1949threepence

Thanks Richard.

Very pleased to have obtained an UNC 1854 PT penny with considerable lustre. 1854's often seem to turn up quite scruffy looking. This one is an exception. I don't think my pics do justice to the lustrous appearance, so I've also included a link to it, which shows the coin as it actually appears in hand.

Sneaky steal is just about right £1100 hammer + 20% juice, so just £1320 for a 192A (lot 62). That is a bargain. Just been looking at the prices realised in the Spink Waterbird collection. £75,000 for lot No 24, the unique 1808 penny. Interesting. £5,800 hammer (£6960 overall) for Lot No 46, the 1849 penny. It's a bit better than the one I've got lustre wise, but has a few carbon spots. I think actually mine was a slight bargain for £4,500 especially from Rendel Ingram, who always charges top dollar. But it was one of those cases where they had priced it up several years ago, and for whatever reason it just didn't sell. Then in the meantime the value rose anyway (probably). Another sneaky steal was lot No 51, the F47 1863 die No 4 at just £2000 hammer. Die No 4 is the most "plentiful" as it were, but most of them are very worn - little more than clear date washers in some cases. That one was a distinct cut above the average. link to pics and prices realised

Yes, I must do one myself at some point. Have fortunately got a record of all with the hard copy receipts. One thing I am seriously considering is a website for my penny collection, now that it's nearly complete - although they're never truly complete are they. But need to get some more sophisticated photographic equipment, capable of UHD quality pics, as well as close ups.

Crikey. I would never not know the precise location of such a coin.

Hmmm, well I'm as keen as mustard to get a 192A, but I've got to cut the mustard financially before I can afford one. As for KIng George V, he must have had an 'ard time coping with such an addiction (sorry, sorry)

You could always check it against the specimen sold that day. It's very easily identifiable by the yellow smudge at the side of the King's nose - link Thing is, we buy so many coins over such a long period, that it's easy to lose track of where and when we got them, and especially how much they cost. Looking at a couple of my cabinet trays, I can remember where and roughly when I got most of them, but am a bit more hazy on the exact price of all but the most expensive. Obviously every fine detail of some stick in the mind more than others. But as our memories are not reliable, I keep a hard copy record of all my purchases, in the form of receipts. I print them off if e copies only, as internet records just cannot be relied on to stick around for any length of time. Blink and they've vanished into cyberspace. A hard copy paper record will not disappear (unless the house burns down), so forms a long term reliable record on precisely where and when you got the coin, together with its price.

..........in the absence of a reliable description? There obviously must be a way, but it's not at all obvious to me. Two pictures follow, the second one on a separate post because I can't get them small enough to get onto one post. One is a P1326 bronzed proof, and the other is a P1327 copper proof. Can anybody point to the difference? Neither of the coins is mine.

Although Freeman says that a pattern penny was produced in 1887 in Gold, Silver, Aluminium, Copper (Bronzed Finish) and Copper. All vanishingly rare, or in the case of gold, probably unique.

"The clock I'm keeping" - that's because there isn't one. It'll probably be her Great Grandad's long lost trunk in the attic next.

It's on the same theme as that one of David Cameron:-

That's the kind of rain those stationary hurricanes just off the US Southern coast drop. Biblical levels.

For me personally, impossible to say either way.

I think I'm correct in saying that many of those 1860 pattern/trial pieces were indeed copper, and bronzed copper. Although I've no idea which one that is..... Pattern by Moore perhaps?

That was almost certainly your problem Richard. I too had serious issues with restoro, which I hadn't intentionally downloaded - but there it was anyway. Must have come wrapped up in something else. Similar effects to what you've experienced. I'd bet your PC will be running OK from now on. I wonder if it's some sort of scam whereby it slows down your machine then pops up as a cure if you're willing to pay - you might find this brief exchange about it, quite interesting - link Apart from the very obvious, PC diagnostics can be incredibly difficult. Sometimes the only way is to have it completely cleaned to flush out whatever has secreted itself away. These days I never download anything onto my PC. If there's anything I need I just install an app on my tablet and use that. Tablets and other mobile devices rarely get compromised in the way that PC's do. But the downside is that they're not nearly as convenient.

At the behest of your suggestion, I tried both. I got much further with Peck than Google, although still not clear what precise chemical agent was used, or exact procedure followed, to bronze the copper. But here is what Peck says at page 220 (last paragraph) of the 1964 re-print:- Not 100% crystal clear whether Peck was referring to currency pieces which had toned down, or to copper proofs. If currency pieces then other features can mark out the distinction between them and a proof. In the case of KP31, P1326, for example, the fact that the 0 of the date is incomplete and the 1 has no base serif. Also, the reverse is not inverted, which it is on the currency strike. Peck continues:- Rather an obvious point but worth repeating. At page 405, Peck states:-

Yes, that makes the comparison easier. Thanks.

I think that's right. I've spent much of today looking off and on at copper and bronzed proofs. The only truly consistent difference I can make out is that the bronzed proofs are slightly darker in finish.

This one is described as a bronzed proof, yet seems to have lustre. I suppose my underlying point here is whether it's worth buying another proof of the same date, on the basis that it's bronzed rather than copper? If it's a gilt proof, no problem as they are very obviously gilt.

Needless to say, you're both correct. But it's your reasoning I'm interested in. What is the identifiable difference?

Slightly different as that became a national fact in being, against which it was literally impossible to do anything about. That's not the same as coercing a shopkeeper to display goods in metric weights, on pain of prosecution for default, when there was a traditional, established and perfectly viable system already in place, which the customers of private traders were not complaining about, and arguably most preferred. Sorry but the mantra of "you've got to this because we say so, and woe betide you if you don't", when there is no reasonable case for having to do so, goes right against the grain with me, and also many others. As far as I know, no legitimate and convincing arguments were ever put forward, propounding the positives of abruptly switching to metric and ditching imperial, merely "it's now the law", being enforced by some goon from the council.

Well in conclusion all I can say is that we've left the EU in accordance with a democratic mandate, and there's no going back. I'm not convinced that everybody under 60 does think in terms of heights and weights in metric. I'd naturally describe my height in feet and inches, and weight in stones and pounds. That's what I and they were brought up with at home, regardless of what is taught in schools. I suppose now that the generation under 30 are bringing up kids of their own, they probably will just be referring to metric heights and weights, and the old imperial will no longer be recognised. So your wish will be granted - eventually. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a Luddite when it comes to new things. Especially if they're imposed without consultation.

Why shouldn't they use what scales they like? The customer isn't being defrauded either way. The prosecution against Thoburn was based on EU law:-