Colin G.

Certainly one to put on the "to be confirmed list"

The distance between the back of the head and the B in BRITT seems a very clear indicator, as does the lower colon stop after the G in D:G: On Obverse 5 it is virtually equidistant from the forehead and the wreath, on Obverse 6 it is much closer to the forehead and much further away from the wreath.

I would agree, seems to be a 1675

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted. We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs. No, what I meant was - only the third image you linked seems to be an incontestable proof. The others (including Rob's and the SNC examples) COULD be simply prooflike. Now I understand.... I am a bit slow but I get there eventually

I am not doubting the fact that they are in someways superior to a circulation strike, and are more akin to a proof, but in the examples I have seen there does seem to be a difference in the consistency of the quality.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted. We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs.

Whilst they may be attractive coins, with a clear contrast between fields and relief, they just don't seem as good as the questionable proof Rob posted above (obviously I have not seen the coins in question in hand). Noticeably the rims are nowhere as consistent, the border teeth and not as clear, and for me even the detail across Britannia's face is often not as good. Whilst they may be classed as proofs, they are not to the same standards that can be found in some years IMHO. Whilst they may be a very high quality coin, they certainly do not seem to be of equal quality. http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/colincookecol/142.jpg http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=129&l=2013&f=r&s=l http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=292&f=o&s=l If it is just the contrast between fields and relief that are the deciding factor, then where do you determine whether a "proof-like" example should be classed as a proof.

I don't know I only got to see about 15 of the coins, and there were some decent coins in there but nothing that warranted that sort of cash...but it is possible that there may have been a gem hidden away...or two people with bidding fever!!

Clearly someone does'nt know a thing about coins. Thats 4000 quid with commission. They'd have to sell each one at 32 pounds clear to just break even Or there was something tasty in there

The 125 farthings went for £3,300

I think you can get that difference across different dates anyway. Obviously I will caveat this with the fact that I am again talking farthings, but 1861 and 1868 proofs tend to be higher quality than many other years that I have seen. I just can not always convince myself that other years (including the Heaton dates) are the same thing. They have proof-like qualities, but are not totally convincing to me. Your picture above is a scan, which makes it more difficult to call but shows quite a bit of contrast and a clear difference in quality to the currency strike. Whether that is a proof for that particular year or a specimen of some sort I doubt we will ever fully establish. This is an 1875H farthing that showed that prooflike, rather than proof quality IMHO http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=141&l=1480&f=r&s=l

I think there are some proofs that immediately scream "proof" at you when you see them, and others that are prooflike, but just don't seem as convincing. For me that 1876H looks to have that contrast and crispness that says proof.

Actually having looked at a few other 1863 Pennies, they do seem to be generally very well struck, I am used to looking at farthings with dreadful rims!! Still a very nice coin, but you will have difficulty establishing it as anything other than a very nice strike, unless it has the mirrored fields associated with proofs, which I am not really seeing in your photos (although it is not always apparent in photos) I will leave you in the hands of the resident penny experts

That is a beauty, very "prooflike" in appearance, the border teeth look much more defined than in AC's example, and the transition between border teeth and rims is also a lot more defined. That has to be some form of "specimen" strike, I know some coins can just be photogenic, but this surpasses just eye appeal ....surely.

Derek that is what I was going to say, I think you would be correct

I guess there's a good-sized market for coins outside of those who study and collect - for example those who can afford to buy lavish art and then spot this and can't resist: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1899-Great-Britain-Queen-Victoria-Penny-Nice-visible-necklace-on-the-queen-/221165087813?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item337e776c45 Compare the amount of hair in the queen head to see the quality. Take a look at the scans and the beauty of this note will shine your eyes wanting you to own it, nice as good as the the day it was made. Beautiful condition. That note coin isn't really in high enough grade for me though so I'm inclined to buy this more modestly marketed piece: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1899-UK-Great-Britain-Large-VICTORIAN-Penny-BEST-YOU-HAVE-SEEN-/321188574108?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4ac854b39c Bargain!!

I have to add that they have since come back to me with some better images of some of the coins in question, so I do have to give them credit for that. I have also noticed that they only accept bank transfer payments from absentee bidders. Any card payments have to be made in person, and can not be done via telephone. I would also think that this would put a lot of people off.

I would also go for the second one

Yet the 1881H farthings would go indicate this was not the practise at that time, because of the various positions that are encountered. This would indicate that they were possibly being cut into individual dies/master dies. Yet the 1875H, 1876H and 1882 H farthings are very consistent in terms of placement I

That's right. What have you got that's for sale and not on eBay? Quite a lot will be going, especially if it's not milled silver! Notably: Hammered Edward VI shilling (VF) Mary groat (F) Henry VIII groat (F+) Roman 89 BC (?) silver denarius depicting the rape of the Sabine women (nVF) Julius Caesar denarius depicting elephant (VF) (Spink 456) Copper & Bronze Bronzed proof 1799 farthing (EF+) Misc Victoria farthings Milled Silver George VI shillings (E & S) and half crowns (all dates, all EF-UNC) Miscellaneous Liz II Piedfort £2 and £5 (although I'll probably wait until the silver price recovers a bit, if ever!) I haven't got around to properly describing or photographing these yet, but if there's anything that particularly catches your (or anyone's) eye please PM me! Paulus, I will have a look at your farthings for you if Chris is not interested

Glad to hear you are sticking around...I have to admit there are some coins I would hate to part with

The e-mailed ones are worse

It is on the saleroom - http://www.thecanterburyauctiongalleries.com/

They must be watching...I have just received an e-mail with some of the info requested