shagreen

I had a look in the book by Gerald Hoberman p297 " The art of coins and their photography" Spink 1981 where he has the badge described as the Badge of the Imperial Order of the Crown of India and he knows his stuff - look it up on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Crown_of_India . By the way I would recommend that book to anyone

there is a alternative explanation - could it be that someone has thought its a VIP strike of this relatively common crown? For reference please check Mark Rassmussen's website : http://rascoins.com/archive.cfm?message=Please%20enter%20the%20search%20criteria type in year 1951 and key word crown you will see a couple of lovely examples. Now I dont think its at all likely that the PF66 under discussion is one but it may just be

This is all nicely going off topic as usual, but is it just me or is the title year irrelevant? 2014 is coming! We are not availing ourselves of a Tardis for that auction. Everyone have a splendid numismatic Christmas hopefully you all get a chance to relax with some coins and best of luck in the upcoming auctions there seems to be a deluge of material to bid on.

I expect no one will dare crack out coins from any Newman provenance holder given the premium they will be forced to pay. Still they are sold to benefit a charitable cause

Further to this issue; Here is a non Newman provenance comparison for the same 1831 proof coin but in PF64 http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=3030&lotNo=24311&lotIdNo=104041 which is the better coin??

Frankly much of the Newman G.B.milled proof material is very optimistically graded - I think the graders were overcome by the hype IMHO. take for example http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=3029&lotNo=30147&lotIdNo=11049 really PF 65 or GEM proof grade with that rim damage softish reverse strike and disturbed fields -- hmmm

I got my Nobles invoice about 4 hours ago all as expected except for one lot where my pre internet bid wasnt registered. Good luck to all wit your L C bidding

I was not at the sale but you could bid on line up to 2hrs before the relevant session (as with Heritage) and check how many individual bidders there were and if you were still the highest on the lot . There was live streaming video of the auction and you could bid live on line. This prebidding pretty well set my final winning prices. Only an increment or 2 more in the live session won the lots. With Downies I have never paid the full bid either, but only bid with them for maybe 8 lots over the years. With Nobles I have been a buyer and seller for 10 years or so. In general with any auctioneer its a conflict of interest if they own the lot and I think that should be declared but of course it isn't . They get paid on a % of the hammer price so again its an incentive to pump up the price, but again I am comfortable with the fact that if they want to stay in business and grow there business there reputation is paramount. The word gets around quickly these days and you only need a few bad reviews or experiences to bid somewhere else. I really like Heritage and have never paid my full bids with them, they are really setting the standard now in terms of technology and scale.

I guess it always gets down to trust, I didnt pay my maximum bids on the lots I won in this auction, but I think it is getting harder for auction house's to sham bid when its live on line with a room audience as well - bidders arent stupid and auctioneers reputations are at stake.

Hi everyone, there were some nice UK pieces in this auction - in fact the quality was right up there compared to the pretty ordinary or absent 19th C proof material coming up in the auctions around London in the next few days. I paid record prices for the 1831 half crown and 1853 shilling - its very competitive over here to buy anything in those grades. Jim has just introduced live on line bidding but I expect it was also dealers buying on commission that drove the key coin prices up. I didnt bid high on the 1853 half crown as it had some rim damage at 3pm on reverse. https://www.noble.com.au/auctions/lot/?id=310670 https://www.noble.com.au/auctions/lot/?id=310763 https://www.noble.com.au/auctions/lot/?id=310697 the results do show that good prices can be achieved for raw i.e. unslabbed UK coins here in Australia or maybe its just that I am crazy and need to seek therapy for my addiction to nice 19thC proofs

Hello everyone, a different method for those with a smart phone is to use the camera function on macro setting and have a go I was surprised how reasonable the results were. You just need a reasonable hand, just make sure the antishake function is on.

Yes I would agree from the pics its not a 1853 6d proof, further to the above comments re edge and rim a key sign for a proof for this year (and most others) is the reduced narrow "flash" observed in the cartwheel lustre produced from coins struck with carefully polished dies. These proof coins have a more mirror like finish which produce a very broad flash when angled under a point light source. The matte relief also stands out more against the polished mirror fields giving the proofs an enhanced cameo affect. That coin does look like an early strike and has the narrow flash on the obverse indicating its a business struck coin

I also have a few early 19thC proofs with minute red wax drops on them. I put it down to the numismatists of the day not having access to lighting besides candles! yes I know oil lamps would have been preferred.

HI Vicki Silver, Yes the matte surface on incuse areas of proof dies are impacted by filling and wear during repeat striking - its an important factor in reducing cameo but one must wonder if the small number of coins struck in this 1887 series would be sufficient to make a major visual difference , but these coins were struck from different dies. ( Die markers such as raised lines and "irregular blobs seen at 10X magnification) particularly within the denticles but also in other parts near lettering etc. As a further complication the same Proof dies were taken out of storage, cleaned up (brushed and lapped) and used to strike further sets as seen by variation in die rotation. Its a fascinating area of study for me and much is still to be learned

I have attached a couple of pics representing different proof strikes for the crown and early and a late version - hopefully it makes a bit more sense when you can see the whole coin albeit at low resolution. The cameo effect is much more pronounced and the rims also wider in the second pic

Hello, Its great the file attachments work again and I have attached some pics of the roman I double florin reverse proofs - just a small part given the file size limits. The pics represent 2 different proof dies with the first revealing a narrower smoother rim than the second which is wider and acid etched. The second more colourfully toned picture is of a later proof production version. You can see the rims are very even and regular with no sign of post strike damage due to commercial handling in the mint production and distribution process. The lettering is also much clearer due to the higher press pressure and the use of polished blanks. The cameo effect on the effigy is not as pronounced on the early 1887 proof issues. The coins you have are unfortunately not miss handled proofs just nice quality business strikes

Interestingly, the lot description doesn't mention proofs at all: "A VICTORIAN SPECIMEN COIN SET for 1839 comprising seventeen coins including a gold £5 coin, sovereign and half sovereign, in a circular Spink & Sons box. See illustration." Yes but my agent did confirm the higher value silver and gold were proof strikes however the copper and maundy were unfortunately not assessed. The set did sell to a local dealer who had a client lined up for it.

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set. In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations. The box is definitely contemporary (I would guess mid to late 19thC) with the gold braid edge tooling and blue velvet roundels for all coins, no ribbon lifters - a single push button but with no swing hooks (as also used on the "standard" spade shaped case) - the coins were unfortunately mixed in quality but I did not see them in the hand relying on my agents description. Thanks. It certainly looks 19th century. The fact that they were differing in grade is not necessarily surprising. Within a few years of 1839 the auction catalogues are describing some of the £5 coins as impaired e.g Thomas Thomas 1034, Soth 23/2/1844 - and there are other references noted as such. However, if the fractionals were notably different from the rest, then surely that would have to imply the set wasn't original? IMHO the use of a Spink labelled box would imply not as issued by the mint unless there are other boxes so labelled and preferably with 15 coins inside. Unfortunately that still wouldn't clarify whether the 17 hole boxes were made for the mint as a one-off or commissioned privately. If as issued this would potentially help clarifying the order in which the dies were used. Fortunately the early catalogues go to great lengths describing the £5 pieces, which helps. Finding complete matched sets in original boxes would help too as it is unlikely many would have been reconstituted if matched. Agreed - one would need to see a Mint case with 17 recesses in, to be certain. But, and this is a puzzle, surely the quarter farthing is a currency example anyway, as I can find no reference to the existence of any proofs for them? That would imply it was almost definitely a dealer's compiled-to-order set; it could even be a one-off, if the completist collector in question had the the means to shell out for a custom made case (and in the absence of any others, that must be the assumption). My research suggests the Mint did not commission (or perhaps allow ) cases with the official "Royal Arms" logo on them until the 1887 set - Treasury would most likely have been involved in the authorization , before then I wonder if we can work out if they actually paid the box makers ( we need to go to the national archives and look up their invoice records - if they still exist - the Melbourne Branch Mint certainly had these being a typical civil service organisation and operating under the same system). Perhaps the coin dealers / jewelers of the time did this on behalf of the Mint - their focus being on coinage for the masses not fussy collectors. The Royal Mint museum pages http://www.royalmintmuseum.org.uk/collection/collection-highlights/coins/the-una-and-the-lion-five-pound-piece/index.html outline that the 1839 sets were not available until 1843. This implies some fairly organised proof manufacturing process was in place and we can assume these sets were only the 15 coin burgundy shagreen spade shaped cases. Of course proof manufacture would have been a laborious and slow task see the excellent BNJ article by Dyer and Gaspar 50 (1980) 117-27 . The Bentley collection research and other information I think it was an official inquiry into Mint operations held mid 19th C. states the early proofs (pre 1887?) were issued via the engravers who had the privilege of being allowed to do this on behalf of the Mint provided all expenses were reimbursed. Now the Mint would have had official requests for proof sets from Treasury as part of Governmental business for presentation to dignitaries etc I need to get into the archives to research these unless anyone else knows were they issued in the same cases? Spink would most certainly have ordered proof coins from the Royal Mint as I know they did from the Melbourne Branch Mint. It can them be surmised that they commissioned local case makers to prepare whatever custom case they desired. If no official proof version of the fractional farthings is recorded Spink could certainly have ordered "specimen pieces" - if no proof die was available.

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set. In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations. The box is definitely contemporary (I would guess mid to late 19thC) with the gold braid edge tooling and blue velvet roundels for all coins, no ribbon lifters - a single push button but with no swing hooks (as also used on the "standard" spade shaped case) - the coins were unfortunately mixed in quality but I did not see them in the hand relying on my agents description.

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set. In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations. Sorry no link, given the inability to upload I can try and send you the pic via email within this site but dont know if this is possible. The box is definitely contemporary (I would guess mid to late 19thC) with the gold braid edge tooling and blue velvet roundels for all coins, no ribbon lifters - a single push button but with no swing hooks (as also used on the "standard" spade shaped case) - the coins were unfortunately mixed in quality but I did not see them in the hand relying on my agents description. After much hunting (what you can do at lunchtime at work) I found the link http://www.dukes-auctions.com/Catalogues/pf270912/lot0647-0.jpg

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set. In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations. Sorry no link, given the inability to upload I can try and send you the pic via email within this site but dont know if this is possible. The box is definitely contemporary (I would guess mid to late 19thC) with the gold braid edge tooling and blue velvet roundels for all coins, no ribbon lifters - a single push button but with no swing hooks (as also used on the "standard" spade shaped case) - the coins were unfortunately mixed in quality but I did not see them in the hand relying on my agents description.

Yes I have the same problem too the upload terminates prematurely and I have tried Firefox and Chrome browsers to no affect

Is it possible that the seller had simply bunged the fractionals into the box to make the set 'complete'? I guess you'd have to see whether there are recesses specially made for them, or whether they just 'float free'. Quite possible that they were added later, or alternatively were in a custom built box. But in the context of these sets, nothing can be taken for granted given the length of time over which they were produced. There was a 17 coin 1839 set sold in a country English auction last year for around 72K hammer. It came in a round case with the Spink & Son London logo on the inside purple silk lining I dont seem to be able to upload a picture for you. The coin's die orientation was mixed . One can expect that dealers assembled these sets to order

I can add a bit more provenance to this pair they sold for $32,000 AUD at Downies (Australia) Auction held 19-20th February

These marks go back to the hammered era. You can't rely on the presence of a mark in the centre of the face as a unique identifier as it is the one point that ought to remain consistent. Every die has a central point. It is just that some have a larger mark than others. If the engraver was any good, then you would expect the central point to be at the centre of the design. i.e. it isn't very helpful in identifying a die. Totally agree Rob the raised center dot is not a "unique identifier" I would expect it was on the master die and would have then transferred to the working dies - being proofs strikes these dots are more noticeable - I dont study normal strikes but its fascinating how the dot is also on the 1831 and 1853 proof shilling reverses - perhaps indicating the same master for all three - does any one know?