VickySilver

Excellent post Prax! I wonder that these consortiums don't collude - maybe keeping prices down is not in their overall interest though...

Yes, that is why there was very little of interest to collectors like me. As per Jac above, the Gerald Jackson sales were unheralded but had some of the very nicest pennies I have ever seen with many bits of much more interest than the Slaney - the Spink stock photos did not do them justice at all with these very underrated consequently. Unfortunately for the secondary market, many of them fell into the hands of the few and the prices were boosted considerably. As best I could gather, these pieces were "cherrypicked" through the '80s and '90s by the consignor from mainly the Spink Numismatic Circular - possibly advised by an insider.

Wow, that's a lot. About 5-10 USD would be better - bullion is around 8 USD for this one....

Yes indeed, I concur and thanks Rob for an eloquent assessment there. Prax, did you see the Spink America 1882 last year and was it the one featured in an SNC article 20 or so years ago. The Spink America coins were particularly nice and MUCH better than their lousy pictures or grades represented. I was not prepared to go above 20k pounds for the coin but did settle for an upgrade of my 1869, which again was FAR better than the pictures in guide. I would certainly like to see a finer 1882!

I popped for the 1865 half penny which was a decent specimen!

I guess there are a few ways to look at the few survivors line of evidence. If only a few were made even from two dies (let alone 3!), it might only be that a couple from one survived as the rest were paid out into circulation where they would naturally have been generally unloved for quite some while. I have found in other areas (okay medicine and biology), that original source material is often propogated to the point that there really is only one point of view or line of evidence being presented, but being "retold" by successive authors. There are quite a few examples in the USA series where the "mother mint" in Philadelphia produced dies for the branch mints and resultant strikes/specimens are either unknown or only from a specimen or two and generally in more worn state unless preserved and passed on as assay specimens. In other words, what is done with dies is not always predictable. Also, if there were for some reason a second run, it is certainly possible that another die was selected for whatever reason (damage, or rust, or ? to the first or second dies)...

I agree that is some money. Overall, what I do not understand is the dogma that there must be only one die type combo for an 1882 "no H". Absolutely no proof that I have seen is convincing. I guess that rightly so people approach this date gingerly.

I like to look at border teeth....Agreed, not the rare one!

Well, all personal preference as had been said. I have quite an affinity for Victorian silver as all of you may have guessed but I don't have a Gothic, nor will I. Just too expensive for a non-currency bit IMO. I've left the other young head crowns as well...

I agree with that - the hole in the collection filled with a bit you will be looking at and possibly not content with, at least I wouldn't be.

Got me there! Still don't believe these are worth more than a choice 1864, let alone an 1882 London...

And yet I have seen some that really have not worn and just don't seem "proofy" whilst others have more of a proof appearance - not including those struck to a higher and possibly pure and not sterling silver standard & some with the plain edge. Maybe they were later strikes? They do have more of a currency appearance IMO.

Too slow, Rob beat me to the punch. I concur...

I am definately suspicious of this or the narrow 7s, etc. only being rarity by virtue of many being overlooked. I don' t even care to add one to my own penny collection - in case you didn't get it, I rather dislike the "hypervarietals". OK, I admit I do have a fair stash of 1864 serif and crosslet 4 pennies. Maybe I'll get around to posting a couple...

Looks not, cleaned and retained. Looks a bit uneven in strike and die prep more like a currency.

The Hercules crown pattern is much more available in bronze form. I even got the ex-Norweb for about 800 quid. Simply beautiful, though I'd like the silver as well; believe that was the cover of a Spink auction catalogue 15 or so years ago.

1860 penny not proof, but nice choice anyway. 1817 Three Graces Crown Pattern I would pick.

That '34 is as rotten fake as they come. Metal quality and surfaces are awful.

There is currently a bit of an unpleasant conversation cross the Atlantic on the PCGS boards as to whether the 1849 Godless florin should be considered Gothic or not. What say you readers?

Yea, pretty much a moot point I suppose. The garb is "Gothic" and also I do remember that a puncheon was used by the Royal Mint for a pattern crown (though of about florin size by memory) in ~1966 and sold in an SNC. They referred to that piece as Gothic. I think what happens on those other boards is that there are some real blowhards that must be heard, no doubt a bit frustrated in life. PS - A couple of the 1848 patterns have the Gothic bust depiction but are "Godless" as well.....

Well I do rather know the series as you might guess. The lettering post-1851 is Gothic as well, but IMO it is the depiction of Victoria in her garb that is Gothic and makes it so....

The 1853 1/2 crown is over 47 quid now....

And I have looked at all of my 1887-1902 crowns and seen seemingly not just "either-or" but somewhat of a spectrum; some appear to have an empty mouth and others various amounts of, uhh, content and others full set of dental.

Well, if we remember that the "Ansell" coins were struck because of issues of gold alloy for the sovereign and that these were marked for RM followup and study (evidently) I would imagine none were carried over unless someone were to strike up some sport coins there at the midnight shift...

I agree that the obv. appears a bit less well struck than reverse but what is hard to tell is if there are any hairlines from wiping or cleaning. If so, 58 and if not IMO guess is 62.