Does Anyone Know Hearn's Cost Codings?

[Rob 3,152]

Is there anyone out there who knows the late dealer Geoffrey Hearn's cost codings?

I have an 1807 silver proof halfpenny which I am fairly minded to conclude is probably unique and was produced as a set of 3 (gold, silver and bronze) as the variety is virtually unknown from auction catalogues. If not unique there can't be more than one or two others hidden away. Documented examples I have found are Murdoch (III) lot 304 part (3) Sotheby 1904, brilliant mint state; Foster 79 part (20) Glens 19/10/1953 extremely fine, bought Hearn and reappeared as lot 228 in 'Coins from Geoffrey Hearn's Collection' part 2 in December 1954 which was issued in catalogue form but with fixed prices; H Selig 1408, Spink 131 2/3/1999 ex SNC 4/1982 no.2953. It was unsold in Selig and stayed with Spink until I purchased it a few years ago.

Infuriatingly, every 'lot' in Hearn's catalogue has a price against it except for the silver 1807 proof halfpenny which has the cost code EL/Z/Z. An educated guess says that Z = 0 because the only sensible alternative price would end in 6d, but £xx/6/6d doesn't sound right either. E realistically has to be either 1 or 2, with L=?. A silver 1797 2d was in the list at £25. Any older members out there know?

For the record, the coin is EF+ with a couple of light scratches in the reverse field which would tie in well with the Foster catalogue. You would not expect a silver 1807 proof 1/2d to be lumped in a bulk lot of 20 unless impaired in some way. Uncirculated in Hearn's catalogue is dealer hype as is Spink's description in the Selig catalogue of 'Practically as Struck'.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Rob

[azda 979]

Is this a new purchase Rob, not your usual green Background, so it would either be new or one coming up for sale.

[Peckris 579]

The problem is that dealers who use a price coding (as I did), kept the code a tight secret for obvious reasons. If you had access to a statistically large enough sample, you could probably work out the coding, but from a single example it's virtually impossible.

[Rob 3,152]

Is this a new purchase Rob, not your usual green Background, so it would either be new or one coming up for sale.

No, it's an old one. I've had the coin about 6 years after Spink listed it together with Selig's 1806 silver proof halfpenny in the Circular. The background used varies depending on what seems to give the most realistically coloured image.

[just.me 23]

Just a guess, maybe too simple but , EL being L pronounced, L being 12th letter of alphabet and Z=0 EL/Z/Z = 12/0/0 would that have been a realistic price back then?

[Peckris 579]

Just a guess, maybe too simple but , EL being L pronounced, L being 12th letter of alphabet and Z=0 EL/Z/Z = 12/0/0 would that have been a realistic price back then?

Just a guess, but a buyer looking through a box of envelopes marked "EH/Z/Z" "BEE/Z/Z" "SEE/Z/Z" "DEE/Z/Z" ... etc, might soon crack the code

[NRP 38]

You might find it involves some binary or something similar to keep people guessing ;-)

[Rob 3,152]

Just a guess, maybe too simple but , EL being L pronounced, L being 12th letter of alphabet and Z=0 EL/Z/Z = 12/0/0 would that have been a realistic price back then?

Just a guess, but a buyer looking through a box of envelopes marked "EH/Z/Z" "BEE/Z/Z" "SEE/Z/Z" "DEE/Z/Z" ... etc, might soon crack the code

To put it into context, Foster 80 was a lot of 2 silver Soho patterns (1788 & 1790) which sold for £11/10/-. Lot 79 sold for £7! and contained current pennies 1806 x2, 1807, 1/2d 1807, 1/4d 1806 & 1807. Proof 1d 1806 x4 (bronzed, copper and gilt x2), halfpennies 1806 x7, 1807 gilt (non-mint) and Ag proof, farthings bronzes and gilt. Some in original shells, all extremely fine.

£7 was a bargain. He had a silver proof 1797 2d for £25 - wasn't Foster 74 which was bought by Baldwin for £27. £12 would therefore be reasonable, but the markup on £7 for 20 pieces outrageous.

[Rob 3,152]

You might find it involves some binary or something similar to keep people guessing ;-)

I doubt it, we are talking almost immediately post war here. He retired in the late 70s or 80s(?).

[NRP 38]

Very true and good point!!

[NRP 38]

I could tell you spinks old code but you probably already know ;-)

[Peckris 579]

You might find it involves some binary or something similar to keep people guessing ;-)

I doubt it, we are talking almost immediately post war here. He retired in the late 70s or 80s(?).

Tsk tsk. The first computer was invented in the 1930s, and was originally intended to be an electronic calculator. Addition and subtraction machines had been long used - analogue decimal machines - but the only way they could get multiplication and division automated was by using binary (in binary, both processes are essentially achieved by adding and subtracting). So he COULD have used binary, especially as the rush to patent occurred immediately post-war.

I know what you're thinking : "It's all Geek to me"

[Rob 3,152]

You might find it involves some binary or something similar to keep people guessing ;-)

I doubt it, we are talking almost immediately post war here. He retired in the late 70s or 80s(?).

Tsk tsk. The first computer was invented in the 1930s, and was originally intended to be an electronic calculator. Addition and subtraction machines had been long used - analogue decimal machines - but the only way they could get multiplication and division automated was by using binary (in binary, both processes are essentially achieved by adding and subtracting). So he COULD have used binary, especially as the rush to patent occurred immediately post-war.

I know what you're thinking : "It's all Geek to me"

I know what you are saying, but for the masses binary wasn't common knowledge. Most people of his generation left school at 14, and binary didn't come into their maths lessons.

[Peckris 579]

You might find it involves some binary or something similar to keep people guessing ;-)

I doubt it, we are talking almost immediately post war here. He retired in the late 70s or 80s(?).

Tsk tsk. The first computer was invented in the 1930s, and was originally intended to be an electronic calculator. Addition and subtraction machines had been long used - analogue decimal machines - but the only way they could get multiplication and division automated was by using binary (in binary, both processes are essentially achieved by adding and subtracting). So he COULD have used binary, especially as the rush to patent occurred immediately post-war.

I know what you're thinking : "It's all Geek to me"

I know what you are saying, but for the masses binary wasn't common knowledge. Most people of his generation left school at 14, and binary didn't come into their maths lessons.

True enough, but we don't know that he wasn't also a bit of a techie buff on the side, keeping up with all the - well publicised - advances and to-ing and fro-ing in the fledgling computer industry. Remember, it was the height of the sci-fi era back then, and more people than you'd think were interested in all that, with popular magazines devoted to radio, electronics, science, etc.

[Colin G. 147]

Peck every post you do now all I think is Big Bang Theory

[Rob 3,152]

You might find it involves some binary or something similar to keep people guessing ;-)

I doubt it, we are talking almost immediately post war here. He retired in the late 70s or 80s(?).

Tsk tsk. The first computer was invented in the 1930s, and was originally intended to be an electronic calculator. Addition and subtraction machines had been long used - analogue decimal machines - but the only way they could get multiplication and division automated was by using binary (in binary, both processes are essentially achieved by adding and subtracting). So he COULD have used binary, especially as the rush to patent occurred immediately post-war.

I know what you're thinking : "It's all Geek to me"

I know what you are saying, but for the masses binary wasn't common knowledge. Most people of his generation left school at 14, and binary didn't come into their maths lessons.

True enough, but we don't know that he wasn't also a bit of a techie buff on the side, keeping up with all the - well publicised - advances and to-ing and fro-ing in the fledgling computer industry. Remember, it was the height of the sci-fi era back then, and more people than you'd think were interested in all that, with popular magazines devoted to radio, electronics, science, etc.

You're just being contentious. You would need to be brain of Britain to formulate a coding using binary that was practical. It has to be something easy to remember, and even if the letters stood for binary, that would mean all prices would have to consist of 0 & 1. A binary figure as a code could translate to a number, but a letter to a binary number would give you prices such as £1101011. All this in an era when a decent hammered halfcrown went for a few quid. I think not.

[Peckris 579]

Peck every post you do now all I think is Big Bang Theory

That's something I've never watched, so your joke is [mimes hand going over head]

You're just being contentious. You would need to be brain of Britain to formulate a coding using binary that was practical. It has to be something easy to remember, and even if the letters stood for binary, that would mean all prices would have to consist of 0 & 1. A binary figure as a code could translate to a number, but a letter to a binary number would give you prices such as £1101011. All this in an era when a decent hammered halfcrown went for a few quid. I think not.

Yeah maybe, but it wasn't me who suggested it could be binary!!!

[NRP 38]

When I suggested binary it wasn't to be offensive ;-) I know a few dealers who use binary to an extent but might instead use to the power 5 or 10 etc

[Peter 615]

I think the question is one for Deep Thought.

[Rob 3,152]

When I suggested binary it wasn't to be offensive ;-) I know a few dealers who use binary to an extent but might instead use to the power 5 or 10 etc

I don't it would be possible to be offensive with binary - the biggest you could get is a 1. Hexadecimal would be a different matter though, lots of potential Fs

[Colin G. 147]

That's something I've never watched, so your joke is [mimes hand going over head]

I would take is as a compliment..but then again I am also a bit geeky!!

[Peckris 579]

When I suggested binary it wasn't to be offensive ;-) I know a few dealers who use binary to an extent but might instead use to the power 5 or 10 etc

I don't it would be possible to be offensive with binary - the biggest you could get is a 1. Hexadecimal would be a different matter though, lots of potential Fs

F0 Rob

That's something I've never watched, so your joke is [mimes hand going over head]

I would take is as a compliment..but then again I am also a bit geeky!!

[Coinery 1,156]

Whaaaaaah?

[Rob 3,152]

Whaaaaaah?

Fewer a's, more question marks and an explanation please. What on earth are you on about?

[Peckris 579]

Whaaaaaah?

Fewer a's, more question marks and an explanation please. What on earth are you on about?

I suspect it's the word 'hexadecimal' that may have caused that outburst!

FFs...