How many dies were used on the 1839 proof sets?

[Rob 3,152]

There was a 17 coin 1839 set sold in a country English auction last year for around 72K hammer. It came in a round case with the Spink & Son London logo on the inside purple silk lining I dont seem to be able to upload a picture for you. The coin's die orientation was mixed . One can expect that dealers assembled these sets to order

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set.

In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations.

[shagreen 24]

There was a 17 coin 1839 set sold in a country English auction last year for around 72K hammer. It came in a round case with the Spink & Son London logo on the inside purple silk lining I dont seem to be able to upload a picture for you. The coin's die orientation was mixed . One can expect that dealers assembled these sets to order

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set.

In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations.

Sorry no link, given the inability to upload I can try and send you the pic via email within this site but dont know if this is possible. The box is definitely contemporary (I would guess mid to late 19thC) with the gold braid edge tooling and blue velvet roundels for all coins, no ribbon lifters - a single push button but with no swing hooks (as also used on the "standard" spade shaped case) - the coins were unfortunately mixed in quality but I did not see them in the hand relying on my agents description.

[shagreen 24]

There was a 17 coin 1839 set sold in a country English auction last year for around 72K hammer. It came in a round case with the Spink & Son London logo on the inside purple silk lining I dont seem to be able to upload a picture for you. The coin's die orientation was mixed . One can expect that dealers assembled these sets to order

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set.

In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations.

Sorry no link, given the inability to upload I can try and send you the pic via email within this site but dont know if this is possible. The box is definitely contemporary (I would guess mid to late 19thC) with the gold braid edge tooling and blue velvet roundels for all coins, no ribbon lifters - a single push button but with no swing hooks (as also used on the "standard" spade shaped case) - the coins were unfortunately mixed in quality but I did not see them in the hand relying on my agents description.

After much hunting (what you can do at lunchtime at work) I found the link http://www.dukes-auctions.com/Catalogues/pf270912/lot0647-0.jpg

[shagreen 24]

There was a 17 coin 1839 set sold in a country English auction last year for around 72K hammer. It came in a round case with the Spink & Son London logo on the inside purple silk lining I dont seem to be able to upload a picture for you. The coin's die orientation was mixed . One can expect that dealers assembled these sets to order

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set.

In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations.

The box is definitely contemporary (I would guess mid to late 19thC) with the gold braid edge tooling and blue velvet roundels for all coins, no ribbon lifters - a single push button but with no swing hooks (as also used on the "standard" spade shaped case) - the coins were unfortunately mixed in quality but I did not see them in the hand relying on my agents description.

[Rob 3,152]

There was a 17 coin 1839 set sold in a country English auction last year for around 72K hammer. It came in a round case with the Spink & Son London logo on the inside purple silk lining I dont seem to be able to upload a picture for you. The coin's die orientation was mixed . One can expect that dealers assembled these sets to order

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set.

In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations.

The box is definitely contemporary (I would guess mid to late 19thC) with the gold braid edge tooling and blue velvet roundels for all coins, no ribbon lifters - a single push button but with no swing hooks (as also used on the "standard" spade shaped case) - the coins were unfortunately mixed in quality but I did not see them in the hand relying on my agents description.

Thanks. It certainly looks 19th century.

The fact that they were differing in grade is not necessarily surprising. Within a few years of 1839 the auction catalogues are describing some of the £5 coins as impaired e.g Thomas Thomas 1034, Soth 23/2/1844 - and there are other references noted as such. However, if the fractionals were notably different from the rest, then surely that would have to imply the set wasn't original?

IMHO the use of a Spink labelled box would imply not as issued by the mint unless there are other boxes so labelled and preferably with 15 coins inside. Unfortunately that still wouldn't clarify whether the 17 hole boxes were made for the mint as a one-off or commissioned privately.

If as issued this would potentially help clarifying the order in which the dies were used. Fortunately the early catalogues go to great lengths describing the £5 pieces, which helps. Finding complete matched sets in original boxes would help too as it is unlikely many would have been reconstituted if matched.

[Peckris 579]

There was a 17 coin 1839 set sold in a country English auction last year for around 72K hammer. It came in a round case with the Spink & Son London logo on the inside purple silk lining I dont seem to be able to upload a picture for you. The coin's die orientation was mixed . One can expect that dealers assembled these sets to order

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set.

In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations.

The box is definitely contemporary (I would guess mid to late 19thC) with the gold braid edge tooling and blue velvet roundels for all coins, no ribbon lifters - a single push button but with no swing hooks (as also used on the "standard" spade shaped case) - the coins were unfortunately mixed in quality but I did not see them in the hand relying on my agents description.

Thanks. It certainly looks 19th century.

The fact that they were differing in grade is not necessarily surprising. Within a few years of 1839 the auction catalogues are describing some of the £5 coins as impaired e.g Thomas Thomas 1034, Soth 23/2/1844 - and there are other references noted as such. However, if the fractionals were notably different from the rest, then surely that would have to imply the set wasn't original?

IMHO the use of a Spink labelled box would imply not as issued by the mint unless there are other boxes so labelled and preferably with 15 coins inside. Unfortunately that still wouldn't clarify whether the 17 hole boxes were made for the mint as a one-off or commissioned privately.

If as issued this would potentially help clarifying the order in which the dies were used. Fortunately the early catalogues go to great lengths describing the £5 pieces, which helps. Finding complete matched sets in original boxes would help too as it is unlikely many would have been reconstituted if matched.

Agreed - one would need to see a Mint case with 17 recesses in, to be certain. But, and this is a puzzle, surely the quarter farthing is a currency example anyway, as I can find no reference to the existence of any proofs for them? That would imply it was almost definitely a dealer's compiled-to-order set; it could even be a one-off, if the completist collector in question had the the means to shell out for a custom made case (and in the absence of any others, that must be the assumption).

[shagreen 24]

There was a 17 coin 1839 set sold in a country English auction last year for around 72K hammer. It came in a round case with the Spink & Son London logo on the inside purple silk lining I dont seem to be able to upload a picture for you. The coin's die orientation was mixed . One can expect that dealers assembled these sets to order

If you still have the link, that would be useful. Was it a modern Spink box or could it possibly have been made prior to 1875? As mentioned earlier, that is the earliest reference I have to a 17 coin set.

In 1839 the fractional farthings were not current in this country, only being proclaimed in 1842 or 1843(?). However, once they were legally able to circulate, it is possible that the mint would have added examples to the set in order to provide an example of each of the circulating denominations.

The box is definitely contemporary (I would guess mid to late 19thC) with the gold braid edge tooling and blue velvet roundels for all coins, no ribbon lifters - a single push button but with no swing hooks (as also used on the "standard" spade shaped case) - the coins were unfortunately mixed in quality but I did not see them in the hand relying on my agents description.

Thanks. It certainly looks 19th century.

The fact that they were differing in grade is not necessarily surprising. Within a few years of 1839 the auction catalogues are describing some of the £5 coins as impaired e.g Thomas Thomas 1034, Soth 23/2/1844 - and there are other references noted as such. However, if the fractionals were notably different from the rest, then surely that would have to imply the set wasn't original?

IMHO the use of a Spink labelled box would imply not as issued by the mint unless there are other boxes so labelled and preferably with 15 coins inside. Unfortunately that still wouldn't clarify whether the 17 hole boxes were made for the mint as a one-off or commissioned privately.

If as issued this would potentially help clarifying the order in which the dies were used. Fortunately the early catalogues go to great lengths describing the £5 pieces, which helps. Finding complete matched sets in original boxes would help too as it is unlikely many would have been reconstituted if matched.

Agreed - one would need to see a Mint case with 17 recesses in, to be certain. But, and this is a puzzle, surely the quarter farthing is a currency example anyway, as I can find no reference to the existence of any proofs for them? That would imply it was almost definitely a dealer's compiled-to-order set; it could even be a one-off, if the completist collector in question had the the means to shell out for a custom made case (and in the absence of any others, that must be the assumption).

My research suggests the Mint did not commission (or perhaps allow ) cases with the official "Royal Arms" logo on them until the 1887 set - Treasury would most likely have been involved in the authorization , before then I wonder if we can work out if they actually paid the box makers ( we need to go to the national archives and look up their invoice records - if they still exist - the Melbourne Branch Mint certainly had these being a typical civil service organisation and operating under the same system). Perhaps the coin dealers / jewelers of the time did this on behalf of the Mint - their focus being on coinage for the masses not fussy collectors.

The Royal Mint museum pages http://www.royalmintmuseum.org.uk/collection/collection-highlights/coins/the-una-and-the-lion-five-pound-piece/index.html outline that the 1839 sets were not available until 1843. This implies some fairly organised proof manufacturing process was in place and we can assume these sets were only the 15 coin burgundy shagreen spade shaped cases. Of course proof manufacture would have been a laborious and slow task see the excellent BNJ article by Dyer and Gaspar 50 (1980) 117-27 .

The Bentley collection research and other information I think it was an official inquiry into Mint operations held mid 19th C. states the early proofs (pre 1887?) were issued via the engravers who had the privilege of being allowed to do this on behalf of the Mint provided all expenses were reimbursed. Now the Mint would have had official requests for proof sets from Treasury as part of Governmental business for presentation to dignitaries etc I need to get into the archives to research these unless anyone else knows were they issued in the same cases?

Spink would most certainly have ordered proof coins from the Royal Mint as I know they did from the Melbourne Branch Mint. It can them be surmised that they commissioned local case makers to prepare whatever custom case they desired. If no official proof version of the fractional farthings is recorded Spink could certainly have ordered "specimen pieces" - if no proof die was available.

[Colin G. 147]

But, and this is a puzzle, surely the quarter farthing is a currency example anyway, as I can find no reference to the existence of any proofs for them? That would imply it was almost definitely a dealer's compiled-to-order set; it could even be a one-off, if the completist collector in question had the the means to shell out for a custom made case (and in the absence of any others, that must be the assumption).

Agreed, I am also struggling to find any reference to an 1839 proof quarter farthing.......

[Rob 3,152]

So was the 1839 1/4 farthing in the 17 coin set a currency piece only and described as such?

[Peckris 579]

So was the 1839 1/4 farthing in the 17 coin set a currency piece only and described as such?

Interestingly, the lot description doesn't mention proofs at all:

"A VICTORIAN SPECIMEN COIN SET for 1839 comprising seventeen coins including a gold £5 coin, sovereign and half sovereign, in a circular Spink & Sons box. See illustration."

[shagreen 24]

So was the 1839 1/4 farthing in the 17 coin set a currency piece only and described as such?

Interestingly, the lot description doesn't mention proofs at all:

"A VICTORIAN SPECIMEN COIN SET for 1839 comprising seventeen coins including a gold £5 coin, sovereign and half sovereign, in a circular Spink & Sons box. See illustration."

Yes but my agent did confirm the higher value silver and gold were proof strikes however the copper and maundy were unfortunately not assessed. The set did sell to a local dealer who had a client lined up for it.

[Rob 3,152]

We appear to have quite a few points to debate here.

I thought the UNA & the Lion is proof only and wasn't issued as a currency piece, or was it?. Surely not given the numbers seen together with the early auction references which often mention 10 struck etc of the variety listed.

Why include a 1/4 farthing but not the three halfpence given both were initially struck for colonial use? And similarly, why do you have a 15 coin set normally, with a farthing as the smallest denomination when we know there are 1839 half farthing bronzed proofs? Were these issued much later? That there is no reference for an 1839 1/4 does not exclude a limited number of them existing if required for sets because we don't know everything. eg. Colin Cooke had a proof 1847 farthing which is even more difficult to explain than the 1839 1/4 and not listed anywhere.

If the RM didn't issue sets until 1843, they were certainly churning out proofs before this given the examples in the Bolland sale in 1841. He died in 1840.

[Peckris 579]

We appear to have quite a few points to debate here.

I thought the UNA & the Lion is proof only and wasn't issued as a currency piece, or was it?. Surely not given the numbers seen together with the early auction references which often mention 10 struck etc of the variety listed.

Why include a 1/4 farthing but not the three halfpence given both were initially struck for colonial use? And similarly, why do you have a 15 coin set normally, with a farthing as the smallest denomination when we know there are 1839 half farthing bronzed proofs? Were these issued much later? That there is no reference for an 1839 1/4 does not exclude a limited number of them existing if required for sets because we don't know everything. eg. Colin Cooke had a proof 1847 farthing which is even more difficult to explain than the 1839 1/4 and not listed anywhere.

If the RM didn't issue sets until 1843, they were certainly churning out proofs before this given the examples in the Bolland sale in 1841. He died in 1840.

There could be lots of factors at work here. For one, we are looking with hindsight through eyes that have grown up with proof sets and their availability. Yet in 1839 they were in their infancy - the first being the George IV one, am I right? So the Mint would hardly have been geared up to producing sets. It's much more likely they would have concentrated on the higher value denominations and minted different numbers of proofs for each, according to demand and tradition.

Then you've got the general attitude towards the base metal coinage. The Great Recoinage of 1816 didn't even feature them, even though it was accepted by then that a 'token currency' would be produced, so the piecemeal coppers produced between 1797 and 1807 would not have discouraged a new copper standard (which didn't appear until 1821-6).

Yes, the three-halfpence is a strange omission if the set was commissioned by a completist. Yet there is a certain balance in that 17 coin set, that might have been thrown out with an 18th coin in it. But that aesthetic doesn't really satisfactorily explain its omission. It may be that the collector in question didn't really regard a 'three-halfpence' as a true denomination?

[Rob 3,152]

The waters are further muddied by the orders and proclamations of 1838.

An order dated June 8th directed the coinage of a £5 piece, sovereign and half, all of the same type with royal arms surrounded by a wreath,save the half on space considerations. Ruding, where I have taken this from then goes on to say that the £5 piece should have DECUS ET TUTAMEN on the edge, whilst the double-sovereign and half-sovereign will be grained. No mention in the last sentence of a full sovereign which possibly is a mistake, but also see below.

July 5th. Proclamation for the £5 down to the farthing together with the Maundy issue made.

July 18th. Proclamation dictates that the double-sovereign, sovereign and half-sovereign shall be received and pass as current money, with the respective weights listed.

So we have a double-sovereign mentioned in orders and proclaimed, but none exist for this reign as currency pieces. There are two uniface reverse £2 coins in the RM museum; one undated, but intended for 1838 as per the proclamation and listed as Hocking 1969, and one dated 1841 with a trident and two dolphins (Hocking 1968). These are W&R288 & 289 respectively.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Rob