Rob

Presumably Guy Newson bought it at the M&E sale. He's been spending a lot of money in the London sales of late. Much if not all of what he buys resurfaces on ebay.

Text for the M&E catalogue was copied verbatim in the previous post. I don't have a copy of the Christies Rome sale.

It's the one from the last Morton & Eden sale (lot 263) where it was catalogued as a proof. Didn't see it though so wouldn't like to say. The provenance suggests it could possibly be a proof because if the future King doesn't get one, then who would, even if it doesn't have the raised edge? But given it was polished we will probably never know. The lot description says "The edge lettering on this piece is finer & less deeply impressed than that found on circulating coins and it could be argued that the coin is therefore, strictly speaking, a pattern. Provenance: Christies Rome 17th June 2004, lot 605 and formerly the property of Edward, Duke of Windsor. It is likely that the Duke, as Prince of Wales, would have received such as coin and the cleaning which it has undergone is typical of many of the pieces in his collection.

He offered me a trio of decimal patterns, one of which was identifiable as being from his collection. I think there were probably more though. As MJF usually prices them high to start with and I already had one of the varieties on offer I didn't bother chasing it up. I think it is possible that he still has coins from the collection. You could always ask the question.

The picture of the last page where there are Weyl patterns makes interesting reading. There are names assigned to the winning bidders which are found nowhere else and are not familiar to anyone who attended sales on a routine basis. I think they are fictional on the grounds that you would get blocks of 3 or 4 lots assigned to the same (unheard of) name followed by another block of 3 or 4 lots to a different unrecognised name. This happened on more than one occasion in this and other sales around this time. The implication is that these were unsold lots being bought in. It makes interesting reading when you analyse some of the sale results at this time as it suggests that sales were not so strong as might be assumed. Certainly the market was quite weak in the first half of the 80's having fallen by 30-40% in about '82-3. I suspect these were actually unsold lots - eg. the aluminium 1887 1/2d was acquired later by Joanna Tansley (sold at DNW 28/9/05 lot 382) and was bought from Patrick Deane (a dealer) shortly after the sale which lends credence to this idea.

That's silly. You can pick one up for £10-15. Unless it has been annotated with a full list of where the coins were purchased to record or enhance the provenances I can think of no reason why anyone would buy it. Even then, the added value would only be a factor of 2 or 3. The provenances of the 4 coins I have that are clearly identifiable from his collection were freely communicated to me when I asked, so I can't think what else there is to offer.

As a significant participant who helped kick off the current steep upward trend at the Slaney sale in 2003 with his purchase of the Petition Crown, I hope he is not forecasting the future based on insider knowledge of his forthcoming purchases. I was hoping that my nemesis on more than one occasion was taking a really long and well earned break. Twenty years should suffice.

Assuming it is a guinea (diameter about 23mm), in that condition plus the fact that it has been holed it would be worth bullion value. The reverse looks a bit better, but it has clearly been polished a lot with the lack of obverse detail. However, if it is a half guinea (diameter about 20mm), it may be worth a bit more as 1792 is a very rare year. Spink 2009 gives prices of £500 in fine and £1550 in VF with no higher price quoted. This is x4 the price quoted for all the other years of this issue. Notwithstanding the fact it has been holed and the obverse of your coin is nowhere near fine, if it is in fact a 1/2 guinea you might expect a slight premium to bullion due to its rarity. The image shows a gap between the first G and the hair which suggests it is a half, but the unambiguous test will be the diameter.

I've got a 1905 with the 1st & 4th R's with a tail and the 2nd & 3rd short. Don't know if that is already covered though. The D's are as for obv.2 and the E's have a shorter top bar.

I have just used the silver content vs the current spot price. I don't think you could actually realise £2 because there are margins, commissions and wear to consider should it be sold, but it gives a ballpark figure.

The design is the same for both 6ds and 1/-s, so the diameter will tell you. Shillings are about 23mm, 6ds are 19mm. Value in that condition is melt - which at this moment is about £2 for a 1/- AND £1 for a 6d.

I don't think it is a fake because the workmanship is quite competent. I think it is a token or medallet of some kind - perhaps someone else on the forum knows about these things. Just because it is the same size as a £2 doesn't mean that it was intended to pass as one.

It isn't a coin. It may be toy money or a gaming token. If intended to be a forgery then presumably it would be for a crown or higher denomination depending on size. However, neither the bust nor the reverse are remotely like any of the official designs, and so by extension is unlikely to be a genuine forgery - if that isn't a contradiction in terms.

For all of you desperate to acquire the key date 1925 half crown, you could do worse than bid in the next Noble auction. Lots 1902-1919 contain a cumulative total in excess of 4000 of them. Rare - I think not . Ebay is likely to be full of them at some point unless they hopefully get melted down because most are not really collectable. link

Are you saying you want to buy an example of the illustrated coins for the prices indicated or are they the actual coins? If they are the coins on offer then the price for the half crown seems way too cheap, that for the florin less so. So if you have been offered the actual coins in the pictures for the prices listed I would question why. The half crown looks ok, but the florin is featureless and washed out indicating it has been cleaned or dipped. In that case not so attractive as a purchase.

Few too many proofs for my liking, but in mitigation, I love this 1919H penny on page 2. The sales blurb associated with the lot is a bit economical. It suggests that people have difficulty grading coins that aren't mint red and that the slabbed grade should give added confidence for bidders. What it doesn't mention is that a penny with wear to Britannia's fingers isn't uncirculated, shouldn't be called mint state, and shouldn't be graded 64. There also appears to be some trace of rubbing to the portrait. I am sure it will do well.

But they do say that copper prices in UNC are for examples with full lustre, so that covers BU. cf. p.446 in the 2009 tome. I never spotted that . But to get me out of the hole I have just dug why do other books state different prices for Unc and BU coins. On another note how can you determine a correct price for a coin with say 25%, 50%, nearly full lustre, or is this left to the seller’s opinion. What I am trying to say is I AM CONFUSED, when I look at one of my coins and one is brighter that the other how do I put a value on the coin when no book can specify this in detail. I think this can lead to confusion for the collector, especially for someone new to the hobby. Forgive me for being a bit thick, but this is the only part of coin collecting that I am not confidant about (grading). I have the 'Standard Guide to Grading British Coins' but to this extent I am still none the wiser. I suppose it’s like buying a car, to the seller the car can look in great condition but to the purchaser it can look ok, until the time you want to sell the car after you have purchased it. Mark The correct price for a coin with whatever percentage of lustre (or in any other grade for that matter) is what the buyer is happy to pay. This obviously varies from person to person. You can't have a binding, fixed recommended retail price for coins any more than you can for any other item.

But they do say that copper prices in UNC are for examples with full lustre, so that covers BU. cf. p.446 in the 2009 tome.

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