are both lazy and greedy.

In unabbreviated English meaning what? Sorry old chap, I don't understand your acronym.

The basic principle of the TPG system was sound up to a point. I can see that some people don't feel comfortable assigning grades themselves, though it would be better if they took the time to do research even if it was just a case of getting a bag of 1967 pennies, doing their own grading and submitting the same to a TPG or other individuals for an alternative opinion. In the view of some it eliminates the cowboy operator and grader, though this can be overcome by the purchaser having knowledge of the coins in question and if coins are only bought from reputable dealers or individuals that will always offer things on approval then there isn't a problem. The TPGs do provide some degree of consistency, but have too many outlying data points for me to place their opinion above my own. The dangers of the TPG system I see as follows: People take their word as gospel and don't question attribution, grades etc. The system is not infallible, otherwise it would never result in a change of grade when resubmitting the same coin. The difference in grades assigned from one company to another is not a problem if standards are consistently applied, but this has to be tempered by the fact that they are all allegedly using the same Sheldon system. The overwhelming belief in the system particularly in the US has resulted in their defining the grade and ballpark value of a specific coin because it has a number - a policy that has been emulated by CGS over here too. Consequently it is a triumph of marketing managers over common sense IMHO. The TPGs claim not to slab coins that have been cleaned yet will still grade those that have been cleaned chemically (dipped) - I fail to see the distinction. As for the guaranteeing of a coin being genuine, this sits rather uncomfortably with their frequent inability to identify the coin or the variety correctly and so the phrase "caveat emptor" applies equally to their slabs. All of which I have previously expressed elsewhere. As regards pegging the relative values of rarities, it will always depend on supply and demand. 100 people chasing a unique coin will always result in a higher price relative to its peers than a unique coin in a series that has a limited following. So pennies which were always available in higher quantities and grades than halfpennies were always collected preferentially. The farthing's popularity was I think down to nostalgia originally, as the same principle applied at the end of the silver 3d. There is no doubt that the publication of population study data has an effect of values too because it highlights which varieties are difficult to get and so chases up the price. Ultimately every dog has its day and so with different denominations, eras or varieties being popular at different times, the relative cost/value of equally rare pieces will fluctuate. Values will also vary according to the number of individuals doing research on die varieties. Once a few people have done the same research and drawn the same opinions regarding rarity, they will also chase the price higher.

Good man.

The 1933 penny is one of a handful of coins that don't obey the general rules. It is THE bronze penny to acquire. Even though the 1954 is a rarer date, it doesn't have the draw that the 1933 does. As kids, probably everyone on this forum who was old enough to be around pre-decimalisation used to look for a 1933. We didn't know it would be in vain, because we had been told there were half a dozen out there somewhere. The fact that they were mostly under buildings didn't reach your average 10 year old's ears. Consequently, it is one of those pieces along with the Simon crowns and the 5 guinea pieces that most serious collectors of these series want to own at some time should funds be available and the demand will always be there. I think that even if all 1933 pennies minted were available to collectors, the price would not be dissimilar to that obtained today simply on demand. Maybe it would halve, but no more than that. In this rather ethereal market, there is no place or need for the TPGs. If you are buying Norweb's 1933 penny from a catalogue the least you will do is check that the Norweb coin and that on offer are one and the same. That is all that matters. If the investor collector feels uncomfortable about coins without the slab - GOOD, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. There is already an adequate general consensus in numismatic circles about the relative conditions of the desirable items, as most of the coins in question have been examined to death. If you can afford them and are known to be buying similar items regularly, then the coins will find you because the dealers know who is in the market for what pieces at the top end and also have a need to shift stock whatever its value. The general trend for these particularly desirable coins is upwards, but in most instances affordably so if they return to market on a regular basis. I think the big jumps occur for a variety of reasons. If the best known available example by a wide margin comes to market, the price will rocket and the "me too" pieces will be dragged upwards in its wake. When there are no available pieces for a prolonged period of time and so there is pent up demand from a few collectors with deep pockets, or as in recent times where the financial instability has brought in wealthy new entrants are also reasons for price hikes. Conditional rarity will always be influential on pricing, but comparable rarity in one series compared to another seems to provide very little correlation. As a person with a collection of halfpennies, I have never had the cost pressures associated with the penny series because halfpennies are both in the investor collector's wilderness and have never been so widely collected as the other two base denominations. Unique or thereabouts pieces in decent or even top grade have been and can still be acquired in the majority of instances for a tenth of the price of a grotty penny and a twentieth or thirtieth of the price of a 1933.

The decrease in value comment was intended to be slightly facetious. Just a dig at the slabbing market being predominantly geared towards bigger and better numbers with the result that pieces which are less than pristine are also perceived as less desirable. For those that are unaware, the ex Norweb 1933 penny sold by Mark Rasmussen off his list 9 just over 3 years ago is EF for example.

The 1933 penny is rare enough that the fine detail for the available examples is known. Their current location is also known to at least 2 people and probably more within the field. They wouldn't tell you who owned the coin if asked, but if you tried to sell a dodgy 1933 you may rest assured it would receive an appropriate response. Anyone trying to sell a 1933 penny that didn't fit the ownership and detail criteria would be on a hiding to nothing, unless the prospective buyer was stupid enough not to do the appropriate checks. You don't spend tens of thousands of pounds without doing a few basic checks despite the apparent belief of many on eBay that defrauding people is a simple case of listing an item and waiting for the money to roll in.

There may be a lot of truth in that - but it begs the next question, Who in their right mind is going to pay £10 to grade and slab a coin that is so common and so low value it defies belief? Well, quite. And as many serious collectors keep their coins in cabinets, they are the very people who won't be using the services of PCGS etc. Why pay good money to get your coin back in a wad of perspex that can no longer be placed in a cabinet??? I think you will find that most of the modern pieces have been slabbed by Steve Lockett & co in order to promote their product. A cheap coin by definition has little material cost and so the uplift in value comes from them assigning a grade which makes the coin desirable (if that is possible when there are about 20 million other comparable pieces out there). There is no monetary difference between paying a publisher to place an advert in a magazine and slabbing items at your own cost. The benefit accrues from having your product in the market place and available for purchase. You can see the finished product in the flesh and therefore don't need to give an elaborate description of what it is and why it has been produced. I think your average 1933 penny collector would take a very dim view of slabbing and I also believe there would be no effect on its value if slabbed. In fact if slabbed its value may be deemed to be reduced because the number on the slab takes preference over the enclosed item in the view of those who collect such things. As we are aware, the available 1933 pennies are not in mint state. It is the sort of coin that a collector targets and requests in advance when the info regarding availablity is announced to a select few. Therefore the "investor collector" is unlikely to get a look-in. This is very positive for the hobby and long may it continue. The much decried "old boys network" usually has a fundamental purpose in whichever walk of life it exists.

Correct, here's one

I suspect he will be able to buy her off if she objects.

Spot price for silver today is about £200 for £5.25 face.

At £19K forget the task of searching, someone will soon make one. A file cut here or there (or a CNC rig second hand for a couple thousand), a quick spin to polish off the rough edges and there you have it. A good reason why paying large sums for faintly discernible features could land you in the mire. Material cost, less than a quid.

None have been recorded, and all the pennies noted are dated 1863. The actual reason for their production is unknown, but is thought to be a study of die life. A similar argument can be made for the die lettered 1862 halfpennies. Silver was also die marked from the mid 1860's to 1879, but then the experiment stopped. As regards pennies, it appears from the dies used that 6+G gave the best results, as this combination was used from 1861 to 1874 when the obverse profile changed, and the opportunity was also used to redo the reverse. As no bronze with an identification mark has been noted subsequent to 1863 it is highly unlikely (IMHO) that there would be further experiments in 1870. This year has only single die combinations noted for both pennies and halfpennies (no farthings were issued), so there is no suggestion that the mint was experiencing problems. The only "abnormality" for 1870 was the production of a few pennies with rev.G and the diademed bust obverse by T J Minton (F773 &774).

I should also have said that it also looks fully priced for a 1F bust.

It looks dug, but a good specimen.