1868 Proof penny - help with ticket

[Accumulator 52]

I have recently acquired this proof 1868 penny with an accompanying ticket showing a sale through Glendinnings on 21st June 1940 (Lot 282) for 6/-. I believe the coin to be F58A, in Copper, rather than the bronze or cupro-nickel versions. The coin is potentially ex-Peck but I have no further information on this.

Any help with establishing a provenance would be greatly appreciated!

Ticket in next post due to image size limitation....

[Accumulator 52]

Here is the ticket:

[Mongo 1]

Can not offer any help with the ticket Accumulator, but I must say... that is a stunning Penny, one of the nicest I have seen

[Colin G. 147]

Here is the ticket:

Nice Penny, it looks similar to some tickets I have that I think are Ex Dr E.A.Johnstone, but I am sure Rob will be able to shed some light on it

[Rob 3,185]

Here is the ticket:

Nice Penny, it looks similar to some tickets I have that I think are Ex Dr E.A.Johnstone, but I am sure Rob will be able to shed some light on it

The G looks right for Johnstone as do the 2 and 8. It's a shame there is no lower case m as this is quite distinctive, but on balance I'd say it is a Johnstone ticket. If ex-Peck, then Johnstone must have bought it from Spink in the 1960s when Peck's collection was dispersed, but the presence of a provenance in Johnstone's hand dating to 1940 suggests that Peck doesn't come into it. There are two possible names for the 1940 sale; J McPherson or George Wight. Both had collections of English in the sale, but M & R doesn't say whose lots were which. I'm sure L282 will be the lot number which was on the second day, so that would suggest Wight as the provenance. Unfortunately I don't have the catalogue. The purple number may well be a Baldwin reference. Johnstone was a Baldwin customer and they acquired his collection post-mortem.

It is possible the VICTORIA 1868 1d Bronzed writing is that of the 1940 vendor. If so, I'd like to know who it is for future reference.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Rob

[argentumandcoins 70]

Here is the ticket:

Nice Penny, it looks similar to some tickets I have that I think are Ex Dr E.A.Johnstone, but I am sure Rob will be able to shed some light on it

The G looks right for Johnstone as do the 2 and 8. It's a shame there is no lower case m as this is quite distinctive, but on balance I'd say it is a Johnstone ticket. If ex-Peck, then Johnstone must have bought it from Spink in the 1960s when Peck's collection was dispersed, but the presence of a provenance in Johnstone's hand dating to 1940 suggests that Peck doesn't come into it. There are two possible names for the 1940 sale; J McPherson or George Wight. Both had collections of English in the sale, but M & R doesn't say whose lots were which. I'm sure L282 will be the lot number which was on the second day, so that would suggest Wight as the provenance. Unfortunately I don't have the catalogue. The purple number may well be a Baldwin reference. Johnstone was a Baldwin customer and they acquired his collection post-mortem.

It is possible the VICTORIA 1868 1d Bronzed writing is that of the 1940 vendor. If so, I'd like to know who it is for future reference.

It looks like both sides are in the same hand Rob. The e and g are both quite distinctive as is the the loop coming through the base on the 6's. The word Copper looks to be the odd one out and by a different hand to the rest of the writing, which would suggest that somebody post the 1940 sale thought this?

Edited August 9, 2012 by argentumandcoins

[Rob 3,185]

Here is the ticket:

Nice Penny, it looks similar to some tickets I have that I think are Ex Dr E.A.Johnstone, but I am sure Rob will be able to shed some light on it

The G looks right for Johnstone as do the 2 and 8. It's a shame there is no lower case m as this is quite distinctive, but on balance I'd say it is a Johnstone ticket. If ex-Peck, then Johnstone must have bought it from Spink in the 1960s when Peck's collection was dispersed, but the presence of a provenance in Johnstone's hand dating to 1940 suggests that Peck doesn't come into it. There are two possible names for the 1940 sale; J McPherson or George Wight. Both had collections of English in the sale, but M & R doesn't say whose lots were which. I'm sure L282 will be the lot number which was on the second day, so that would suggest Wight as the provenance. Unfortunately I don't have the catalogue. The purple number may well be a Baldwin reference. Johnstone was a Baldwin customer and they acquired his collection post-mortem.

It is possible the VICTORIA 1868 1d Bronzed writing is that of the 1940 vendor. If so, I'd like to know who it is for future reference.

It looks like both sides are in the same hand Rob. The e and g are both quite distinctive as is the the loop coming through the base on the 6's. The word Copper looks to be the odd one out and by a different hand to the rest of the writing, which would suggest that somebody post the 1940 sale thought this?

The differences between the inks on the two sides led me to the suggestion that the coin description wasn't by the same person as the acquisition details. You would have thought that both would be written at the same time and so the most logical solution would be recording the acq. date on the reverse of the ticket acquired at the time of purchase.

Copper is probably written by someone at Baldwins. It isn't Peck's handwriting.

Rather enigmatically, Peck's handwritten notes for BMC note an 1868 copper proof farthing added as an afterthought, but it doesn't appear in the Second edition listings or the addendum published in the BNJ (1967). There is no mention of a copper proof penny or halfpenny in these notes. Freeman includes the penny and farthing as proofs in copper, but not the halfpenny.

[Accumulator 52]

Here is the ticket:

Nice Penny, it looks similar to some tickets I have that I think are Ex Dr E.A.Johnstone, but I am sure Rob will be able to shed some light on it

The G looks right for Johnstone as do the 2 and 8. It's a shame there is no lower case m as this is quite distinctive, but on balance I'd say it is a Johnstone ticket. If ex-Peck, then Johnstone must have bought it from Spink in the 1960s when Peck's collection was dispersed, but the presence of a provenance in Johnstone's hand dating to 1940 suggests that Peck doesn't come into it. There are two possible names for the 1940 sale; J McPherson or George Wight. Both had collections of English in the sale, but M & R doesn't say whose lots were which. I'm sure L282 will be the lot number which was on the second day, so that would suggest Wight as the provenance. Unfortunately I don't have the catalogue. The purple number may well be a Baldwin reference. Johnstone was a Baldwin customer and they acquired his collection post-mortem.

It is possible the VICTORIA 1868 1d Bronzed writing is that of the 1940 vendor. If so, I'd like to know who it is for future reference.

It looks like both sides are in the same hand Rob. The e and g are both quite distinctive as is the the loop coming through the base on the 6's. The word Copper looks to be the odd one out and by a different hand to the rest of the writing, which would suggest that somebody post the 1940 sale thought this?

The differences between the inks on the two sides led me to the suggestion that the coin description wasn't by the same person as the acquisition details. You would have thought that both would be written at the same time and so the most logical solution would be recording the acq. date on the reverse of the ticket acquired at the time of purchase.

Copper is probably written by someone at Baldwins. It isn't Peck's handwriting.

Rather enigmatically, Peck's handwritten notes for BMC note an 1868 copper proof farthing added as an afterthought, but it doesn't appear in the Second edition listings or the addendum published in the BNJ (1967). There is no mention of a copper proof penny or halfpenny in these notes. Freeman includes the penny and farthing as proofs in copper, but not the halfpenny.

Rob, John, thank you for your input!

I should have mentioned that the main description is written in black ink. The "Copper?" is in bold pencil, and the reverse in feint pencil. They clearly seem to have been written at different times. It would be great to get hold of the 1940 Glendinings catalogue or refer to it, so I have emailed Baldwins to see if they have anything in their archive or can help further. I'll let you know if I find anything!

[1949threepence 3,368]

Nice coin, just a shame about the carbon spot on the 6 of 1868.

Did you find anything out from Baldwins in the end, or draw a blank ? Unless they keep archival records very meticulously, it's always going to be a long shot with a date so long ago.

Provenance records always intrigue me, and I really wish they were present with more coins, many of which have obviously been part of a collection, or various collections, since shortly after they were minted. Obviously, you're always going to have more chance with a coin, like the proof specimen above, which is very rare to begin with.

[Accumulator 52]

Nice coin, just a shame about the carbon spot on the 6 of 1868.

Did you find anything out from Baldwins in the end, or draw a blank ? Unless they keep archival records very meticulously, it's always going to be a long shot with a date so long ago.

Provenance records always intrigue me, and I really wish they were present with more coins, many of which have obviously been part of a collection, or various collections, since shortly after they were minted. Obviously, you're always going to have more chance with a coin, like the proof specimen above, which is very rare to begin with.

Unfortunately I've got nowhere, though I have been told that the British Library(?) has a copy of all the catalogues and that it would be possible to view the relevant one. I've just not had the time to do this recently, but will eventually contact them.

[Rob 3,185]

Here is the ticket:

Right, I've got the catalogue for 20-21/6/1940. Lot 282 was 4 proof pennies, 1860 toothed and dotted borders, 1868 bronzed and plain. The provenance is George Wight. I don't have buyers, nor where it came from originally. If Wight was a Baldwins customer, then a good possibility would be ex Clarke-Thornhill, as his 1868 set (lot 842) was bought by Baldwins for stock. This lot was ex-Nobleman 378.

As regards whose handwriting it is, there is nothing conclusive. The bold writing could be Fred Baldwin's based on the tenuous link of a slight upturn at the bottom of the 1, which would possibly make copper? either another Baldwin employee or Wight, or the buyer of lot 282. Depending on who wrote it, the ticket could refer to the first of the 1868s with the copper? written afterwards, but equally could refer to the second with someone questioning the bronzing compared to the first. I think we are looking at the difference between bronzed and bronze though in all probability, with the catalogue reference to plain meaning bronze. Unless a metal analysis was done it would be difficult to predict. Not sure if this takes you any further other than the provenance of Wight.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Rob

[Accumulator 52]

Here is the ticket:

Right, I've got the catalogue for 20-21/6/1940. Lot 282 was 4 proof pennies, 1860 toothed and dotted borders, 1868 bronzed and plain. The provenance is George Wight. I don't have buyers, nor where it came from originally. If Wight was a Baldwins customer, then a good possibility would be ex Clarke-Thornhill, as his 1868 set (lot 842) was bought by Baldwins for stock. This lot was ex-Nobleman 378.

As regards whose handwriting it is, there is nothing conclusive. The bold writing could be Fred Baldwin's based on the tenuous link of a slight upturn at the bottom of the 1, which would possibly make copper? either another Baldwin employee or Wight, or the buyer of lot 282. Depending on who wrote it, the ticket could refer to the first of the 1868s with the copper? written afterwards, but equally could refer to the second with someone questioning the bronzing compared to the first. I think we are looking at the difference between bronzed and bronze though in all probability, with the catalogue reference to plain meaning bronze. Unless a metal analysis was done it would be difficult to predict. Not sure if this takes you any further other than the provenance of Wight.

Fantastic work again, Rob. Thank you!

After trying the British Library and various other sources for the 1940 catalogue, I'd got as far as establishing that Spink had a copy. They offered to let me have a look next time I was passing, but I've not been in town since.

The conclusion about the material being copper came from Mark Ras (based on the colouration and his experience), though, as you say, only a metal analysis could confirm it 100%..

The Wight provenance (with a possible Clark-Thornhill link) is a great start. It must have passed through a few hands since 1940, though. The search, as always, continues!

Thanks again!

[jaggy 528]

Just for info .... I have a lot of Glendinings catalogues from the 1980s and 1990s at home as well a a few others such as Downie Lepzic (spelling?) should that be of any help in the future.

[Rob 3,185]

The problem is that a lot of things were bought by Baldwin for stock as opposed to on commission. This means that the link is likely to be lost if it sat in the trays/basement for any length of time. Clarke-Thornhill's 1868 proofs were bought for stock. You can usually tell when the coin went well below estimate. Baldwins hoovered up everything in the first half of the century and would buy the book, i.e. any unsolds went to them.

[Rob 3,185]

After trying the British Library and various other sources for the 1940 catalogue, I'd got as far as establishing that Spink had a copy. They offered to let me have a look next time I was passing, but I've not been in town since.

Get yourself a copy of Manville and Robertson. I think it is still £40 new, but invaluable. Actually, all three books complement each other, as one is auction catalogues and the other two , periodicals, circulars and journals. £100 for the lot and you are sorted. Although the auction catalogues stop at the end of 1984, the volume is the most useful of the three because sale dates, provenances where known, types of coins involved, number of plates(if any) are all given. Any later catalogues are easy to get hold of as well. A big plus is the list of locations given for each sale catalogue, so Spink, BM, Ashmolean, Fitz etc are documented where the catalogue is present.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Rob

[William Collins 0]

its fine

[Rob 3,185]

its fine

What's fine?

[Peckris 579]

its fine

What's fine?

A Fine coin

[Red Riley 2]

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.

[Accumulator 52]

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.

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.

[Red Riley 2]

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.

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.

[Rob 3,185]

A bit more progress.

The blue inked number (1683) is the Peck number. I have half a dozen farthings with the various Peck numbers inked in on the tickets. Crucially they were all coins that Colin Cooke bought from Baldwins, ex-Johnstone in 1974, so there was no time for an interim ownership. It therefore seems more than likely that all(?) or certainly many of the Johnstone coppers had the Peck numbers added for easy reference and weren't added by CC because the style is wrong. Some of the farthings had prior ownership indicated, and all were bought in the late 30s and 40s, but which ended up with Johnstone and have the same handwriting. An example of the P147 tickets for comparison below. Whilst a sample size of half a dozen isn't conclusive, the consistency of provenance for coins with this style of ticket and no exceptions found makes it very likely that what I have described here is an indicator of prior Johnstone ownership.

Given the above and similarity between the writing on the back of the ticket and yours, it seems reasonably certain that your coin is ex-Johnstone and the acquisition details noted are in his hand.

The copper? may have been added by Ras. You could ask him.

[Accumulator 52]

A bit more progress.

The blue inked number (1683) is the Peck number. I have half a dozen farthings with the various Peck numbers inked in on the tickets. Crucially they were all coins that Colin Cooke bought from Baldwins, ex-Johnstone in 1974, so there was no time for an interim ownership. It therefore seems more than likely that all(?) or certainly many of the Johnstone coppers had the Peck numbers added for easy reference and weren't added by CC because the style is wrong. Some of the farthings had prior ownership indicated, and all were bought in the late 30s and 40s, but which ended up with Johnstone and have the same handwriting. An example of the P147 tickets for comparison below. Whilst a sample size of half a dozen isn't conclusive, the consistency of provenance for coins with this style of ticket and no exceptions found makes it very likely that what I have described here is an indicator of prior Johnstone ownership.

Given the above and similarity between the writing on the back of the ticket and yours, it seems reasonably certain that your coin is ex-Johnstone and the acquisition details noted are in his hand.

The copper? may have been added by Ras. You could ask him.

Hi Rob, brilliant work yet again... Sherlock Holmes has nothing on you! It certainly looks convincing as a Johnstone coin based on the blue Peck numbers. Also the pencil sale details on the back of the ticket seem to be in the same hand as on your coin. The only question is, do you think the ink description on both tickets is in the same hand? I note that the 'ic' of victoria on my ticket is not linked, whereas the same letters in 'Richmond' on your ticket are. What do you think? Ras told me he didn't write 'copper?' on my ticket, so it must have been added by someone else.

[Rob 3,185]

A bit more progress.

The blue inked number (1683) is the Peck number. I have half a dozen farthings with the various Peck numbers inked in on the tickets. Crucially they were all coins that Colin Cooke bought from Baldwins, ex-Johnstone in 1974, so there was no time for an interim ownership. It therefore seems more than likely that all(?) or certainly many of the Johnstone coppers had the Peck numbers added for easy reference and weren't added by CC because the style is wrong. Some of the farthings had prior ownership indicated, and all were bought in the late 30s and 40s, but which ended up with Johnstone and have the same handwriting. An example of the P147 tickets for comparison below. Whilst a sample size of half a dozen isn't conclusive, the consistency of provenance for coins with this style of ticket and no exceptions found makes it very likely that what I have described here is an indicator of prior Johnstone ownership.

Given the above and similarity between the writing on the back of the ticket and yours, it seems reasonably certain that your coin is ex-Johnstone and the acquisition details noted are in his hand.

The copper? may have been added by Ras. You could ask him.

Hi Rob, brilliant work yet again... Sherlock Holmes has nothing on you! It certainly looks convincing as a Johnstone coin based on the blue Peck numbers. Also the pencil sale details on the back of the ticket seem to be in the same hand as on your coin. The only question is, do you think the ink description on both tickets is in the same hand? I note that the 'ic' of victoria on my ticket is not linked, whereas the same letters in 'Richmond' on your ticket are. What do you think? Ras told me he didn't write 'copper?' on my ticket, so it must have been added by someone else.

Yes, I think they are the same hand on the basis that the t of Victoria and the t of pellets on the P147 ticket are similar, and very unusual in character. The crossbar on the t starts at the top and goes right whereas I'm sure that 90%+ of writers would have the t crossing the upright slightly below the top.

The Peck numbers also limit the writers to either Johnstone or Baldwins given the book didn't appear until 1960.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Rob

[Accumulator 52]

A bit more progress.

The blue inked number (1683) is the Peck number. I have half a dozen farthings with the various Peck numbers inked in on the tickets. Crucially they were all coins that Colin Cooke bought from Baldwins, ex-Johnstone in 1974, so there was no time for an interim ownership. It therefore seems more than likely that all(?) or certainly many of the Johnstone coppers had the Peck numbers added for easy reference and weren't added by CC because the style is wrong. Some of the farthings had prior ownership indicated, and all were bought in the late 30s and 40s, but which ended up with Johnstone and have the same handwriting. An example of the P147 tickets for comparison below. Whilst a sample size of half a dozen isn't conclusive, the consistency of provenance for coins with this style of ticket and no exceptions found makes it very likely that what I have described here is an indicator of prior Johnstone ownership.

Given the above and similarity between the writing on the back of the ticket and yours, it seems reasonably certain that your coin is ex-Johnstone and the acquisition details noted are in his hand.

The copper? may have been added by Ras. You could ask him.

Hi Rob, brilliant work yet again... Sherlock Holmes has nothing on you! It certainly looks convincing as a Johnstone coin based on the blue Peck numbers. Also the pencil sale details on the back of the ticket seem to be in the same hand as on your coin. The only question is, do you think the ink description on both tickets is in the same hand? I note that the 'ic' of victoria on my ticket is not linked, whereas the same letters in 'Richmond' on your ticket are. What do you think? Ras told me he didn't write 'copper?' on my ticket, so it must have been added by someone else.

Yes, I think they are the same hand on the basis that the t of Victoria and the t of pellets on the P147 ticket are similar, and very unusual in character. The crossbar on the t starts at the top and goes right whereas I'm sure that 90%+ of writers would have the t crossing the upright slightly below the top.

The Peck numbers also limit the writers to either Johnstone or Baldwins given the book didn't appear until 1960.

I have to admit the 't' is very distinctive. Also the auction dates on the reverse are clearly in the same hand, particularly the separating dots and the '4'. On mine the date is in pencil. How about yours? Also, mine is clearly Glendinings. Is yours "Brugge Salle". If so, presumably that refers to a Belgian auction?