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

[Colin G. 147]

Whilst they may be attractive coins, with a clear contrast between fields and relief, they just don't seem as good as the questionable proof Rob posted above (obviously I have not seen the coins in question in hand). Noticeably the rims are nowhere as consistent, the border teeth and not as clear, and for me even the detail across Britannia's face is often not as good. Whilst they may be classed as proofs, they are not to the same standards that can be found in some years IMHO. Whilst they may be a very high quality coin, they certainly do not seem to be of equal quality.

http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/colincookecol/142.jpg

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=129&l=2013&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=292&f=o&s=l

If it is just the contrast between fields and relief that are the deciding factor, then where do you determine whether a "proof-like" example should be classed as a proof.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted.

We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs.

No, what I meant was - only the third image you linked seems to be an incontestable proof. The others (including Rob's and the SNC examples) COULD be simply prooflike.

Now I understand.... I am a bit slow but I get there eventually

[Peckris 579]

Whilst they may be attractive coins, with a clear contrast between fields and relief, they just don't seem as good as the questionable proof Rob posted above (obviously I have not seen the coins in question in hand). Noticeably the rims are nowhere as consistent, the border teeth and not as clear, and for me even the detail across Britannia's face is often not as good. Whilst they may be classed as proofs, they are not to the same standards that can be found in some years IMHO. Whilst they may be a very high quality coin, they certainly do not seem to be of equal quality.

http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/colincookecol/142.jpg

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=129&l=2013&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=292&f=o&s=l

If it is just the contrast between fields and relief that are the deciding factor, then where do you determine whether a "proof-like" example should be classed as a proof.

Well, I'd guess the difference in Britannia's face is down to the fact that it's a different die design, right? The rims seem to my eyes to be roughly the same standard across all three coins, which means not as clearly 'proof' as the 3rd image you just posted.

We may be on crossed wires here, I mean the three that I linked to seem to be a lot clearer as proofs than the 1863 and the 1869 above. the Reverse design type is the same across all of these 5 proofs. Some of the other proofs do have these features, but it is not consistent across all farthings that seem to have been classified as proofs.

No, what I meant was - only the third image you linked seems to be an incontestable proof. The others (including Rob's and the SNC examples) COULD be simply prooflike.

Now I understand.... I am a bit slow but I get there eventually

On the other hand, that third image is a 'bronzed proof' - the others could simply be 'normal' proofs? Or indeed, just 'prooflike'. It's a minefield.

[copper123 1,463]

no , a minefield is what they had in the first world war numismatics is more of a hobby really

[scott 144]

some rares for you to enjoy

[Hello17 3]

this mysterious thing

Is that a 1674 farthing??

[Peckris 579]

this mysterious thing

Is that a 1674 farthing??

Zooming in my screen, I'm near certain it's 1675.

[Colin G. 147]

I would agree, seems to be a 1675

[scott 144]

got a 1673 to go with it.

and this is probably 1753.

[brg5658 111]

Here is my most recent copper token purchase. This is a halfpenny token dated 1795 struck by Matthew Boulton. It was designed by Conrad Heinrich Kuechler, a phenomenally talented engraver employed by Boulton at the Soho Mint. The token was ordered by Sir George Jackson, with the purpose of both commemorating recent improvements in navigation along the River Stort, and to provide small change for commerce for those living in the area. The complete order of these tokens, though dated 1795, were actually struck in May and June of 1796.

Boulton adored the detail of the reverse river scene, and is known to have often said this was his favorite token design. Richard Doty, in his wonderful work "The Soho Mint and the Industrialization of Money" refers to this token as likely the height of all eighteenth century token designs. I purchased this token from a reputable dealer here in the USA who has been dealing in these types of tokens for decades. Though the price was strong, the strike on this piece is superb. I'm also providing a close-up of some of the reverse detail below. Truly a delight to view in hand.

[Peckris 579]

That's a real beauty Barry. And as you say - Boulton and Küchler made a formidable team. Boulton actually designed quite a few of the late 18th Century tokens which is why they are of such a high standard of workmanship; you can bet that Boulton & Watt tested out the new steam-powered presses on tokens long before they were able to get Government contracts for minting coin of the realm. That's clearly one of his later efforts and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a factor in him winning the copper coin contracts a year or so later.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Peckris

[Peter 615]

Brandon

You are whetting my collecting eye.

[brg5658 111]

That's a real beauty Barry. And as you say - Boulton and Küchler made a formidable team. Boulton actually designed quite a few of the late 18th Century tokens which is why they are of such a high standard of workmanship; you can bet that Boulton & Watt tested out the new steam-powered presses on tokens long before they were able to get Government contracts for minting coin of the realm. That's clearly one of his later efforts and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a factor in him winning the copper coin contracts a year or so later.

You are quite right. The SOHO tokens produced during the 1787-1797 period are head and shoulders above the quality of almost all other tokens.

Having read several histories of the period though, I'm not so sure there was really much discussion or competition by 1797 as to whom the crown would offer the coining contract. Boulton had been at the top of their list, and had been pushing for the contract since the 1780s. Given his full work of the period, and his astute business acumen in hiring some of the most talented engravers of the era, he was pretty much a lock for the contract. However, the red-tape to get there took nearly a decade to push through the official channels.

[Paulus 1,975]

Just sublime.

[Peckris 579]

That's a real beauty Barry. And as you say - Boulton and Küchler made a formidable team. Boulton actually designed quite a few of the late 18th Century tokens which is why they are of such a high standard of workmanship; you can bet that Boulton & Watt tested out the new steam-powered presses on tokens long before they were able to get Government contracts for minting coin of the realm. That's clearly one of his later efforts and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a factor in him winning the copper coin contracts a year or so later.

You are quite right. The SOHO tokens produced during the 1787-1797 period are head and shoulders above the quality of almost all other tokens.

Having read several histories of the period though, I'm not so sure there was really much discussion or competition by 1797 as to whom the crown would offer the coining contract. Boulton had been at the top of their list, and had been pushing for the contract since the 1780s. Given his full work of the period, and his astute business acumen in hiring some of the most talented engravers of the era, he was pretty much a lock for the contract. However, the red-tape to get there took nearly a decade to push through the official channels.

Why am I not surprised? 'Twas ever thus...

[Coinery 1,120]

That is pretty darn good, I have to say! Are they illegally transporting sheep in the lead boat?

[TomGoodheart 399]

Ermagherd. Who ever thought I'd end up here? But .. times change and all that. And as I've just vastly overpaid for this, I might as well show it off ...

Not to Brandon's standards and it might need a toothpick to tidy it a bit but .. it is made of copper!

And no, it's not a cartwheel. At only 28.3mm - the size of an old 10p/ florin - more of a pramwheel.

[Accumulator 52]

Richard, you've been hacked…. someone's using your account to show copper coins!

[Coinery 1,120]

Impossible to keep up with the man, lately!

[TomGoodheart 399]

Richard, you've been hacked…. someone's using your account to show copper coins!

I know! And that one has a Smurfette on it!

Admittedly one engraved by WJ Taylor, who I believe was associated with Heaton for a while, before unsuccessfully trying to make his fortune in Australia.

[Rob 3,140]

Richard, you've been hacked…. someone's using your account to show copper coins!

I know! And that one has a Smurfette on it!

Admittedly one engraved by WJ Taylor, who I believe was associated with Heaton for a while, before unsuccessfully trying to make his fortune in Australia.

Taylor returned from Australia before 1862, as 1862 was the year he is generally thought to have commenced his Soho restrikes.

[scott 144]

farthing alert!!!

what is going on with that second L? rubbed out E?

[Coinery 1,120]

farthing alert!!!

what is going on with that second L? rubbed out E?

Could be, Scott? However, as you know, a better (or another) example would need to come to light to confirm??? It would be a relatively easy die to source, I'd think, as the lettering on GVLIELMVS, especially the S, makes it pretty distinctive?

You're the man to find it, Scott! You'll have enough W3 copper to cover all the dies at the rate you're going!

[Rob 3,140]

farthing alert!!!

what is going on with that second L? rubbed out E?

Could be, Scott? However, as you know, a better (or another) example would need to come to light to confirm??? It would be a relatively easy die to source, I'd think, as the lettering on GVLIELMVS, especially the S, makes it pretty distinctive?

You're the man to find it, Scott! You'll have enough W3 copper to cover all the dies at the rate you're going!

You often find them with traces of what appears to be underlying letters, but generally the quality is so grim that you would hesitate to make an attribution.

It's quite possibly a trace of an underlying E, (the comparable halfpenny with the same L over a possible E exists for 1700 too), but not to be confused with the clear GVLIEEMVS error.

[Colin G. 147]

farthing alert!!!

what is going on with that second L? rubbed out E?

Certainly one to put on the "to be confirmed list"

[davidrj 194]

A couple of recent purchases - French Jetons

FEUARDENT F3381 Paris Civil Administration 1583 (Henri III)





"A deity conferring favour to the City, whilst riding a chariot pulled by two unicorns"

"Arms of the City of Paris

David

Edited February 25, 2014 by davidrj