1949threepence

Of course the other factor we don't know is whether either of the two main bidders for this coin actually requested (and received) better pics from the vendor which removed any doubt they had. Who knows.

Whenever you really need it, the zoom feature isn't on. Not brilliant photography anyway. Another feature of reverse F is that the rocks to the left of the lighthouse tail off before they reach the linear circle. Not sure whether that's the case with this one or not.......probably not actually. Given the amount bid, however, some are obviously convinced.

No, but would have done if I'd realised it was on offer. Nice condition and better than mine. Well worth the money.

What a magnificent collection and sale. 208 lots and all but about 2 or 3 sold. I managed to get lots 26 & 91. Many of the lots went to room bidder "No 900" Anybody else tune in and get something, or just watch?

In fairness I'm probably not strictly comparing like with like. If you include the late Soho and denominations other than pennies, it was a great collection, especially as it was assembled in just 15 years. I'd certainly be interested to know how he came to acquire the ex King Farouk gold penny. He perhaps used e mail bids and did well on them. I received my two won lots today and was pleasantly surprised to see Ian's original notes relating to provenance. That's never happened with any other purchases.

Good point. His pre 1800 early Soho rivalled that of Colin Adams, especially with the gold pieces. But as you say there was nothing in the penny department from 1805 to 1807. Yep, interesting die flaw on the last colon of your .W.W 1831. There are similar ones in the Victorian copper period, notably 1855 and 1859.

At the end of the day that's precisely it. If you want a coin badly enough you'll pay the extra.

Well that did cross my mind, but it does strike me that there's some smoke and mirrors somewhere with DNW as the effective net increase in buyer's premium (inclusive of VAT) since the purchase I made in 2016, is from 24% to 28.8%. The figures don't lie. Which is your point to be fair. So what they did was to hide a 4.8% increase in buyer's premium by extracting the VAT and showing it separately. Sneaky.

...and the rest yesterday... OK, so here's a question that somebody brighter than me should be able to answer with ease. How come DNW charge VAT on top of their buyer's premium, when (eg) LCA don't? Also, why didn't DNW charge VAT on said buyer's premium up until relatively recently? For example hammer price on coins bought in 2016 for me, was £680.00 Total cost £843.20, which is an increase of exactly 24%. Or is there something blindingly obvious I'm missing?

Yes, possibly Canada. His biography says he moved abroad in 1976 and that his youthful interest in coins was rekindled as recently as 2006 when he spied a 1797 cartwheel twopence in a Toronto dealer's shop, bought it, and the rest, as they say, is history. link to biography

Yes you're right Richard. Got my invoice and it shows that what has been added is VAT on general lots at 4.8%, plus import duty at 5% as you say. Just checked back on some old DNW invoices and all they show is buyer's premium at 24% - no VAT. There was still a column for VAT on bullion lots, but that was it. So the net effect of all that lot (no pun intended) is an additional 33.8% over and above hammer !!!

Just looked at my invoice. The total "juice" amounts to 33.8% exactly. I believe there is import duty on this sale, but I didn't think it was as much as 6.8 sodding per cent ! Oh well, never mind. At least I've got the coins. Yes the prices were insane.

I Tell a lie - 8 lots went unsold.

Great discussion, I agree. Some really important considerations raised and debated. I've come to the conclusion that I'm only ever going to trust a mint, or near mint state 1882 no H..... ......and as I'm probably never going to see another one for sale, let alone be able to afford it, that's me permanently out of the running.

It is very interesting and worth keeping. I'm intrigued by item No 20, the 1887 penny with a "grained edge". Whilst I've never seen one I have noted varying opinions regarding their mint authenticity, ie: whether they were engraved post mint or not. Naturally, the thicker edged copper coins lent themselves far more readily to edge graining.

Indeed. The Ian Sawden collection has a lot of copper. It also has a 1797 excessively rare gold penny. One of only two known. Needless to say it's very very expensive and it'll be interesting to see what it fetches.

Only if virtually mint state as in the one shown on the previous page, or it's clearly the correct die pairing. Otherwise, even if legit, there will always be an element of doubt.

Interesting. Checked mine. Just the usual two lines, unfortunately.

If you stare long enough at any smooth part of the exergue/field, you can make something out.

That may well have been the one we discussed. There's certainly no trace whatever of any underlying disturbance. Another interesting question arising, is whether the no H pennies were produced at the London Mint. Or at the Heaton Mint and one or two errant dies minus the H were produced, but given the extreme rarity, quickly identified. Or maybe both for different reasons. One intentional, the other an accidental omission.

hmmm....well...probably, but in essence the jury's still out.

Very true, and if I recall correctly this has caused questions on here at some point as to the die pairing on an allegedly no H 1882.

It is, yes. Obverse 11 + reverse M. So you should be able to see whether it's legit or not anyway.

Definitely in that condition. Of course the great thing about it being in that mint state is that you know immediately the H hasn't been worn or tooled away.

Absolutely no surprise whatsoever. Wonder if it stayed in the UK. ETA: did you notice what the 1860/59 went for Richard? It was a very nice specimen.