Rob

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.

A lot of dosh for a gothic crown. Personally I think the one in Baldwin's sale last year was nicer, albeit a bit more expensive. On the collecting side of things, I thought the 1839/41 proof halfpenny was a lot more interesting. Nice proof Rob, Good price too. You weren't the lucky bidder by any chance? Funnily enough - yes. Although I clearly wasn't the only one who noticed it based on the hammer price which is about $200 more than they would normally go for. Talking to Steve Hill at DNW yesterday, he also saw it, but didn't chase it. The one time that slabbing of a UK coin appears to have had a positive outcome, well at least for Rob!! Not for the first time have I enjoyed the fruits of their inability to identify coins. Amongst others, the P1051 in the Cheshire Collection has the curls under the truncation missing and is actually a later variety than R42 with further polishing, recutting and refilling of the die which is not recorded in Peck. The unique Freeman 689 was incorrectly slabbed as a P1983 and my 1675/3/2 halfpenny was also incorrectly attributed - all courtesy of NGC. As much as I detest slabbing, I have to say "Keep it up NGC" as it appears not to be in my interest for their business to fold.

Any luck with the Charles shillings {E5!!!} at DNW sale Rob? The shilling with `N` head mm I had my eye on went mad! along with most of the others. What is happening to the market? some people are setting very high prices with their winning bids, I sometimes question my collecting habbits! I got the E5/2 as well which pleased me as it has good lustre with cabinet friction only to a few letters and is better than the picture in the catalogue although the lions are not particularly well struck up. It is essentially as struck and was one of the more reasonably priced pieces in the sale probably due to the quality of detail on the reverse. In fact I had a good couple of days with over half the pieces I wanted at Baldwins and 3 of the 6 I targeted at DNW. I also wanted the negro's head, but 950 was too much for the grade so I dropped out and some of the bulk lots at the end which I had as a fall back also had some nice coins with good provenances but went for a bit too much. I also got the Henry IV heavy coinage 1/2d and the 1926 proof 1/2d, both of which I wanted. The latter was particularly pleasing as I can only find half a dozen references to this type in catalogues and most of those are the same coin. I think there are only 2 or possibly 3 available with the Norweb piece being another. I was offered the chance to make a profit 2 minutes after I bought it, but declined on the grounds I may not see another in the next 10-15 years. There has been some debate as to whether the 1926 and 1927 1/2d proofs are actually proofs, but comparing this piece with later issues I have to say that if it isn't then neither are any of the other dates - so it is.

A lot of dosh for a gothic crown. Personally I think the one in Baldwin's sale last year was nicer, albeit a bit more expensive. On the collecting side of things, I thought the 1839/41 proof halfpenny was a lot more interesting. Nice proof Rob, Good price too. You weren't the lucky bidder by any chance? Funnily enough - yes. Although I clearly wasn't the only one who noticed it based on the hammer price which is about $200 more than they would normally go for. Talking to Steve Hill at DNW yesterday, he also saw it, but didn't chase it.

A lot of dosh for a gothic crown. Personally I think the one in Baldwin's sale last year was nicer, albeit a bit more expensive. On the collecting side of things, I thought the 1839/41 proof halfpenny was a lot more interesting.

Tom, One of the Forum members gave the following link to a digitalbook site a few weeks ago, I am fairly sure all the BNJs are there as free downloads, http://www.digitalbookindex.org/_search/search010coinsa.asp John If they can't be downloaded, I can scan them in for you.

You have copies of Bramah and Batty!!! If ever you get the urge to sell let me know I have been looking for ages without success I know my luck I will buy one the day before it is scanned into google books!! The 4 volumes of Batty sold on ebay for £357 finishing last weekend. Unfortunately I got waylaid and didn't get a bid in.

This means crown there is the first British Proof. What I am saying is that in the interests of consistency the slabbing companies should stick to one thing or the other and not mix and match as per their daily whim. They use a Proof prefix for both patterns and proofs. This I don't have a problem with as both are usually struck to much higher standards than currency examples and so acts as a means of differentiation. However, I have yet to see PF applied to anything below 60 grade irrrespective of condition. If a proof is impaired it simply has to have a lower number -eg PF15 if necessary. They seem to have a mental block about calling a proof or pattern anything other than mint state grade however. They also don't appear to have the knowledge of what is a proof or pattern. If a coin has never been approved by parliament for circulation it is not a currency piece and remains a pattern. Therefore, given they were never passed by act of Parliament to be legally circulated, the Cromwell pieces should always be given a PF grade in recognition that they are patterns. I just wish the slabbing companies would employ people who know how to i)identify correctly and ii) have sufficient knowledge to grade British coins accurately. To be virtually assured of getting a genuinely unc piece it is necessary to start at MS65 and even then it's not guaranteed - but hey - all those happy punters getting a statistically better collection are pleased, even if half their coins have been cleaned/dipped/artificially toned etc and a significant percentage aren't even what they think they are.

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage. I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong. It seems NGC have graded some Cromwell half crowns as business strike ie MS**. Link to NGC census Rob I'm sure I have read somewhere that there is on going debate into whether or not the Cromwell coins are patterns or just rare. I remember reading that a contemporary account of the day said that there where quite a few Cromwell coins circulating but that they were quite worn. Is it possible that these coins were at some point melted to be used in other monarch's reigns, thus making the remaining Cromwell pieces rare? Edited to add: Having never had the chance or privilege to examine one in hand, I cannot pass judgment. In your experience does the strike and legend etc. make the balance sway for these coins being patterns? They were never proclaimed legal tender by Parliament as Cromwell died before production got into full swing, so technically must be considered patterns. I'm sure some limited numbers will have circulated unofficially because you come across pieces that are really worn from time to time and there is nothing to suggest that people had any more scruples then than now. The short time between production and the accession of Charles II would mean only limited opportunity to circulate these and certainly would have been frowned on post-1660. Most Cromwell pieces are not particularly rare.

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage. I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong.

The number of auctions seems to be going through the roof. From this Sunday to next Friday there are 7 if you include the Goldberg and Heritage sales in the US. Only August seems to be auction free now. It's a bit hard on the cashflow.

Can't see me going what with the 3 days of auctions before Coinex. 3-4 days in London is bad enough if you include viewing time.

Just a guess, but probably the fine work pieces of James 1st should be considered proofs as some of these and the subsequent Charles 1st fine work pieces have highly reflective fields and are struck on as round a flan as could be expected from hammered issues. Similarly for the patterns of this era which are struck on obviously specially prepared flans. It is possible that there were a few made to similar standards in Elizabeth 1st 's reign too. In terms of milled, the 1662 crown (ESC 16) is a good contender.

Not usually. Mine's a very nice woman. She even instructed me to increase my bid in a recent sale. Didn't work though because I still came second.