Red Riley

They look distinctly 2nd - early 3rd century and probably of good silver but beyond that I'm stumped. As Peck says, could be local imitations.

Have you a reference to the catalogue - there's nothing on the web site? No, it's rubbish isn't it, guess they might get round to putting something up there before the 4th! I've stopped going to Croydon too. Last time I was there, it became obvious to me that the lower estimate was usually the reserve, so the chances of getting a real bargain were very slim. On the other hand the commission is very low and it is at least a day out but if you intend to bid on anything take a quartz halogen lamp with you...

To me this looks perfectly OK but due to the deep engraving lines and general 'busy-ness' of the design, these are amongst the easiest to photograph. Try an Edward VII or George V obverse. You may have the same problems with Napoleon III too!

Definitely looks like 70 to me and the 7 is positioned in the same place as the die number 71 that I have. 70 to me. Bearing in mind die numbers were part of the mint's 'blame culture' it was in the employee's interest to make it as indistinct as possible!

Definitely looks like 70 to me and the 7 is positioned in the same place as the die number 71 that I have. 70 to me. Bearing in mind die numbers were part of the mint's 'blame culture' it was in the employee's interest to make it as indistinct as possible!

May not actually be what we understand as verdigris which usually seems to occur in small spots and eats away at the metal. Greenish deposits like this are not unusual on copper (many Roman bronzes are all green but quite stable), so proceed as Stuart suggests with the cocktail stick but I wouldn't go any further. The reason I say this is that agents, even something as seemingly innocuous as olive oil can affect the patina, and this seems quite good in that department. Just keep an eye on the green stuff to make sure it doesn't get any worse.

No, I don't buy that either. We have to remember that when coins are produced, the intention is to fulfill a treasury quota and dies are used as they become available, usually oldest first. The fact that this can produce rare die combinations is, or at least was irrelevant to the mint. Presumably once the basic effigy for the new head was available, no dies were cut using the old one and therefore the pennies minted early in the 1926 run would have used dies probably dating back to 1921 or 1922 and kept in stock.

Yes, and very recently. I put in a bid at the last Warwick & Warwick for a 1953 proof set, which given the amount I was prepared to pay, was surprised to win. When it turned up, it was just the exhumed contents of a plastic packed uncirculated set put in what looked like a mint case. It went straight back and I've now received a refund. To be honest though, this is absolutely basic - it's like putting in a bid for a horse and receiving a donkey. As Peckris says this is not a mistake that professional auction houses should be making. Which is precisely the point I have been making for the last 4 or 5 years about them. You can point out catalogue errors but they just ignore what you say. I almost get the impression that they catalogue them as the vendor describes, whether it is right or wrong. It's a fundamental reason why you would be very foolish to bid blind. Sure you can send it back, but that just enriches the Royal Mail. I've pointed out maybe half a dozen things in the past, all of which resulted in no auction notices being issued. Peck is right when he says it isn't a mistake that professionals should be making, but I don't consider they are. The description has to be particularly esoteric for me to consider potentially wasting a day. For something as cheap as this I didn't consider it much of a risk and they refunded my postage so I didn't lose any money, just a small amount of time.

Yes, and very recently. I put in a bid at the last Warwick & Warwick for a 1953 proof set, which given the amount I was prepared to pay, was surprised to win. When it turned up, it was just the exhumed contents of a plastic packed uncirculated set put in what looked like a mint case. It went straight back and I've now received a refund. To be honest though, this is absolutely basic - it's like putting in a bid for a horse and receiving a donkey. As Peckris says this is not a mistake that professional auction houses should be making.

Not quite sure what you mean but there were two distinct reverses used on pennies during the period 1874-9 known as 'narrow' and 'wide' dates. This is simply a shorthand for a whole host of differences including the 'narrow date' penny having a tall thin lighthouse, whereas the 'wide' version had a short fat lighthouse; Britannia looks quite emaciated in the narrow date etc. Without going into too much detail, the 'narrow date' is rare for 1879, ludicrously rare for 1877 and non-existent for 1878. Generally speaking, most designs will show variations in date width, as the last and sometimes the last but one digit are punched in on already prepared dies but in this case, the whole reverse is rather different.

Last one I can remember seeing the light of day over 'ere made about £10k (London Coins but I can't remember which one) and it wasn't as good as yours Bob.

Only just noticed this post Derek. It's beginning to sound possible that this coin was part of Baldwin's stock, though being such a good example I'm surprised it didn't sell before they 'hoovered it up' (if that's what happened) or that it sat in their stock for a long time. Unless, of course, it became 'lost' in their basement for some years. The only other thing I remember (although I don't recall the details) is that it wasn't cheap! Which may of course explain why it wasn't snapped up sooner. My guess is that I saw it about 1993.

Ours was; 'Brute aderat forte, Caesar adsum jam. Brute sic in omnibus, Caesar sic intram'

If it's any help, sometime in the 90s I was shown an 1868 proof penny by Baldwin's which they had in stock, although it really wasn't what I was after at the time. Afraid I don't have any more details other than they definitely had one.

Weight for a start. Assuming it's EF-ish, you should be looking at 28.35 to 28.4g. I have to say, I've not heard of 1928s being faked but I may be wrong.

Looks like a 'can't be bothered with this stuff' grading and the estimate seems to be about 4x under what it will go for in practice - a pretty blatant attempt at getting bums on seats or fingers on the keyboard... Frankly these big city auction houses with their ludicrously expensive offices 'in the best parts of town' and extortionate buyers' premiums irritate the hell out of me. Last DNW I went to, the receptionist had an accent that made the queen sound like an extra from East Enders. Sorry, think I've become a class warrior overnight...

Well up to a point... He has however fallen foul of one of my pet hates i.e. saying something is 'rare' when he hasn't a clue whether it is or not.

This is a very long thread and so I may have missed something but the 2nd coin you have submitted underlines a major flaw with slabbing - how the hell are you going to see it's a raised edge proof? At best you could peer at an oblique angle (not sure my vari-focals would cope) or at worst you may just not see it at all. Perhaps you were thinking like me and just submitted it to see how they coped; in any event I will be very interested to see what you get back. Not sure how my notoriously short patience will manage...

If it's actually that coin you're getting then it is a fair price. Common year and therefore not bargain of the century but decent deal nonetheless.

Actually I'm not. Not sure lower grade is really their thing. Probably said this before but I've certainly seen one of theirs graded F which really should have struggled to make Fair. Could have been an aberration, but unlikely as it was hen's teeth rare. In this case I'd give it NF but could change in hand.

Hairlines in the field is the most obvious but you might also find some residue of the cleaning agent in the legend. With copper/bronze it is patently obvious and largely irrepairable, silver - look out for a too steely tone which probably indicates cleaning some time ago.

I wonder if anybody had the idea of slabbing a coin in bakelite?

I am all for them being conservative on the higher grades but I just have a sneaking feeling (and my experience is more London Coins than CGS in fairness) that they leave the lower grades, particularly fine, with too much ground to cover. There was one rare and expensive coin I recall that they slabbed as 'fine' which I thought was nearer to 'fair'. On the other hand there have been occasions when I thought they might have been one-third of a grade low which at least is erring on the right side. These are just observations on my part and really shouldn't be given too much weight.

No, in all fairness I bought it already slabbed. Anyway, here is a photograph on which you can just see the fingerprint at about 7 o'clock. The image also shows the difficulty of photographing through a slab - the coin is about 1000% better than it appears here!

That certainly isn't where I got it from, although CGS er... London Coins was certainly involved in its sale! Another thing which faintly irks me about this slab is that the inner capsule part seems to be so oversized that not only is the edge not visible, but the obverse beading isn't either.