Rob

Based on some of the other things on offer and their grades or description I suspect the former. This was discussed previously in this thread on pages 8-10. Dubious lolights include the 1886 "proof" shilling offered for £2150 - doesn't look like a proof to me. The rims are not those of a proof but he still paid £700 for it on ebay. The seller would not have let a proof shilling go for this price when they are fetching over £2K hammer.There is a "gilt proof twopence" which to me looks like a penny. The trident points to the second N on a 2d and not to the right of the second as in this case. If it is a proof it is a poor example of a Peck 1130, but could equally be a gilded currency piece Peck 1133 given the state of it. The image isn't good enough to positively identify the variety. The grade of FDC is also somewhat inappropriate here. There are others which are equally dodgy, so suggest it is a lack of knowledge coming to the fore.

A dangerous sentiment. You could wind up with another Stalin or even President Blair We've already got Comrade Brown with his 5 and 10 year plans.

The original 1839 die was deemed to be worn out and so a later date obverse die was changed to 1839 to satisfy the need for the 1839 proof sets which were produced later than 1839 and according to demand until superseded by the 1853 sets. The use of a modified 1843 halfpenny die is already documented, but an overstruck 1841 die has not previously been recorded.

It isn't a problem as the hammer price ($775) is listed on the website as are premiums payable. The total cost was about $920 including postage. My maximum was higher than the hammer and it takes two people to reach this price, so I appreciate it could possibly sell for more. Firstly, it has been removed from the slab which will put a significant number of Americans off. The slab grade of PF63 is not very high so will also put off those who collect by numbers. It would only really appeal to knowledgeable collectors which is probably a good thing. It is unlikely to be slabbed as 1839/41 because the variety isn't in Peck or Spink. Having an inverted die axis will increase its value as these are decidedly uncommon and interestingly the die axis is not recorded on the slab insert, a listed variety that could easily be identified by anyone with an IQ of 80. Hussulo's point about grading companies not guaranteeing the variety on the slab, but guaranteeing the coin is genuine will probably come into play here. It is a perfect oxymoron. They have with a cursory glance attributed it as 1839 which it isn't and if studied carefully is obviously not a straight 1839. If they had identified it as 1839/41 would they then have slabbed it as a seemingly improbable overstrike? Or would it be rejected as an altered date by someone other than the mint given it isn't recorded in the "official" books?

Not as bad as this ebay listing was.... <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018" target="_blank">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=018</a> Great coin Rob. It's a super find. BCC I saw that listing too and even from the bad pictures thought it can't be a small (narrow) date. Which brings me onto a post I had on another forum in were I was shocked to hear that NGC do not guaranty the authenticity of the slabbed coins claimed variety, only that the coin is genuine. As you know the difference in a coins variety can be big difference in value. So if you bought this coin and it was genuine but not a small (narrow) date variety NGC would not give you the book value of the small (narrow) date coin. Moral of the story I guess is if buying a slabbed coin don't accept what variety it is stated to be on the plastic but do your homework on varieties before buying. I'm not surprised they don't guarantee the variety and only that it is genuine given the number of incorrect attributions. It all suggests that they value the number of dollars coming into the business rather than their reputation for accuracy. Most respected business acquire their reputation for doing what they do well. This is more a case of "we slab coins, so any coins can be slabbed. Just don't take as gospel what we say. We're only in it for the money and any accurate attributions are entirely coincidental and unintentional".

I still can't believe they missed an overdate that clear when preparing the auction. Congrats on a great find, nothing quite like the buzz of bagging a bargain. I aslo echo Art's comments, it is a beauty of a coin!!! It's not perfect. There are imperfections to the hair detail as a result of being a recut used currency die. I'm also not convinced it was that much of a bargain after premiums and shipping costs, although quite reasonable for an unambiguous unrecorded variety. They may or may not have noticed it when drawing up the catalogue. However, it would probably be frowned upon to list it as an 1839/41 when the "experts" have positively identified it as an 1839. Don't forget that Peck didn't list either the 1839/41 or 1839/43 and so ipso facto they cannot exist. That's another incorrect attribution folks, bought to you (almost) exclusively courtesy of NGC.

An 1839 bronzed proof halfpenny which has been made from an 1841 obverse die after the 1839 die was deemed to no longer be fit for purpose. The use of an 1843 die for the same reason is already known, but this appears to be the first time one of these has been reported. ex Goldberg sale last September lot 446. the die axis is inverted (cf. P1523*)

Still no images available to guests unless they register and log in.

The dies are slightly different as you point out, but the amount of 3D relief (or depth of detail which is what I was trying to say) is comparable - just not very well articulated. The hair looks to be worn in parts and the edges of all the oak leaves on the reverse also look flat. It could just be due to the lack of contrast in the picture, but if you compare with an uncirculated coin you can see the hair strands from the crown of the head to the wreath are continuous and well defined lines.

And the reverse.

q A shilling is one twentieth of a pound. Before we converted to the decimal system in 1971 there were 12 pennies to a shilling and 20 shillings to the pound. What you have is a 3 shilling bank token issued by the Bank of England towards the end of George III's reign. These were struck to help alleviate a dire shortage of silver coinage due to the Royal Mint having produced only minimal amounts of silver coinage throughout his entire reign. After the death of George II in 1760, a few silver pieces appear to have been struck after this but bearing the old monarch's bust and dated 1758 which was the last issue of this reign. After this a few shillings dated 1763 (called the "Northumberland Shilling" after the Duke of Northumberland - another story) and the issue dated 1787 were the only silver coins struck for over 50 years. Some captured Spanish 4 & 8 real coins were countermarked from about 1800 onwards with the head of Geo.III and passed for current halfcrowns (2 shillings and sixpence) and crowns (5 shillings) respectively with South American 8 reales passing for 4 shillings and ninepence. They were only in circulation for a relatively short period, being superseded by the new coinage issues from 1816 onwards. The even tone to the coin suggests that it has been cleaned which will reduce its value somewhat. There is some wear but not a lot. I would grade it a bit better than VF and almost gVF. There is wear to the hair detail and wreath. Attached is a picture of an uncirculated 1 shilling and 6 pence token which has the same detail for comparison. Value of yours? - probably about £30-40 given the cleaning. Spink 2007 gives a price of £60 VF and £175 EF.

q It appears that you can only see images if you are logged in. If looking as a guest, you get the message this feature has been disabled and don't have permission to view.

You can only see the image if you are logged in.

Looks like an auction house that's well worth avoiding.

This is also where slabbing becomes a real pain because there is no facility for accompanying tickets which presumably are binned and so provenances are dependent on the grading service attribution - not a good thing when they frequently can't even get the denomination or variety right.

Coin tickets are important evidence as are auction catalogues because even when not illustrated, the better pieces often have the source noted so that you can generate a trail which hopefully arrives at an illustration somewhere along the line. I have acquired quite a few pieces with tickets which frequently have info regarding previous owners and their lot numbers. A lot of collectors tickets were reproduced in the BNJ article by Eaglen, Mitchell and Pagan in 2001 for the hammered series and although there has not been a similar article for milled collectors, many collected both series so it should be possible to link the handwriting. I don't know if you bought any of the farthings at the last Baldwin sale, but the Soho pattern halfpennies that were ex Deane all had tickets and gave Briggs lot numbers. As M A Briggs copper collection in 1943 only had 200 lots, the Briggs numbers on the back of the tickets which started at 252 almost certainly refer to Arthur Briggs (Sotheby 22/3/1893) - hopefully someone will come up with a sale catalogue to confirm this. This is part of the fun of researching provenances as there is a chance that the source of these coins will also be noted in the catalogue and just possibly the buyer will be someone other than Baldwin, Spink or some other dealer. A Briggs catalogue anyone?

Congratulations from me too. Don't forget to make sure she gets really interested in coins, then you have the perfect excuse to spend even more money on them You will know you've hit the jackpot when she asks for a triple unite - though you might have to sell the wife to pay for it .

I'd want a discount for having to wash the jeans.

The best known almost invariably has a good provenance as that is why it is known as the best having been seen in various sales down the years. It is very rare for the best known example to suddenly appear from nowhere. It will also typically command a good premium and crucially only one person can own it at any one time. So the discussion seems to be centred around not quite there pieces which the majority of collectors have to fight over. On the assumption that either of the coins in question is considered good enough for inclusion in the collection and if there is little to choose between them, then the additional history would win every time. If there is a lot of difference in grade, then you would obviously go for the better one, but nearly there coins are usually a choice between one defect and another. In the case which started this thread, you would expect a 1730 proof farthing to be at or near top grade, and if not you would wait until you found a good one unless you knew there was none better. I agree with both of you that a dire coin with a good provenance is irrelevant if much better examples exist.

Quite a lot because the famous collections are only so as a result of containing the best available pieces typically. It is no coincidence that the same names crop up time and time again. Not necessarily in monetary terms, although it usually applies, what is worth more? A not particularly rare piece in good grade with no known history or a similar piece that has been in the Trattle, Cuff, Bergne, Montagu, Murdoch or Lockett etc cabinets. Many collectors say they like to hold history in their hands. A good provenance allows you appreciate that history better.

Don't understand given the other info provided how the "officially marked" phrase slipped in.

Yes I saw it. It is an error a brockage infact. "A brockage occurs when a coin is struck and then sticks to usually the bottom die. Then a new planchet is fed in and struck. The original coin that was stuck then acts as a sort of die and leaves an incuse reverse image on the other side of the second coin. Brockages can be found which are miss-aligned and partial. The most sought after type are the "full" or "mirror" brockage, where the image is fully centred and a mirror of the opposite side." Is it worth £595. Well it was to the bidders bidding on it but personally I wouldn't have paid that much for it. I have got two now a Penny which I paid £220 (eBay) for last year: and a gothic florin which I bought for £250 (Lockdales) not long ago: I wouldn't have paid much for it. It looks like it is a token given the obverse legend and portrait unless it is a colonial obverse, but someone else will have to confirm this. I think some colonial pieces had VICTORIA REGINA as the legend, but certainly no mint issues in this country. It isn't a British farthing.

We were both interested in the same lots. I gave up on the laurel cross ends, but someone else took over albeit to no avail. Some of the lots were absolutely silly, GB and foreign alike. When coin after coin sells for up to 10x estimate or more in a couple of cases, you just sit back and wait for those with deep pockets to get bored of bidding. Then when they have a 5 minute break to nip out and buy that day's Ferrari, or forget to come back from lunch in time in the case of the 1926 1/2d I bought, you get stuck in.

Annoying laptop keyboard..... Should have said "BEST OF LUCK" I did wonder.

If anybody has this issue, could they please pm me. Thanks.