Stack's Bowers Auction - "Rare" 1862 Pennies

[cathrine 70]

I browsed the online catalog for Stack's Bowers Auction #179, Session B, January 13th 2013.

Lot Nos. 1345 & 1346 are touted as rare die varieties of the 1862 penny; 1345 is supposedly Freeman 41 (1/2 d. sized date), while 1346 is a "no signature on reverse" die variety (which I've never heard of).

I'll e-mail the auctioneer and question his rationale.

[azda 979]

The 1862 with halfpenny numerals looks like regulär penny numerals to me

[declanwmagee 122]

Well I can't see any difference between my 1862 and either of those two. Except mine doesn't have verdigris! Penny experts a-plenty here...maybe I've got the rare halfpenny numerals with no LCW too!

Browsing through some of the others, how come #1338, the 1822 Crown got AU-Details for surface hairlines, and the 1919KN got graded even though it's been run over by a train?

[Peckris 579]

A link would help. I just went to Stack's site and there are auctions on the 12th and 14th January but nothing for the 13th. Can someone please post a direct link not only to that auction, but the section with the mentioned coins in ?

[cathrine 70]

I sent the following e-mails to the auctioneer:

1. For lot 1345:

I don't think the coin illustrated is the halfpenny date size die variety of the 1862 penny.

If you have a copy of the standard reference book "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain", 1985, Michael J. Freeman, take a look at the pictures on page 33 for Freeman 39 and Freeman 41. If your illustration is lot 1345, your coin is the "normal numerals" variety (Freeman 39).

By the way, you can confirm this conclusion by looking at the date for your lot 1346.

Do you agree?

2. For lot 1346:

I'm a specialty collector of Victorian copper and bronze coins of Great Britain. I have all of the standard coin references for such material.

My problem with your listing for lot 1346 is that I have never heard of nor can I find any reference to a "no signature on reverse" die variety for Great Britain's 1862 penny.

According to the reference, "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain", 1985, Michael J. Freeman, there are two die varieties for the 1862 penny with normal sized numerals, Freeman Nos. 38 & 39. The reverses are identical, but the obverses differ. One of those differences is that F-38's obverse has the designer's signature, while F-39 does not. Since the obverse of the coin illustrated as lot 1346 does not have the designer's signature, lot 1346 is F-39, the most common die variety for this coin.

Do you agree?

Let's see if: (1) I get any answer from the auctioneer, and (2) the auctioneer withdraws the lots from the auction.

[RLC35 288]

Well I can't see any difference between my 1862 and either of those two. Except mine doesn't have verdigris! Penny experts a-plenty here...maybe I've got the rare halfpenny numerals with no LCW too!

Browsing through some of the others, how come #1338, the 1822 Crown got AU-Details for surface hairlines, and the 1919KN got graded even though it's been run over by a train?

I haven't looked at the coins, but there is a 1862 with the sig., and I am guessing they are trying to say "no sig" means it is not the F-38. As for the "details" grading...that always refers to a coin with a defect. Thus the grading for surface lines. The details grading is usually done by NCS...not NGC, though they are both the same Company. You probably already know all this though! LOL!

Edited January 2, 2013 by RLC35

[Peckris 579]

? Still not finding an auction for 13th January ??

PLEASE, post a LINK

[declanwmagee 122]

Here's the 1862 small numerals, Peck:

Stacks

I used the Previous and Next Lot buttons to find the others

[cathrine 70]

A link would help. I just went to Stack's site and there are auctions on the 12th and 14th January but nothing for the 13th. Can someone please post a direct link not only to that auction, but the section with the mentioned coins in ?

I made a date typo; it should be January 11th.

The link, https://ssl.bowersandmerena.com/auctions/AuctionLots.aspx?AuctionID=179&SessionID=330, should take you there.

[Red Riley 2]

Here's the 1862 small numerals, Peck:

Stacks

I used the Previous and Next Lot buttons to find the others

No, that's a bog standard 1862 and it's got four little chunks out of the edge...

[Peckris 579]

Here's the 1862 small numerals, Peck:

Stacks

I used the Previous and Next Lot buttons to find the others

A link would help. I just went to Stack's site and there are auctions on the 12th and 14th January but nothing for the 13th. Can someone please post a direct link not only to that auction, but the section with the mentioned coins in ?

I made a date typo; it should be January 11th.

The link, https://ssl.bowersandmerena.com/auctions/AuctionLots.aspx?AuctionID=179&SessionID=330, should take you there.

Thanks Declan. No problem, Cathrine.

Here's the 1862 small numerals, Peck:

Stacks

I used the Previous and Next Lot buttons to find the others

No, that's a bog standard 1862 and it's got four little chunks out of the edge...

It certainly is a bog standard 1862, plus verdigris. Who on earth would bid $900 without doing "due diligence"?

[azda 979]

Here's the 1862 small numerals, Peck:

Stacks

I used the Previous and Next Lot buttons to find the others

A link would help. I just went to Stack's site and there are auctions on the 12th and 14th January but nothing for the 13th. Can someone please post a direct link not only to that auction, but the section with the mentioned coins in ?

I made a date typo; it should be January 11th.

The link, https://ssl.bowersandmerena.com/auctions/AuctionLots.aspx?AuctionID=179&SessionID=330, should take you there.

Thanks Declan. No problem, Cathrine.

Here's the 1862 small numerals, Peck:

Stacks

I used the Previous and Next Lot buttons to find the others

No, that's a bog standard 1862 and it's got four little chunks out of the edge...

It certainly is a bog standard 1862, plus verdigris. Who on earth would bid $900 without doing "due diligence"?

An American with Deep pockets and trusting the auctioneer

[declanwmagee 122]

An American with Deep pockets and trusting the auctioneer

Ouch! And a nasty shock when they came to move it on. Do we think the other one (no sig) is just a standard 6+G F.39 too, then?

[azda 979]

An American with Deep pockets and trusting the auctioneer

Ouch! And a nasty shock when they came to move it on. Do we think the other one (no sig) is just a standard 6+G F.39 too, then?

Aye, i'm fairly sure both are normal and not varities. Certainly the 1862 they are saying had 1/2d numerals is a bog Standard 1862. well done stacks and their cataloguer who should be shot at dawn for thise 2 errors. God knows how he came to the conclusions he did

Edited January 2, 2013 by azda

[declanwmagee 122]

An American with Deep pockets and trusting the auctioneer

Ouch! And a nasty shock when they came to move it on. Do we think the other one (no sig) is just a standard 6+G F.39 too, then?

Aye, i'm fairly sure both are normal and not varities. Certainly the 1862 they are saying had 1/2d numerals is a bog Standard 1862. well done stacks and their cataloguer who should be shot at dawn for thise 2 errors. God knows how he came to the conclusions he did

...and presumably Stacks have told the current owner that they've got something interesting, so some disappointment coming to them, too!

Do tell us how it goes, Catherine!

[declanwmagee 122]

They've got a couple of Gothic Crowns too. Could we trust the cataloguer to spot a Shanghai Special?

[1949threepence 3,367]

That is so obviously a normal 1862 penny. They're either incredibly inept or crooked.

For reference an 1862 penny with ½ penny numerals, looks like this

[Peckris 579]

That is so obviously a normal 1862 penny. They're either incredibly inept or crooked.

For reference an 1862 penny with ½ penny numerals, looks like this

How does such a horrible scratch appear on BOTH sides?

[1949threepence 3,367]

That is so obviously a normal 1862 penny. They're either incredibly inept or crooked.

For reference an 1862 penny with ½ penny numerals, looks like this

How does such a horrible scratch appear on BOTH sides?

Don't know. It does look pretty awful doesn't it, but beggars can't be choosers with such rarities, and it sold for £2100

[VickySilver 830]

Wow, I love pennies but don't chase the "hypervarietals" and completely missed this. Thanks for the alert; don't be too quick to condemn all their coins as I got a very nice proof KG6 '38 2/6 not so long ago after waiting FIFTEEN years...

[scott 144]

it is possibly a planchet error for that crack

no signiture? anything more noticable

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

That is so obviously a normal 1862 penny. They're either incredibly inept or crooked.

For reference an 1862 penny with ½ penny numerals, looks like this

How does such a horrible scratch appear on BOTH sides?

Don't know. It does look pretty awful doesn't it, but beggars can't be choosers with such rarities, and it sold for £2100

Not a scratch... CRACKED PLANCHET

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

Both Stacks Lots are F-39s

obverse 6 , reverse G

Neither have obverse 2 (F-38, Gouby-A) nor obverse 3 (Unlisted in Freeman, listed as Gouby-

Neither are the half-penny date

[cathrine 70]

So far I've received no reply from the auctioneer about my queries, but I don't expect to get any response.

Why? Because in the past I didn't get any response to a similar query.

Take a look at: http://www.mcsearch.info/record.html?id=401662. The same auctioneer offered an 1878 "Large Date" variety halfpenny, which was touted as having a "significant premium over the more common small date".

As far as I know, there are two date varieties fro the 1878 halfpenny:

(1) normal (Freeman's reverse O) and

(2) wide date (Freeman's reverse N)

There is no "small date" and "large date" die variety (unfortunately, NGC thinks so at the present time!). However, Stack's apparently disagreed or thought that my comment was not worthy of a reply. (I have a nice specimen of Freeman 334, acquired from London Coins, so I'm well acquainted with the difference between the two reverses.)

I advised the auctioneer about the error of his description for the coin, but I never received any acknowledgement of my comment.

I don't think this auctioneer is making fraudulent claims for his offerings, but I do think that he's making uninformed attributions for his offerings, and he's unwilling to admit to making mistakes. I wish we all could be so-o-o-o-o perfect!

[Rob 3,152]

Stacks don't have a monopoly on this sort of behaviour.