1863 penny sold for £19000!

[1949threepence 3,367]

Ignore their store values. The auctions are a better place to hunt (usually except for this slender 3)....

But how can you ignore those prices? You have to ask yourself, who is a £20 1967 halfcrown or a £15 1966 penny aimed at? It can't be the likes of us, as you would hear us laughing all the way from the moon. So who, then? Gullible novices? I would have said London Coin Auctions were too reputable for that kind of scam. So who, then? It makes no sense, none at all.

The more I think about this, the more baffled but also more annoyed I become. It's like they're either taking the mick, or trying to con someone as yet unidentified.

I wish one of their representatives would come on here and give us the benefit of their thinking.

I suspect that what you are paying for here is not the coin, but the plastic that surrounds it and the grade that it has been assigned. Here in the United States such nonsensical pricing logic has become the norm rather than the exception. Here's one of our more extreme examples...

a penny for your thoughts

Well I don't know much about US coins, but for such a modern coin, that does seem expensive.

[Gary D 76]

Ignore their store values. The auctions are a better place to hunt (usually except for this slender 3)....

But how can you ignore those prices? You have to ask yourself, who is a £20 1967 halfcrown or a £15 1966 penny aimed at? It can't be the likes of us, as you would hear us laughing all the way from the moon. So who, then? Gullible novices? I would have said London Coin Auctions were too reputable for that kind of scam. So who, then? It makes no sense, none at all.

The more I think about this, the more baffled but also more annoyed I become. It's like they're either taking the mick, or trying to con someone as yet unidentified.

I wish one of their representatives would come on here and give us the benefit of their thinking.

I suspect that what you are paying for here is not the coin, but the plastic that surrounds it and the grade that it has been assigned. Here in the United States such nonsensical pricing logic has become the norm rather than the exception. Here's one of our more extreme examples...

a penny for your thoughts

Well I don't know much about US coins, but for such a modern coin, that does seem expensive.

Don't forget it's not only us in the UK buying Uk coins. We may consider them commonplace but if you are sitting in the middle of johnnie foriegner land how else do you get coins for you UK coin collection.

[scott 144]

that US cent is awesome, bit modern for that sort of money but MS-70 is top grade possible isn't it?

[Coppers 58]

that US cent is awesome, bit modern for that sort of money but MS-70 is top grade possible isn't it?

Scott - they struck billions of those pennies. If I had a a slabbed 1933 British penny and removed it from its graded plastic casing, I don't believe that would have any impact on its value. How much do you think that $15,000 MS-70 penny would be worth if someone were to remove it from its casing? What happens if the next time a grader examines it they only think its a $25 MS-69?

[scott 144]

i dont agree it should sel for that either, its plain stupid

[Peckris 579]

.I suspect that what you are paying for here is not the coin, but the plastic that surrounds it and the grade that it has been assigned. Here in the United States such nonsensical pricing logic has become the norm rather than the exception. Here's one of our more extreme examples...

a penny for your thoughts

There may be a lot of truth in that - but it begs the next question, Who in their right mind is going to pay £10 to grade and slab a coin that is so common and so low value it defies belief?

Scott - they struck billions of those pennies. If I had a a slabbed 1933 British penny and removed it from its graded plastic casing, I don't believe that would have any impact on its value. How much do you think that $15,000 MS-70 penny would be worth if someone were to remove it from its casing? What happens if the next time a grader examines it they only think its a $25 MS-69?

Well, quite. And as many serious collectors keep their coins in cabinets, they are the very people who won't be using the services of PCGS etc. Why pay good money to get your coin back in a wad of perspex that can no longer be placed in a cabinet???

[Rob 3,152]

.I suspect that what you are paying for here is not the coin, but the plastic that surrounds it and the grade that it has been assigned. Here in the United States such nonsensical pricing logic has become the norm rather than the exception. Here's one of our more extreme examples...

a penny for your thoughts

There may be a lot of truth in that - but it begs the next question, Who in their right mind is going to pay £10 to grade and slab a coin that is so common and so low value it defies belief?

Scott - they struck billions of those pennies. If I had a a slabbed 1933 British penny and removed it from its graded plastic casing, I don't believe that would have any impact on its value. How much do you think that $15,000 MS-70 penny would be worth if someone were to remove it from its casing? What happens if the next time a grader examines it they only think its a $25 MS-69?

Well, quite. And as many serious collectors keep their coins in cabinets, they are the very people who won't be using the services of PCGS etc. Why pay good money to get your coin back in a wad of perspex that can no longer be placed in a cabinet???

I think you will find that most of the modern pieces have been slabbed by Steve Lockett & co in order to promote their product. A cheap coin by definition has little material cost and so the uplift in value comes from them assigning a grade which makes the coin desirable (if that is possible when there are about 20 million other comparable pieces out there). There is no monetary difference between paying a publisher to place an advert in a magazine and slabbing items at your own cost. The benefit accrues from having your product in the market place and available for purchase. You can see the finished product in the flesh and therefore don't need to give an elaborate description of what it is and why it has been produced.

I think your average 1933 penny collector would take a very dim view of slabbing and I also believe there would be no effect on its value if slabbed. In fact if slabbed its value may be deemed to be reduced because the number on the slab takes preference over the enclosed item in the view of those who collect such things. As we are aware, the available 1933 pennies are not in mint state. It is the sort of coin that a collector targets and requests in advance when the info regarding availablity is announced to a select few. Therefore the "investor collector" is unlikely to get a look-in. This is very positive for the hobby and long may it continue. The much decried "old boys network" usually has a fundamental purpose in whichever walk of life it exists.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Rob

[scott 144]

i dunno? would they? if they had a genuine one, a slab saying as such would be benefical

[Rob 3,152]

i dunno? would they? if they had a genuine one, a slab saying as such would be benefical

The 1933 penny is rare enough that the fine detail for the available examples is known. Their current location is also known to at least 2 people and probably more within the field. They wouldn't tell you who owned the coin if asked, but if you tried to sell a dodgy 1933 you may rest assured it would receive an appropriate response. Anyone trying to sell a 1933 penny that didn't fit the ownership and detail criteria would be on a hiding to nothing, unless the prospective buyer was stupid enough not to do the appropriate checks. You don't spend tens of thousands of pounds without doing a few basic checks despite the apparent belief of many on eBay that defrauding people is a simple case of listing an item and waiting for the money to roll in.

[VickySilver 830]

Hey Rob, I think I generally agree with the fact that slabs are not that wonderful a thing. I must take exception to the statement in your next-to-the-last post where you gave rationale for a DECREASE in value for the 1933 penny in a slab versus a higher value not in slab. Not sure if the logic holds. A coin in slab can always be removed though the opposite is not true; the slab should not decrease the value of the coin as logically it either adds no value or is appreciated by slab lovers and may add value - just think this coin is hyped as GEM if it reaches the 65 or above status.

Many rare US bits are slabbed, and in fact they are protected as such and generally thought to carry more value in the slab (I can think of the famous 1804 dollar or 1913 Liberty neckels as examples). Although they may not add tremendously to value, it is "standard" for these coins, valued at 1.2 mill pounds and UP!! With regards to the former an AU58 may go for the former value and an MS66 may go for 2.5 mill pounds! The coins are equally rare but are compared to one another and other such coins of similar rarity via the slabbed number. It may seem hard to grasp, but the US market is capitalized to a degree that it is orders of magnitude bigger than that for UK coins and the experience of slabs, no matter how tasteful or accurate has been key in this; it is Big Brother in action - will this be the right direction for Little Brother (UK).

As far as the slabbed bits offered by London, if people love the slabs and have a collection of slabs they will fit nicely in if slabbed. What if a particular collector has slabbed halfcrowns dating all the way back to the inception of the milled coinage and so has them lined up side to side, and so is just looking for a date run? Not my taste, but that collector might like a nice 88 graded 2/6 tp complete the run.

[Rob 3,152]

The decrease in value comment was intended to be slightly facetious. Just a dig at the slabbing market being predominantly geared towards bigger and better numbers with the result that pieces which are less than pristine are also perceived as less desirable. For those that are unaware, the ex Norweb 1933 penny sold by Mark Rasmussen off his list 9 just over 3 years ago is EF for example.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Rob

[VickySilver 830]

It does however broach the subject once again of "objectivity". Can we compare a rarity in one series with another? How to determine relative rarity vs. conditional rarity. Rob, have to say I am not familiar as in hands-on appraisal of the Rasmussen 1933 but even if I was, how would it compare to the other available (potentially) specimen? Would you not rather have a mint version of this coin at the same price, or the corollary being what would be the price break or differential between the two? If you do not have the other coin to look at, can there be some objectivity as to how the in hand specimen compares to the other, and a numbering system may be an adjunct to determining this.

Others have used comparative coins from the same or other series to help in pegging the value. All this begs the question as to just how objective these TPG graders are. This is and has been a subject of great debate on this forum and others, and an area that I certainly have reservations about as well.

[Rob 3,152]

It does however broach the subject once again of "objectivity". Can we compare a rarity in one series with another? How to determine relative rarity vs. conditional rarity. Rob, have to say I am not familiar as in hands-on appraisal of the Rasmussen 1933 but even if I was, how would it compare to the other available (potentially) specimen? Would you not rather have a mint version of this coin at the same price, or the corollary being what would be the price break or differential between the two? If you do not have the other coin to look at, can there be some objectivity as to how the in hand specimen compares to the other, and a numbering system may be an adjunct to determining this.

Others have used comparative coins from the same or other series to help in pegging the value. All this begs the question as to just how objective these TPG graders are. This is and has been a subject of great debate on this forum and others, and an area that I certainly have reservations about as well.

The 1933 penny is one of a handful of coins that don't obey the general rules. It is THE bronze penny to acquire. Even though the 1954 is a rarer date, it doesn't have the draw that the 1933 does. As kids, probably everyone on this forum who was old enough to be around pre-decimalisation used to look for a 1933. We didn't know it would be in vain, because we had been told there were half a dozen out there somewhere. The fact that they were mostly under buildings didn't reach your average 10 year old's ears. Consequently, it is one of those pieces along with the Simon crowns and the 5 guinea pieces that most serious collectors of these series want to own at some time should funds be available and the demand will always be there. I think that even if all 1933 pennies minted were available to collectors, the price would not be dissimilar to that obtained today simply on demand. Maybe it would halve, but no more than that.

In this rather ethereal market, there is no place or need for the TPGs. If you are buying Norweb's 1933 penny from a catalogue the least you will do is check that the Norweb coin and that on offer are one and the same. That is all that matters. If the investor collector feels uncomfortable about coins without the slab - GOOD, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. There is already an adequate general consensus in numismatic circles about the relative conditions of the desirable items, as most of the coins in question have been examined to death. If you can afford them and are known to be buying similar items regularly, then the coins will find you because the dealers know who is in the market for what pieces at the top end and also have a need to shift stock whatever its value.

The general trend for these particularly desirable coins is upwards, but in most instances affordably so if they return to market on a regular basis. I think the big jumps occur for a variety of reasons. If the best known available example by a wide margin comes to market, the price will rocket and the "me too" pieces will be dragged upwards in its wake. When there are no available pieces for a prolonged period of time and so there is pent up demand from a few collectors with deep pockets, or as in recent times where the financial instability has brought in wealthy new entrants are also reasons for price hikes.

Conditional rarity will always be influential on pricing, but comparable rarity in one series compared to another seems to provide very little correlation. As a person with a collection of halfpennies, I have never had the cost pressures associated with the penny series because halfpennies are both in the investor collector's wilderness and have never been so widely collected as the other two base denominations. Unique or thereabouts pieces in decent or even top grade have been and can still be acquired in the majority of instances for a tenth of the price of a grotty penny and a twentieth or thirtieth of the price of a 1933.

[Coppers 58]

It does however broach the subject once again of "objectivity". Can we compare a rarity in one series with another? How to determine relative rarity vs. conditional rarity. Rob, have to say I am not familiar as in hands-on appraisal of the Rasmussen 1933 but even if I was, how would it compare to the other available (potentially) specimen? Would you not rather have a mint version of this coin at the same price, or the corollary being what would be the price break or differential between the two? If you do not have the other coin to look at, can there be some objectivity as to how the in hand specimen compares to the other, and a numbering system may be an adjunct to determining this.

Others have used comparative coins from the same or other series to help in pegging the value. All this begs the question as to just how objective these TPG graders are. This is and has been a subject of great debate on this forum and others, and an area that I certainly have reservations about as well.

If someone offered me a Petition Crown (unlikely) and I could afford it (even less likely), I wouldn't be very concerned whether a US grading service called it and 63 or a 65. With major US rarities such as the 1804 dollar, it has been observed that the grading services have been far more lenient than they are with most coins. If I'm not mistaken one of these 1804's actually was graded significantly higher by the grading services every time it was submitted. The grading services in the US are not consistent, yet most dealers and collectors here value coins according to the grade assigned on that slab with ofttimes vast price differences between some of the 11 grades of mint state. Some have even suggested using decimal points which if ever adopted would give us 10 times that number of grades. When I buy a coin I always ask myself if the coin would be just as desirable and as valuable outside the slab as in. If its value is dependent on the slab, I pass.

[Rob 3,152]

When I buy a coin I always ask myself if the coin would be just as desirable and as valuable outside the slab as in. If its value is dependent on the slab, I pass.

Good man.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

When I buy a coin I always ask myself if the coin would be just as desirable and as valuable outside the slab as in. If its value is dependent on the slab, I pass.

Good man.

No question though, like it, loathe it or don't care, third party grading is taking over, there's a reason for that

[VickySilver 830]

Well, I was hoping for more enlightening discussion than the caveman variety: "slabbing sucks", etc. Value is quite subjective and liable to vary with many changes of circumstance. Part of the value to a TPG system is to try to decrease some of these variables and to attempt to give a bit more uniformity to market.

Maybe this is in itself an assumption (that uniformity is a good or necessary thing). What do readers think of attempting to peg the value of one rarity to another? What about to specimens of the same date and mintmark?

I think all this is past saying that a particular coin is more valuable in or out of a TPG case; that is a lesser argument that I think most would agree on - that there is no difference in value to a particular coin in or out of such a casement.

[Rob 3,152]

Well, I was hoping for more enlightening discussion than the caveman variety: "slabbing sucks", etc. Value is quite subjective and liable to vary with many changes of circumstance. Part of the value to a TPG system is to try to decrease some of these variables and to attempt to give a bit more uniformity to market.

Maybe this is in itself an assumption (that uniformity is a good or necessary thing). What do readers think of attempting to peg the value of one rarity to another? What about to specimens of the same date and mintmark?

I think all this is past saying that a particular coin is more valuable in or out of a TPG case; that is a lesser argument that I think most would agree on - that there is no difference in value to a particular coin in or out of such a casement.

The basic principle of the TPG system was sound up to a point. I can see that some people don't feel comfortable assigning grades themselves, though it would be better if they took the time to do research even if it was just a case of getting a bag of 1967 pennies, doing their own grading and submitting the same to a TPG or other individuals for an alternative opinion. In the view of some it eliminates the cowboy operator and grader, though this can be overcome by the purchaser having knowledge of the coins in question and if coins are only bought from reputable dealers or individuals that will always offer things on approval then there isn't a problem.

The TPGs do provide some degree of consistency, but have too many outlying data points for me to place their opinion above my own. The dangers of the TPG system I see as follows: People take their word as gospel and don't question attribution, grades etc. The system is not infallible, otherwise it would never result in a change of grade when resubmitting the same coin. The difference in grades assigned from one company to another is not a problem if standards are consistently applied, but this has to be tempered by the fact that they are all allegedly using the same Sheldon system. The overwhelming belief in the system particularly in the US has resulted in their defining the grade and ballpark value of a specific coin because it has a number - a policy that has been emulated by CGS over here too. Consequently it is a triumph of marketing managers over common sense IMHO. The TPGs claim not to slab coins that have been cleaned yet will still grade those that have been cleaned chemically (dipped) - I fail to see the distinction. As for the guaranteeing of a coin being genuine, this sits rather uncomfortably with their frequent inability to identify the coin or the variety correctly and so the phrase "caveat emptor" applies equally to their slabs. All of which I have previously expressed elsewhere.

As regards pegging the relative values of rarities, it will always depend on supply and demand. 100 people chasing a unique coin will always result in a higher price relative to its peers than a unique coin in a series that has a limited following. So pennies which were always available in higher quantities and grades than halfpennies were always collected preferentially. The farthing's popularity was I think down to nostalgia originally, as the same principle applied at the end of the silver 3d. There is no doubt that the publication of population study data has an effect of values too because it highlights which varieties are difficult to get and so chases up the price. Ultimately every dog has its day and so with different denominations, eras or varieties being popular at different times, the relative cost/value of equally rare pieces will fluctuate. Values will also vary according to the number of individuals doing research on die varieties. Once a few people have done the same research and drawn the same opinions regarding rarity, they will also chase the price higher.

[VickySilver 830]

Yes, good points all. Still, do you not think Rob that in the penny series that if a coin is unique or very rare and all other variables roughly constant AND a person has one of these coins in hand that it might not help to know that this coin is MS63 by a reliable TPG AND a coin equally rare in the same series at the same grade (or higher or lower) has just sold for X pounds that it might not affect the value of the considered coin being considered? Without a [RELIABLE] TPG number and without having personal knowledge of the auctioned coin, it would be hard to tell exactly; and I say this because most certainly there is a difference between an MS63 and an MS67, for example. If all the coins are near basal state like this "slender 3" penny, then I think it does not matter as much.

Although no doubt quite naive, I may know a thing or two about supply or demand, and manipulation of the later not to mention contrived examples of the former (such as CGS slabbed 1967 halfcrowns, etc.). How is one to have any clue as to the availability of established issues that may or not be as rare as we make them out to be - the 1869 penny comes to mind. If one is studying the 1904 San Francisco minted Barber half dollar, a population guide at PCGS after 23 years may be of some value in helping to determine scarcity or value at a particular grade. I would imagine that the numbers may at least give some guide as to relative scarcity after of allthose years than after two or three, which is where on the learning curve these CGS slab pops are and where to some degree even PCGS might be when it comes to UK or other foreign issues.

And this is just being a devil's advocate, as I am not necessarily in favor of slabbing. I would also note that in an extensive series widely collected, such as Morgan Dollars are in the States, that there is in fact much better uniformity in grading by a company such as PCGS. I think there is a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater when these services are castigated, and examples are trotted out of where they were fallable in a series that is not their "mainstream". Perhaps they ought not to be grading 1905 shillings, let alone the hypervarietals in the Bun head series of pennies. I agree that there is a marketing angle by these companies, and IMO the terrible example is with recent US bullion issues where there are great fights as to whether a coin should be kept in OGP (original government packaging) or be slabbed into the inevitable near perfect MS 69 or 70; believe it or not, much money is spent in submitting or resubmitting such coins.

To digress, which I apologise for doing frequently, dealer graded non-numerically graded coins such as GVF or the newer aEF are possibly even more problematic than the apparently widely hated TPG coins. I have seen some coins be of superb quality and others being absolute cra-. Coins sold as EF, let alone GEF in an old Glendinning catalogue were many times in fact mint state with NO signs of wear. I see many instances on ebay (no dealers mentioned) where coins are sold as unc. or versions of that when even in substandard photographs hairlines and cleaning are obvious. I would submit these are in fact a much greater problem and are not sufficiently addressed other than being lamented on these boards.

[Peckris 579]

As far as the slabbed bits offered by London, if people love the slabs and have a collection of slabs they will fit nicely in if slabbed. What if a particular collector has slabbed halfcrowns dating all the way back to the inception of the milled coinage and so has them lined up side to side, and so is just looking for a date run? Not my taste, but that collector might like a nice 88 graded 2/6 tp complete the run.

Yes, but this ignores the fact that many serious collectors (particularly those over a certain age) keep their coins in cabinets. Who is going to throw out their gorgeous mahogany cabinet(s) just on the transient whim of fashion? Which is what they would have to do if they got their coins slabbed.

What we need - unless it already exists? - is a reputable and professional grading service that does NOT slab coins. A service that returns your coin along with a good colour photo of both sides of the coin, that also shows the grade and other relevant information (and watermarked in some way that is difficult to fake). (Or a slabbed photo!)

No question though, like it, loathe it or don't care, third party grading is taking over, there's a reason for that

.

.

Oh GOD, I hope not. How many of us here are collectors - even dealers also - of many years standing? I don't need a professional service to tell me

- the grade

- the eye appeal

- the desirability

of a coin, unless it's a series that's new to me.

.

.

Maybe this is in itself an assumption (that uniformity is a good or necessary thing). What do readers think of attempting to peg the value of one rarity to another? What about to specimens of the same date and mintmark?

You could only peg rarities to each other of broadly very similar types. Otherwise there is no correlation. We all know that there are many varieties in Freeman that are at least as rare as the 1933 penny, yet would struggle to realise a tenth of that value. And then there's Maundy, which is extremely scarce yet never makes much over £100 a set, despite being as rare as 1934 crowns. A coin's value is an index of rarity * popularity, and usually that second factor is equally as important as the first.

.

.

.

I was surprised to hear that those LCA values are being set by Stephen Lockett. I bought off him many times at the Midlands Coin Fair some years ago, and his prices were realistic then, and in discussion with him, he seemed to be a very sensible dealer.

[Rob 3,152]

I don't think it would make much difference in the case of a unique or nearly so coin. If the grades look similar in the picture, a collector looking for an upgrade already has experience of what a particular grade looks like, so any unexpected increase in attributed grade is likely to be down to TPG inconsistency. If that person doesn't have a clue then it doesn't matter what the grade is on the slab, he will buy it at the going price and have a shock, pleasant or otherwise when the time comes to sell. We can't live in a nanny state.

Establishing personal views on rarity is a fundamental part of research, that is why I have a library of a few thousand catalogues. Again, we can't live a life free of the dangers of the market place. If I make a miscalculation in the price I pay or am prepared to pay based on misguided research then it is a case of mea culpa. I certainly don't expect others to think for me. It's why I don't win as many lots as I would like. I may know a coin is rare, but not having done a definitive check on the population frequently end up bidding short. It is also why I am prepared to bid more for some pieces than apparent logic may dictate. I concede that the slabbed populations do give an indication of relative rarity, but only at the top end because lower grade coins aren't worth the expense in general.

A reduction in the number of points between MS60 and MS70 would be more beneficial in my view. If you were to group 63 & 64, 65 & 66, and 67 and over you would end up with something like good extremely fine, unc and gem, though arguments would always ensue as to whether mine is better than yours etc.

When it comes to grading, that found on ebay can be disregarded. We all know that the average seller knows little or nothing about grading and if obviously cleaned or hairlined there isn't a problem except for the unitiated. We also know that some dealers are better at grading than others. (I sent back two pieces today that were overgraded). Regarding the grades found in old catalogues, this has long been known to be variable. Examples exist of both under or overgrading throughout history, and so an indicator saying it is better than usual for the type is very helpful. A good example is a hammered halfcrown I bought just over a month ago. In Montagu it was graded VF, in Hamilton-Smith an unusually fine specimen, in Lockett mint state, in Willis very fine and Lloyd Bennett gave it good very fine or better. That is a fairly diverse set of opinions; I settled for somewhere around gVF because as usual parts were not fully struck up, yet other parts had only the tiniest amount of cabinet friction. Another point to consider in old catalogues is that collecting copper or small silver was considered somewhat oddball by the main salerooms and dealers, so it is likely that their grading of these items was equally contemptuous. Inconsistency is not a new problem, and the latest examples thrown up by the TPGs and others are just a modern incarnation of an old problem.

It is something that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. In my view the ideal solution would be for all collectors to learn adequately and all sellers be required to take back pieces within a certain time limit if the customer is not happy. Make both parties responsible for their actions and don't leave it to a third party. Sadly it will never happen though because people are both lazy and greedy.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Rob

[VickySilver 830]

Well, increase in objectivity is the point, no matter what one's perspective is. Unfortunately there has been probably much more subjectivity in "traditional" grading, even using the examples you have brought forth. In another post one of the posters said he would discount a TPG coin. If so, please let me have first look at ALL of your PCGS 65 red coins prior to 1930.

Back to the introductory post before the pirating: 19k for the slender 3 penny - does the purchaser realize he has paid above and beyond the cumulative value of the following for a minor variety:

1849 red unc.

1856 PT red unc.

1856 OT red unc.

1860 red unc. copper

1864 crosslet 4 red unc.

1864 "plain" 4 red unc.

1869 red unc.

1871 red unc.

1875 H red unc.

1882 London vf or so

Simply incredible.

[Red Riley 2]

I think (hope) that this will prove to be a bizarre anomaly from someone with the resources of Roman Abramovic and the common sense of a blancmange. I wouldn't bet my last 1933 penny on it though!

[Coppers 58]

I think (hope) that this will prove to be a bizarre anomaly from someone with the resources of Roman Abramovic and the common sense of a blancmange. I wouldn't bet my last 1933 penny on it though!

Considering the sales price realized by the slender 3 and the die 5 pennies, I'm not sure whether this should be considered an anomaly or a trend.

[Peckris 579]

Well, increase in objectivity is the point, no matter what one's perspective is. Unfortunately there has been probably much more subjectivity in "traditional" grading, even using the examples you have brought forth. In another post one of the posters said he would discount a TPG coin. If so, please let me have first look at ALL of your PCGS 65 red coins prior to 1930.

Back to the introductory post before the pirating: 19k for the slender 3 penny - does the purchaser realize he has paid above and beyond the cumulative value of the following for a minor variety:

1849 red unc.

1856 PT red unc.

1856 OT red unc.

1860 red unc. copper

1864 crosslet 4 red unc.

1864 "plain" 4 red unc.

1869 red unc.

1871 red unc.

1875 H red unc.

1882 London vf or so

Simply incredible.

Would someone explain to this Brit of Small Brain what is the significance of the "red" in all those coins listed above?