Rob

Is the 1835 a 5/4?

I wish I had even the slightest artistic ability. Strangely, all four children have much better than average artistic talent, so either Mr Milkman has been very busy or else I must live closer to Sellafield than I thought! This is all very worrying.

Perhaps he is trying to make a point. The proof it is a penny is in the picture.

The above seems to fall down when applied to the previous reign where for example you get fine work shillings with mm. Tun which is neither at the beginning nor the end of a design type. I don't know if this is significant to the postulated reasoning for their production.

As the above complaint is obviously aimed at me - I apologise, no offence intended

It's not that rare.

Some things never change. A good example of one of our regular ebay shill bidders. 1694 halfpenny

It's a very poor example of a 1797 penny. The first N is there, but corroded away. It's value is negligible.

Me too. The neck is more curved and the nostril longer plus the H is further from the lighthouse top.

Hmm. The frequency with which these are appearing suggests not as rare as might initially be thought. Surprising that nobody has noted it before.

I'll scan in the page and email it to you shortly. Thanks Rob. Much appreciated. Done

I'll scan in the page and email it to you shortly.

The reply has arrived. The Montagu/Morrieson/Lockett and later Sharp piece was thought to be unique at the time of the Lockett sale. MS wrote on his ticket in 1975 2nd known specimen, other ex Burstal because he didn't know of the Brooker coin. The Burstal piece thought to have gone to the BM turned up in Shuttlewood in 2001 so perhaps the BM has another. Another specimen was in the Middleham Hoard, not catalogued but in with 3a tuns and current whereabouts unknown. A specimen was offered in the S+B Bulletin in 2001. My Tun/Crown on the obverse is not unique as another example struck from different dies was bought from a dealer in 1992. The list of recorded i.m.Tun E2/3s including overstrikes has therefore expanded to 6 or 7 with the likelihood of a couple of unknown examples residing in collections. The apostrophe contraction marks were a new one for my correspondent.

If anyone has Seabys Coin & Medal Bulletin for 1959, either complete or a part could they please PM me. Thanks.

Keep an eye out on amazon. I just looked and there was currently no 1959 but all around that year. If you just want to look or copy something both Baldwin's and Spink have very extensive libraries. I've got a ticket which I think is Seaby's and which has April 1959, 4658, something obliterated and RR on it. The coin in question is a James 1st 3rd coinage shilling i.m.lis, plumes over shield, in VF with minimal clipping and weighs 5.83g. R C Carlyon-Britton sold his extensive hammered collection through SCMB in 1959, so this would be an appropriate fit. I suspect that 4658 is the SCMB number. The only alternative would be the Numismatic Circular and I don't have either of these for 1959. My SCMBs start at 1960. I want to make the link for the provenance.

I don't know for sure because I don't have one, but I assume that the WRL is the same WRL that puts lots of copies of coins on ebay. They all have WRL in their listing. This would be an example.

I wonder what the others are like. 1919KN penny

I would suggest that aubene123 and aubun789 were one and the same. So the reserve was £400.

I've seen some things. Enough to know my wallet is going to be emptied again - hopefully.

It is a fine collection

The mint won't reveal how many were made. They were made in sets, so there should be equal numbers of each denomination for a particular year assuming that normal currency coins were struck e.g. no pennies 1954-60, no 1961 halfpenny etc. I suppose it is just possible that some solely cupro-nickel or bronze sets were produced separately but this is only conjecture and based on the fact that my 1958s came from a 2/6d - 6d run (possibly a part set but the info not divulged) which was item MS5788 in the SNC Dec. 2003. It is probably safe to say that varying numbers between 2 or 3 and low double figures sets were made as some dates are decidedly rare. They were supposedly made for important visitors to the mint although I would have thought it likely that a set would automatically be made for the monarch and possibly the PM and some ministers. The mint won't give any info on mintage at all, and I suspect the recipients want to keep a low profile too and not admit to a bit of fund raising.

Here are 3 shillings for comparison scanned together. UNC currency, 1953 proof from the sets and 1958 VIP respectively. As you can see, both the bust and field on the 1953 are brilliant, whereas the VIP is less reflective than the currency. The VIP bust also has an even texture which the currency pieces soon lose due to handling.

Yes, the bust looks like velvet, albeit in metal. The fields are mirrors, the toning on my 6d at least gives some detail which on a scanner comes out black if untoned due to no light scattering which you will automatically get from a frosted bust or a currency piece as a result of the rougher surface.

I suspect we are all talking sense but using different terminology. In the UK, a matte proof would be one that is sandblasted over all of the face such as the 1902 proofs and which has no mirrors but has proof detail. The odd examples of later proofs were treated so as to improve the photographic qualities. An example of a matte proof 1953 farthing was sold in the "Gregory" part 1 sale (i.e. ex Baldwin) lot 720 and is now on Colin Cooke's website in the farthing section. This does not have a brilliant finish. The normal sets for 1937,1950, 1951 & 1953 were as we know all struck from polished dies which did not have the same sandblasted effect anywhere on the design. As one would expect, the relief detail is not as brilliant as the fields, but equally does not have the velvet-like finish normally found on the VIP busts. The VIP proofs typically had just the detail sandblasted as in my 1958 6d in the gallery, so presumably were made by sandblasting the whole (from which a matte proof would logically be struck) and then polishing the field to produce the cameo effect. So to summarise, I think we are saying a VIP=cameo and a matte proof is different, but with the caveat that the VIP proofs did not always have the cameo effect. The attached picture demonstates the difference between a 1954 and 1958 proof halfpenny where even allowing for some light toning on the 1958 it can be seen that there is no cameo effect. A better appraisal can probably be made by comparing the Adams sale VIP half crowns. The George VIs were not cameo, the Elizabeths (lots 806-811) were dated 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 1958 & 1961, but only the 1957 and 1958 would be described as cameo. My 1958 6d and 1/-s came from the same set as the halfcrown and are also cameo appearance. The presence of a 1961S 1/- which is still pictured on Colin Cooke's site and is not cameo suggests that not all years had this effect.

Based on the image I'd say yes. Interestingly and as an aside, my 1960 VIP proof 3d is not from sandblasted dies and is only a polished die. I don't know when the changeover took place as I don't have any intermediate years or whether both polished and sandblasted pieces were produced for this year.