Rob

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.

I think it is in part due to new collectors entering the market which in turn is a result of the recent banking crisis. I was at the last DNW sale and a small number of halfpennies did exceptionally well too. For years the number of people targeting George III patterns & proofs has been minimal. In the past I have regularly bid in the room against one other person who was a serious Soho collector and vice-versa, but we both had a reasonably similar expectation of the prices we would pay for a specific coin. There was always the occasional bidder of specific items such as dealers to fill their lists, but never someone pursuing them en-bloc. At DNW the prices realised for lots 3089 (P1040 - £1100), 3090 (P1243 - £620) and 3091 (P1244 - £450) were way in excess of what you would have expected to pay. The first is admittedly quite rare, but we would have expected a hammer price of £450-600 and the coin although slabbed PF64 had slight wear to Britannia's left breast. The other two lots are common and you would have expected prices maybe up to £300 or so on a good day. They all went to a person who neither of us had seen before at a sale and he was bidding against a phone bidder. A similar situation existed at Baldwin's Spring sale where the P1236 made £440 hammer, but both of us thought this was too high. I'm not going to be presumptuous and say that between us we determine the market, but the indications are that there is an influx of new buyers who are raising the bar. Whether it is sustainable is another matter. The same appears to be happening with the minor varieties of pennies as VickySilver says. It appears varieties at the individual die level are becoming the latest hot topic for currency collectors. This has always been the case for proofs and patterns, but the number of pieces has always been known to be restricted in most instances to a few examples. Like VS, I think this is likely to end in tears for a select few. It is another example of a market that is becoming overheated. Price inflation is insidious, creeping inexorably upwards as long as there are more buyers than sellers. This has accelerated in the past couple of years with the problems in the banking industry, but the important question is what happens when the same people want to sell as mainstream investing returns to normality. Collecting has always been a question of averages when the time comes to sell, as some pieces you will have bought cheaply yet others you will have paid too much for. It happens to everybody whether the price is £1 or £1000. Some people will not be patient enough to wait for inflation to erode the cost of sellers and buyer's premiums, a task that will become impossible if that some becomes too many.

It's actually more interesting than even he realises. Not only is it 1952, but it is combined with the later obverse used from 1954. You can see an unbarred H of Elizabeth at about the same level as the chin and the II below it. The earlier obverse has both H and II at about chin level to allow space for the BRITT OMN. Somebody put him out of his misery.....please.

It looks like a guinea weight to me. Contact Paul Withers at Galata for more info, he's into them big time.

That's got to be a dodgy one. The date doesn't look right. The top of the 6 is too angular. Compare it with this in the gallery. Or alternatively this one.

Go for it and try for a complete run. The VIP proofs are easily affordable; the run is a short one and mostly cheap to acquire in top grade. The only expensive pieces are the Edward VIII's, but you are unlikely to lose or gain a great deal when it is time to sell, so it would not be much of a gamble.

Its not split horizontally as such, its split down the centre so in effect, I have two separate coins. Like this you mean?

I think it is more a case of people being wary of spending a relatively large sum of money without being sure they are going to receive a proof. eBay frequently has "proofs" listed and there have been posts on this forum too where someone thinks they have a proof simply because it is in better condition than anything they are used to. The proofs for the years where sets were produced ensure a regular supply of cheap material, so unsure punters don't worry too much about a few quid, but a few hundred is a different matter. VIP proofs are not difficult to obtain as an example unless you are looking for a specific year, in which case there can be some really difficult ones.

It isn't a problem with them in the hand. I've got most of the KGV proof halfpennies and they are obviously not regular currency pieces.

I've had a couple like this over the years as well. The common theme is that they are all pitted and corroded, so I think the answer lies there. I have a theory that puts it down to a weakness in the metal at points where there has been relatively significant metal flow when struck. When metal sheet or whatever form is made, it has a crystalline structure. When a coin is struck there is metal flow, particularly at the points of varying relief in the design. The use of a collar means that flan spread is minimal and the radial metal flow lines particularly associated with the legend (such as tails emanating from the serifs) as seen on old coins is not present. This flow must by definition destroy the original lattice structure resulting in weakness at that point which can be more easily attacked by a corrosive substance. I think it is this we are observing as the effect is usually associated with a change in relief. Corrosion of a homogenous material would result in an even layer of metal being removed from the surface, but if the lattice structure has faults the corrosive agent could penetrate under the surface and so you would see greater pitting at this point. In extremis, this could result in metal being attacked from all sides to the point where a small detail feature could be detached. This may not be the complete or even the correct answer, but I think is a good starting point. I also think this explains the frequently sold 'thin flan' pieces on ebay which have probably been left in acidic solution for a period of time. 1/4mm or more of metal removal all round leaves a coin which is not appreciably smaller in diameter, blindingly obviously thinner, and also has thinner legend even though everything else looks ok. The slight diminution in the bust size would not be obvious as it would be the same as the change in diameter. I have never seen a coin with this effect without corrosion.

You may also be interested in this link, especially the entry for 1974 !!! That is an advert in a newspaper by a retailer, so doesn't necessarily reflect the date of issue. It is the first time the advertiser had offered the product.

I had a problem with the US postal service once. A shipment from Heritage was requested insured, tracked and signed for, but when it went missing according to Heritage it could only be tracked once in the UK. Clearly this was not being tracked at all. Thankfully it returned to the US 7 months later. Of the two coins in the packet, the one with a few known examples could eventually be replaced, but the unique one caused me a bit of a headache, not to mention the need for clean underwear.

CGF

Mmmm. Beer, Pizza, Donuts, scrap metal - shurely shome mishtake.

All the insurance companies I've dealt with in the past insist on whole of property insurance, so you can't for example just cover the living room and a bedroom contents. Therefore, if you insured the general household contents but didn't declare the 'valuables' then they would consider it as underinsured if it came to a claim and you provided a list of missing items to the police. I think this would cause a problem when the claim was entered. For anyone in this position it is probably worth checking with your insurer. To only insure a few specific high value items is also a bit of a grey area as the same would probably apply. You can rest assured that a burglar is unlikely to spend hours sifting through the trays in order to weed out the most desirable items and leave the crap, so a total loss is more likely. The whole collection being treated as a single item has its advantages, as you then don't need to flood the postal system with revised insurance details every time you make a major purchase assuming the overall level of cover is adequate.