coinsandmedals

On 11/24/2021 at 2:57 PM, Revenant said:

Yes, this deals with 2 of them anyway - the disappointing first one and the better 2nd one. I've dealt with three dealers now buying lots of these coins - one in California, one in Utah and one in the Ukraine. I think I have something like 150-200 circulation strike Zimbabwean coins at this point with more likely.

 

Wow, it seems like that kind of developed rather quickly! How was your experience purchasing from Ukraine? I've purchased from and sold to people in more countries than I care to admit, but Ukraine never made the list. 

On 11/24/2021 at 2:17 PM, Mohawk said:

Hi Don!!!!

Sorry it's taken me a bit to reply to your latest entries.  I do apologize.  But the good news is that you look to have had a lot of success with your NGC submissions!!! Congratulations!!  These submissions will definitely help your Custom Set.  How is that coming along, anyway?

Hi Tom, I hope all is well with you and yours! So far, the submissions have been successful, but I still have a few left to go. Three of the remaining invoices contain the bulk of the medals for the new set. Once I have them back, I think I can get that set together quickly. I already have about half of the write-ups done, so I should have plenty of time to prepare for the registry awards next year. What's new with you, my friend? 

On 11/24/2021 at 1:10 PM, Revenant said:

Looks like you continue to be in-range on the grades. Hopefully this isn't costing you a ton in extra shipping fees but enjoy getting back what you can. 

I have the luxury of time when making my grade estimates, which usually allows me to be within a point of the assigned grade. I imagine my margin of error would be drastically different if I asked to keep pace with the professionals. Luckily, NGC is working with me on shipping charges, as they should have returned as one group.  

Admittedly, this is pretty far from my area of focus, but I agree with your assessment. I enjoyed reading your journal, and I learned a few things that I likely wouldn't have discovered through the course of my pursuits. Thanks for sharing! 

Reading this made me think of the English copper coinage under William III. These coins were not struck by the Royal Mint but instead through an external contract. Under this new contract, 700 tons of copper halfpence and farthings were to be struck on rolled and milled blanks using the finest English copper.  The contractors routinely violated these terms by using cast blanks, which often produced subpar and pitted coins fresh from the dies. There is also some evidence to suggest that the contractors used casting from start to finish on a considerable portion of the 700 tons of copper coinage they produced (Peck, 1964). There is a lot more to the story, and digging through the details is enlightening about how the crown viewed the small change shortage. 

That looks like a fun time to me! This must be the process we were discussing in another thread. I imagine you'll have an expansive collection of these coins once it is all said and done. 

On 11/24/2021 at 1:40 PM, jgenn said:

 

One of the great things that I love about coins is the history you learn when you take the time to research the places and times.

I couldn't agree more!  I enjoy the quality and designs of the pieces I collect, but it is more often the social and historical factors surrounding their existence that hold my attention. My obsession with the Soho Mint started when I looked into the circumstances giving rise to Matthew Boulton's involvement in solving the small change crisis that plagued England for centuries. I have since abandoned all other projects and now solely focus on this niche area. Perhaps the best part of it all is that there is always something new to learn! 

On 11/24/2021 at 1:17 PM, Revenant said:

Sometimes when sellers are selling sets / lots of "uncirc" coins I'll make a smaller purchase and see what I get. I've tried this with 5 sellers. One ended horribly on a Zimbabwean purchase with Environmental damage on "Mint" coins, 3 have produced great, TPG worthy, shiny coins in the mix (and you always get some with ugly bag marks) and for one my trial purchase is coming in the mail today.

I'm going to be trying to focus more and more such purchases on the sellers that have proven themselves already as my available pool expands enough to get me the options I need.

That seems like a more than reasonable approach. There are few things worse than finally receiving a much-anticipated package only to be disappointed with the quality of its contents. 

On 11/24/2021 at 11:11 AM, Revenant said:

So, slightly random, I was thinking about making a separate rant post about this and some of this will be touched on later when I post about this shopping / these purchases, but my favorite pet peeve at the moment is sellers of raw coins / lots saying, "I'm not a grader! Use the pictures and grade for yourself! What you see is what you get!" Except what you see is low res photos of a group / pile of coins from which no meaningful grade / wear judgement can be made on individual coins and you're taking a wild shot in the dark.

Wait, you mean you don't have the superpowers needed to make a meaningful estimate of the grade in those instances? I would rank this as my biggest pet peeve when trying to buy coins online, either raw or graded. It is less annoying for graded coins because I can often use the certification verification images, but it still bothers me. With raw coins, I usually pass unless it is a bargain or I feel like testing my luck. This has played in my favor more times than I care to admit, but I've also had my fair share of strikeouts. Maybe after your post, you can create a guide for inspiring sellers and ask it to be pinned to the top of one of the main forums. 

On 11/24/2021 at 10:28 AM, Revenant said:

Just remind them that NGC says the guarantee on that grade is void after 10 years!  

They don't tend to respond well to that.  I have a low threshold for deceptive practices like this, so I take my money elsewhere. 

This post highlights another area of this hobby that I have next to no knowledge to share. From your description, it looks like assembling that collection would be an uphill battle given the general lack of infromation and the sheer number of varieties. Thanks for sharing! 

On 11/24/2021 at 10:12 AM, Revenant said:

Funny that you say that in that I have a group of Lincoln cents and I find that RDs, that come as RD and look bright RD, tend to stay RD, where RBs tend to continue turning. I have a 1927 RB that I this point is pretty much a BN with some red around the rim.

This has been my experience as well, but I have seen plenty of red pieces also turn RB in slabs. My favorite is when the dealer tries to market a clear  RB as a red because the holder says it is. This isn't as much of an issue for me now, as generally speaking, red examples in my area of focus are rarely seen and often way out of my budget.

Thanks for sharing, Jack. The 1860s were certainly an interesting period in history. Congratulations on your newest acquisition! 

Good job on the new set cover images! I plan to redo the banner for my custom sets at some point, but who knows when I will get around to doing it. 

I feel your pain on the Philharmonic. A few years ago, I had a small collection of NCLT and had a few issues like that. Now I almost exclusively collect copper, and I am more paranoid than ever! Copper is such an extremely reactive metal that you have to be very careful when storing it. There is nothing worse than watching an RB coin turn BN in a holder over a few years. 

Like you, I got sidetracked by a few other projects. One of these side projects turned into my primary focus this year, and it looks like it will remain a primary focus for the foreseeable future. The competitive side of the registry is now foreign to me, but I enjoy reading about the experiences of others. I wish the custom sets were available on the same platform as the competitive sets. I like the look of the new format. 

On 11/24/2021 at 3:32 AM, ColonialCoinsUK said:

Nice coins, it is nice to see the smaller denominations get graded, which over time may reflect just how rare quality examples are.

I seem to have bought more Napoleonic medals, as opposed to coins, this year - there is probably a custom set in there somewhere if I can put a theme together, anything would need a lot more examples though as I am about 3000 short of the full set 

Thank you for your kind words! I do my best to preserve nice examples when I stumble upon them, even though they are no longer my primary focus. Some years are difficult to track down in higher grades as the lower denominations typically circulated for over a hundred years. Beyond long circulation periods, many of the halfpennies and farthings were melted to produce lightweight counterfeits.  

Oh, just 3000 short of a full set? Wow, I hadn't realized how expansive Napoleonic medals were, but it makes sense given the importance and the contemporary society's general disposition towards medal collecting. I am sure you will find an interesting story to tell with the ones you have! 

On 11/23/2021 at 8:55 PM, Revenant said:

Don't count yourself out completely. You never know on the work you've done so far - they could decide its enough even if you don't think so -and if they give the Journal award this year (Never sure since they don't list it but they've given it the last two years without announcing it and I think participation is actually up this year) you'd be one of my picks. 

Beyond editing a few comments and updating several pictures, I haven't changed much within my three custom sets. What little time I had was devoted to building the new set, which I haven't made public yet. I hope that it will be ready for next year. I have enjoyed writing the journals way more than I thought I would, and it has made me a more active participant than in years past. Winning an award for them would be icing on the cake! 

@Revenant I have counted myself out of the registry race for this year. I just have not had the time to devote to it. Maybe once things settle down a bit, I can get back to it. Tonight was one of the first nights in a while that I have been free enough to do anything hobby-related. 

I appreciate your comment about the grading. I have done my best to hone my skills over the years, but I am always learning. 

Update: The grades for the world economy submission are back! You can read about it here. 

@coinsbygaryI appreciate the kind words, Gary! I do my best to keep my journals short, but I tend to be a bit wordy. 

Very cool write-up! I am also a big fan of cherry-picking from pocket change when traveling abroad. I built my small but growing collection of modern coins entirely through that process. Please pass along my congratulations to your daughter and son-in-law! 

@jgenn I meant to comment on your post earlier, but I have been having issues posting here lately. This journal has been a work in progress, and your recent post provided the little nudge I needed to finish it as I knew at least one forum member would be remotely interested in the story!  

@zadok Your question was more than reasonable, and I enjoyed giving it its due consideration. There were several attempts to get the Soho Mint involved with the early coinage; however, there was far too much opposition to the idea of a British company producing coinage for a nation in its infancy. Jefferson was very outspoken and argued that such an arrangement would violate the sovereignty of the nation. The arguments against Boulton's direct involvement were well-founded given the contemporary political climate, but I can't help but wonder what could have been. Although the Soho Mint never secured a contract to strike U.S. coinage, it did supply a healthy amount of copper planchets and an immeasurable amount of technical advice. It also appears that on at least one occasion, the two swapped specimens of their products. I plan to share a medal from my collection that was purportedly included in a swap between the two in 1826.

@zadok It’s a good thought, but in this case, there is a preponderance of evidence to conclude that the shells are an original Soho product. Given the breadth and quality of the other items produced at Soho (i.e., the Mint and Manufactory), it seems unlikely that the shells were of any consequence to produce. The most troublesome part might have been preparing the dies, but only because of the relative difficulty obtaining good steel at the time. The shells also do not have any screw or snap mechanism. Instead, they are designed to fit firmly around the edge of whatever they are designed to protect. Often, the shells are not interchangeable. For instance, the shells used on a 1799 British Farthing are not likely to fit a different coin of similar dimensions if there is even the slightest difference in either diameter or thickness. 

@zadok Matthew Boulton had business contacts in just about every area of manufacture that you can imagine. That said, we know he had close connections with notable watchmakers such as John Whitehurst, Thomas Wright, and B. L. Vulliamy. The Soho Manufactory was renowned for the quality of their watch chains, but I have no direct evidence to link the two together beyond what I’ve listed above. 

The shells in my collection range in size from 23mm to 57mm, but larger and smaller versions may exist. I am no expert in period pocket watches, but it appears the majority of the movements were in the 57mm or larger category. That said, the case would have needed to be a bit larger to house the movement. 

Now I am curious! Why do you ask? 

@zadok Yes, the shells were produced at the Soho Mint. If you are interested, I wrote a post about the shells last year.

https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/420813-matthew-boulton%E2%80%99s-soho-mint-and-the-curiosity-of-the-silver-lined-brass-shells/