VickySilver

Except that "proof" 1839 1/2d. Where did the designation come from?

I guess its a pet peeve of mine (obviously NOT a collector of these bits) that all these Charlie and even Cromwell Broads and Unites and their multiples are supposedly rare and yet show up with alarming frequency. Rarity is trumpeted about much as with the Bun pennies and the hypervarietals....

Yes, I saw an 1862 half sov he'd done with not so great a result...

Can we remind the lazy amongst us with pictures of the 1849 penny and '05 shilling? I seem to vaguely recall the later...

Stockwell in Kentucky, I believe.

Interesting that the 1874 sov struggled at 2100....Not a good result IMO. The other "lesser" sovs struggled as well.

Yes, and the broadstruck 1960 crown at 3600 POUNDS!!!!

Ah, that must be the specimen 1922 penny then! LOL!

You know I looked at that SG list of 200, and will cite the 1935 Crown struck in gold as one that HAS NOT increased steadily as indicated but rather performed "up and down" in auctions. I'm not sure of their emphases on some of the listed items as Rob has alluded to. However, the general point as broached by Prax is well taken. I noted that Baldwin's even before being absorbed into the SG group (boo hoo!) had begun some sort of investment consortium - I wonder how many there actually are? I'm a bit in the boat with Jaggy in that there are not a lot of pieces I require but admit to being a bit fearful when the remaining bits come up & recall recent fights over coins in my area like the 1850 shilling in highest grades....

Perhaps these are coins not on the 200 List? This bit is interesting and seems to explain why coins such as VF-EF Vicky silver of rarer dates do not perform exceptionally. Uhh, not that I would be interested... LOL

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.