Let's See Your Copper Coins, Tokens, Or Medals!

[bagerap 706]

My wife's just remarked that I've spent the last half hour gazing at Garrett's Queen Anne farthing. It is absolutely bloody captivating.

Who was the artist?

[Rob 3,152]

My wife's just remarked that I've spent the last half hour gazing at Garrett's Queen Anne farthing. It is absolutely bloody captivating.

Who was the artist?

John Croker

[Coinery 1,154]

It's like a Green & Blacks chocolate button (if there ever was such a thing), swished around with a good slurp of Gran Reserve Rioja! It's that good!

[brg5658 111]

A few spots, but nothing too distracting. I like the amount of luster on this one, and the strike is good for the issue. "Scarce" token (a few hundred struck), created for primarily collectors as a mule of two dies used elsewhere on circulation tokens.

1792 Lancashire/Rochdale Halfpenny, DH-149

[Peter 615]

http://www.omnicoin.com/viewcoin/937529

This is one coin I will keep.

I often just stare at it.

No problem with lustre

[sound 25]

Interesting thread. Some really nice pics. I have been experimenting for about nine months not being a photographer. Found gold really hard.

Very pleased with this though. I have been using a daylight bulb and reflector thingy, sorry can't remember the photo jargon.

[sound 25]

Any improvement hints most welcome.

Regards

Mark

[Accumulator 52]

Interesting thread. Some really nice pics. I have been experimenting for about nine months not being a photographer. Found gold really hard.

Very pleased with this though. I have been using a daylight bulb and reflector thingy, sorry can't remember the photo jargon.

Excellent photos for showing the depth of strike. Is the coin really that dark or have you just adjusted the colour? The impression is almost proof like. My 1863 has full lustre, but your photos are, in many ways, more attractive.

[sound 25]

Hi,

Yes the coin is just about as it looks. I do enhance a little to bring hidden depths that the camera dosn't pick up, but never knowingly distort. I was immediately attracted to this coin at auction. The photos in the catalogue were sumptuous. I wanted to see if I could replicate it so was pleased.

This is one of my better ones, so many failures on the way.

Steve I think yours is sharper than mine. Since taking this one I always use a tripod and don't use anything more than 55x macro frequently less. Ha ha laugh at me didn't know what macro was a year ago.

Regards

Mark

[Peckris 579]

Yes, that's very prooflike in appearance. I have a very similar 1863 (or is it 1862? One or the other..) : dark patina and quite wide rims with strong even toothed border. It does make you wonder if they struck 'specimen' examples that weren't actual proofs but specially prepared and struck?

[Paulus 1,975]

That really is a stunner Sound, congratulations on the coin AND the images!

In case you missed it on another thread, here is an article I find useful. I'm still spending many hours trying to get close to what I'm after though!

http://www.coinimaging.com/photography.html

[Garrett 76]

Oh my what a gorgeous photo of a gorgeous penny !

Mine, mine , gimme !!

[Coinery 1,154]

Interesting thread. Some really nice pics. I have been experimenting for about nine months not being a photographer. Found gold really hard.

Very pleased with this though. I have been using a daylight bulb and reflector thingy, sorry can't remember the photo jargon. image.jpg

Great quality coin AND image, sound! If that's the actual colour of the coin, then there's nothing to add that would make a difference, photographically speaking...not from a fellow amateur anyways!

[Paulus 1,975]

Forgive me Sound, but I am embedding your coin image here so I can admire it more readily!

[Accumulator 52]

Yes, that's very prooflike in appearance. I have a very similar 1863 (or is it 1862? One or the other..) : dark patina and quite wide rims with strong even toothed border. It does make you wonder if they struck 'specimen' examples that weren't actual proofs but specially prepared and struck?

Now that's a very interesting discussion. What do you make of this catalogue footnote to the sale of an 1874H penny by DNW in 2006:

Footnote

Periodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished ‘specimen’ coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369). Truly genuine Heaton mint proofs of this period (cf. Adams lot 268 = SNC April 2005, 2467) are exceedingly rare; most of those so catalogued in the Freeman sale were in fact ‘specimens’

[Peter 615]

Forgive me Sound, but I am embedding your coin image here so I can admire it more readily!

Hi,

Yes the coin is just about as it looks. I do enhance a little to bring hidden depths that the camera dosn't pick up, but never knowingly distort. I was immediately attracted to this coin at auction. The photos in the catalogue were sumptuous. I wanted to see if I could replicate it so was pleased.

This is one of my better ones, so many failures on the way.

Steve I think yours is sharper than mine. Since taking this one I always use a tripod and don't use anything more than 55x macro frequently less. Ha ha laugh at me didn't know what macro was a year ago.

Regards

Mark

Sound cracking coin.I'm just up the road near Bury St Eds.I always look for Bury mint,Ipswich mint and spit on Naaarwich mint..

Only kidding a fine Shity.

[Coinery 1,154]

I'm no expert with proofs, but that certainly does look proof-like, a brilliant coin!

[Peckris 579]

Yes, that's very prooflike in appearance. I have a very similar 1863 (or is it 1862? One or the other..) : dark patina and quite wide rims with strong even toothed border. It does make you wonder if they struck 'specimen' examples that weren't actual proofs but specially prepared and struck?

Now that's a very interesting discussion. What do you make of this catalogue footnote to the sale of an 1874H penny by DNW in 2006:

Footnote

Periodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished ‘specimen’ coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369). Truly genuine Heaton mint proofs of this period (cf. Adams lot 268 = SNC April 2005, 2467) are exceedingly rare; most of those so catalogued in the Freeman sale were in fact ‘specimens’

That's fascinating. Presumably though, such specimens had the H mintmark?

[Colin G. 147]

That is a beauty, very "prooflike" in appearance, the border teeth look much more defined than in AC's example, and the transition between border teeth and rims is also a lot more defined.

That has to be some form of "specimen" strike, I know some coins can just be photogenic, but this surpasses just eye appeal ....surely.

[sound 25]

Hi,

Thank you all for your kind comments.

Really hadn't given much thought to this being anything other than a normal penny that had toned up. Anyone know whether there were proofs for the year and type 6 + G I think.

On another matter in just trying to put a value on this, as you know Spink full value in UNC is for coins with full lustre. How would this square as this is toned completely?

Kind regards

Mark

[Accumulator 52]

Yes, that's very prooflike in appearance. I have a very similar 1863 (or is it 1862? One or the other..) : dark patina and quite wide rims with strong even toothed border. It does make you wonder if they struck 'specimen' examples that weren't actual proofs but specially prepared and struck?

Now that's a very interesting discussion. What do you make of this catalogue footnote to the sale of an 1874H penny by DNW in 2006:

Footnote

Periodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished ‘specimen’ coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369). Truly genuine Heaton mint proofs of this period (cf. Adams lot 268 = SNC April 2005, 2467) are exceedingly rare; most of those so catalogued in the Freeman sale were in fact ‘specimens’

That's fascinating. Presumably though, such specimens had the H mintmark?

Yes, this was specific to a description of an 1874H but it did make me wonder about other specimens v. proofs. I was especially interested in the rather damning last sentence about Michael Freeman's own proofs. I wonder whose authority they were relying on to make that rather broad statement?

[Accumulator 52]

Hi,

Thank you all for your kind comments.

Really hadn't given much thought to this being anything other than a normal penny that had toned up. Anyone know whether there were proofs for the year and type 6 + G I think.

On another matter in just trying to put a value on this, as you know Spink full value in UNC is for coins with full lustre. How would this square as this is toned completely?

Kind regards

Mark

All 1863 coins were from dies 6 + G. Freeman lists a bronzed proof with rarity R18 and I note that a few have been sold over the years. Interestingly Baldwins sold a beautiful 'proof like' example, which they didn't actually claim to be a proof, so maybe another specimen?

1863 is one of the more common years so UNC examples with virtually full lustre rarely fetch more than £200-250 (Spink has £375). Not everyone would accept the lack of lustre on your example, though many would for such a fine strike. Personally I'd say £150-200 for your coin, unless it shows a proof-like quality (mirrored surface) to the fields that isn't evident in the photos in which case substantially more.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Accumulator

[sound 25]

Accumulator,

Thanks again.

Just had a look to check. I would describe fields as proof like. They are almost perfect IMO.

Must say I have learnt a lot from this coin. Question could it be ascertained for certain as to its status as "proof" or "specimen"?

Regards

Mark

Edited February 11, 2014 by sound

[Rob 3,152]

Yes, that's very prooflike in appearance. I have a very similar 1863 (or is it 1862? One or the other..) : dark patina and quite wide rims with strong even toothed border. It does make you wonder if they struck 'specimen' examples that weren't actual proofs but specially prepared and struck?

Now that's a very interesting discussion. What do you make of this catalogue footnote to the sale of an 1874H penny by DNW in 2006:

Footnote

Periodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished ‘specimen’ coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369). Truly genuine Heaton mint proofs of this period (cf. Adams lot 268 = SNC April 2005, 2467) are exceedingly rare; most of those so catalogued in the Freeman sale were in fact ‘specimens’

That's fascinating. Presumably though, such specimens had the H mintmark?

Seeing as I have one of the coins in question, here is the halfpenny ex-Freeman and Terner collections. Unfortunately it's only a scan which reduces contrast a bit, so if I find time later tonight I will try to take a picture alongside both slightly earlier and slightly later RM proofs for comparison purposes.

I don't think you need to make too much of some of the lot footnotes as they are often reiterating past footnotes, or even copying them verbatim. It is probably better that collectors make up their own mind. I can see the arguments for both sides, but compared with a regular currency piece that has proof-like fields, there is no comparison.

[Rob 3,152]

And the regular one.