Accumulator

Has anyone studied the coins carefully? Here are the two reverses… Check the chest area of St. George around the strap, his thigh muscles, the chest muscles of the horse, the rim etc. and tell me which is the better graded coin?

Does anyone know why Noble haven't updated their website since the November 2013 auction? I was quite pleased with my purchases and looking forward to future sales, but the homepage still previews an auction which finished nearly 3 months ago!

Hmmmm… well I was about to answer that there's quite a difference between a 78 and an 82 grade (and so there should be), then I took a look at the coins in question. Is it my imagination, or is there slightly more wear to the better graded coin? Check the strap running across St. George's chest. there's little doubt that the 78 Crown exhibits less wear here. There are other examples too. Oh dear!

I feel sure that many internet bidders, used to the conservative grading of the specialist auction houses, accepted the 'mostly uncirculated' description of the copper & bronze. Yes, there were a couple of 'tasty' pennies in there, but also a lot of coins well beyond saving due to the verd. The most interesting pennies for me were an F1 and an F14 in GEF, both in lot 893. I bid but dropped out before it hit the eventual £3k + commission etc. (I.e £4k) The only other penny of interest was an 'unlisted' 1875H 8+H die combination. I couldn't find any reference to the existence of such a coin at auction or in any reference book, so viewed it very suspiciously. Whilst it was undoubtedly 8 + H (narrow date), there was a good deal of corrosion around the site of the 'H', which appeared to have been scratched clean. I have to say, I was just not convinced enough to bid (the other coins in the lot were in pretty awful condition). If anyone here bought it, I'd be extremely interested to know the outcome of a more comprehensive check?

I agree. The Labour Government may have 'caused' the deficit by spending billions to bail out the banks, but the alternative would have been total economic collapse, worse even than Greece. Unfortunately I've read that the banks are back to some of their worst excesses, and haven't learned a thing it seems except how to make irresponsible profits. I've run my own businesses all my working life and never received a penny from government when times are hard, nor have I ever expected it. In years gone by I've had to raid my personal savings to pay staff (I never let them know) and juggle things so as never to let a single supplier down. Whilst understanding the necessity of saving the banks and preventing financial melt-down, what sticks in my craw is the sense of entitlement that bankers still seem to have, despite our saving their collective arses. I have first hand experience of an RBS director, from the days of failure, still living the high life when, in any other business situation, he'd be struggling to explain to potential employers why he deserves a job counting paperclips.

Same with the pennies, which I travelled down to view on Saturday. Only one lot interested me, and I just saw it go for 3 x estimate. With a few exceptions, they really weren't in the best condition having suffered from a significant attack of verdigris.

1862 is another year with often excellent strikes, as is your Peckris. Not a detail missing from that coin.

I still think we English should hold a referendum to decide whether we want Scotland to be a member of our Kingdom. If the answer's No, we'll give them a month's notice to quit.

But as nice as it is, it still falls a little bit short of say my 1867 bronzed and 1879 bronze proofs. Both are ex-Nicholson http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/nicholson_part5.html for comparison. An 1868 (ex Bamford), for comparison (sorry if you've seen it before):

A lovely example Rob!

Welcome! I started in the days before decimalisation, collecting coins from change. I still have many of those coins and have been fortunate to add to them over the years. I've always been drawn to pennies, in particular, so have focussed my collection on the copper and bronze series from 1797 to 1970. I'm unashamedly a date run collector, keen to obtain an example of every known type of penny, including proofs and patterns… an impossible task of course! The link below will give you an idea of where I am with the collection.

All 1863 coins were from dies 6 + G. Freeman lists a bronzed proof with rarity R18 and I note that a few have been sold over the years. Interestingly Baldwins sold a beautiful 'proof like' example, which they didn't actually claim to be a proof, so maybe another specimen? 1863 is one of the more common years so UNC examples with virtually full lustre rarely fetch more than £200-250 (Spink has £375). Not everyone would accept the lack of lustre on your example, though many would for such a fine strike. Personally I'd say £150-200 for your coin, unless it shows a proof-like quality (mirrored surface) to the fields that isn't evident in the photos in which case substantially more.

Now that's a very interesting discussion. What do you make of this catalogue footnote to the sale of an 1874H penny by DNW in 2006: FootnotePeriodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished ‘specimen’ coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369). Truly genuine Heaton mint proofs of this period (cf. Adams lot 268 = SNC April 2005, 2467) are exceedingly rare; most of those so catalogued in the Freeman sale were in fact ‘specimens’ That's fascinating. Presumably though, such specimens had the H mintmark? Yes, this was specific to a description of an 1874H but it did make me wonder about other specimens v. proofs. I was especially interested in the rather damning last sentence about Michael Freeman's own proofs. I wonder whose authority they were relying on to make that rather broad statement?

Now that's a very interesting discussion. What do you make of this catalogue footnote to the sale of an 1874H penny by DNW in 2006: FootnotePeriodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished ‘specimen’ coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369). Truly genuine Heaton mint proofs of this period (cf. Adams lot 268 = SNC April 2005, 2467) are exceedingly rare; most of those so catalogued in the Freeman sale were in fact ‘specimens’

Toungue in cheek, because I really don't care, but…. I'm proud to be a pathetic SouthEast 'Little Englander' increasingly isolated on the edge of the Atlantic (not sure which part borders the Atlantic though ), and am very happy to let the Scots decide their own fate. A clear choice between a rich kid, bully boy, hypocrite Cameron making his lofty pronouncements from 10, Mount Olympus and an over inflated bouncy castle who refuses to let born and bred Scots, who happen to currently live in Little England, have their vote. Half a million people who are not 'Scottish nationals', but live in Scotland, get to vote. Whereas nearly a million 'Scottish nationals' who reside in the rest of the UK are denied a vote. Glad I don't have to defend that decision.

Excellent photos for showing the depth of strike. Is the coin really that dark or have you just adjusted the colour? The impression is almost proof like. My 1863 has full lustre, but your photos are, in many ways, more attractive.

The discussion on H & KN pennies in another topic covered at the ongoing problems with strike during the early years of the 20th century. It prompted me to look at a few of my coins from this period and make an assessment of the best example for the collection. Typically I might have two coins from a particular date. One, the example showing the best lustre, would appear the better when viewed in hand with the naked eye. The second, having less than full, or less perfect, lustre would show a much better strike when examined under magnification. So which should go into the collection and which should be moved on? Here's an example for 1917. The first has almost perfect, even, lustre but the typically poor strike. The second has a less perfect lustre but a really good strike for the year. The first looks best in hand, the second under magnification. Which would you keep?

It's never been thought through properly. Imagine the outcries and accusations of racism if we (England) held a referendum for independence from Scotland, in which the Scottish were denied a vote! It would never be allowed to happen.

Sorry Dave, didn't look at those.

They haven't attempted to… they just say 'mostly uncirculated'. While some are, many are most certainly not.

Interesting that PCGS are doing so well. Despite their reputation as the largest TPG I had a feeling they were losing ground to NGC recently. Heritage have a tie in to NGC and must have pushed a good deal of business their way.

That's a really nice example and, as Peckris says, would command a premium for the strength of the strike. The KN's are generally a lot better than the H's for the same year.

Another interesting thing when I visited…. The coins are in old pvc envelopes stored within pvc album pages (neither of which are that clean). They wouldn't let me remove the coins for viewing so I had look at them through 2 layers of old pvc. Not the best viewing experience!

Thanks guys (except for Gary's suggestion ). I do prefer the second example but will probably go along with the idea of keeping both.

Obverse: