coinsandmedals

22 minutes ago, World Colonial said:

Unfortunately, many times there is no book to buy.  Most of the series I have collected either still do not have one or it was issued only years after I started buying it.  Only one series has what I would describe as reasonably accurate rarity estimates.  Two books for this series with one issued in 2017 and the other in 2018.  The earlier one issued in 1999 is "ballpark" accurate but differed noticeably from what I actually saw.

I have mostly had to find out (to a point) through trial and error.

I understand this struggle entirely. I also collect Irish coins, and to date, there is not a single reference guide that has any comparison to Peck. Most of what I know is pieced together from numerous sources and my observations. Even still, I only have a general idea about rarity and almost no conclusive information about minor varieties not listed in books like Spink. 

Although Peck provides a source of reference to distinguish between different varieties, his rarity scales are not entirely helpful. He based his rarity ratings on items in very prominent collections as well as the holding of the British Museum. What he considers scarce is, at times, almost impossible to find in private hands. Still, some coins are listed as rare or very rare and readily available. Because of this, I can only use his rarity ratings as a rough guide and instead focus on auction archives from the last decade or so to better inform how rare the item is in the market. 

2 hours ago, Zebo said:

Nice work. Nice penny also.  In your opinion what Book would be the best in this example?

Thank you! In this case, I would recommend Peck. There are other references, but none compare to the level of detail and analysis Peck provides in this book. However, I should note that it can be challenging to track down a reasonably priced copy (i.e., $50-$75). 

Peck, C. W. (1964). English Copper, Tin, and Bronze Coins
in the British Museum 1558-1958. London: The trustees of the British Museum. 

8 hours ago, Mk123 said:

It would be great if you look up a NGC coin that has photovision, you can view the standard slab shot and then the photovision pic on the NGC site.

This would be super helpful and might entice me to use the Photo Vision service more often. 

I shared this over at CoinTalk, but I figured I would post it here just in case anyone is interested. 

The phrase “buy the book before the coin” is often encountered in this hobby and is a point that I wholeheartedly support. Buying coins while unarmed with the proper knowledge can be a very risky adventure; however, here is a story in which purchasing the coin first actually paid off.

Let me start by saying that this was, for the most part, sheer luck. I do not want there to be anything confusing about this point for newcomers; you should always buy the book before the coin. With that said, let me tell you my story. I have been somewhat successful at cherry-picking from larger auction houses over the years, and now most recently from my collection. The coin in question is a 1797 Penny struck at the Soho Mint. I had initially purchased this as a business strike. For those of you unfamiliar, the business strikes have two main varieties, which are noted by either ten leaves or 11 leaves in the wreath on George III’s head. The 10 leaves variety is extremely common in comparison to the 11 leaves variety (i.e., KP-22).

I originally cherry-picked this coin, thinking it was the 11 leaves variety but paid well under the typical cost for the more common ten leaves variety. Like most of my other purchases, this coin was raw, so I sent it to NGC to be graded. I listed it as an MS strike 11 leaves variety (i.e. P-1133) and was pleased when it came back MS-62. A few months later I was working on my custom registry set when I stumbled upon a note made by peck on page 307, which stated “The dot flaw in the field below the bust, noted under KP-17 also occurs, apparently invariably, on this current Obv”. This note piqued my interest, and I went to investigate KP-17 (i.e., P-1120 to P-1123). To my surprise, I found that the two are incredibly similar. Could it be the case that I cherry-picked a proof coin and not a currency strike variety?

Usually, it would be easy to distinguish between a proof and a business strike. Still, this matter can be more complicated for specific pieces such as this, which may have been struck using a slightly retouched current die as noted by Peck. Although both the currency strike (KP-22) and the proof strike (KP-17) share Obverse type 4 and reverse type C, there are several main differences between the two.

According to peck, KP-17 has a wreath of 11 leaves with two berries. The stem of the upper berry has a distinct stem. He does not provide a plate picture of this; however, searching through auction archives, I was able to find a few examples certified by NGC as either P-1122 or 1123, and the stem is, in fact, very distinct when compared to the business strike. Peck notes that the currency strike only has a trace of the stem previously pointed out on the proof example. I was able to locate several examples of the 11 leaves obverse currency strike in auction archives. All of these examples have a nearly non-existent stem, and more often than not, no trace of the stem can be identified at all.

Peck also notes the presence of numerous faint rust spots above the legend on the obverse. This diagnostic is likely what made him conclude that this was a late Soho striking that used a repolished currency die. The coin in question has several areas that can attest to this. Most notably, above the “R” in “GEORGIUS” as well as above “RE” in “REX”. Furthermore, the devices of this coin have the grainy like surface one would expect to find on a bronzed piece. Comparing this piece to the numerous Soho bronzed and Soho copper coins in my collection, it seemed to me that it appeared to be a bronzed piece, which would coincide with P-1122 under the larger umbrella of KP-17 (i.e., the proof coin).

I was very excited by this possibility and tried to remain objective. I sent a very detailed email to NGC explaining the situation, and they agreed to review it for FREE! The cost I incurred was the return shipping and a $10 handling fee. This coin made it through the process in 2 days, but I had submitted it with a few other submissions, so I had to wait in agony until the others finished up. I checked the status of my submissions late last week, and they were all marked “finalized, imaged, shipped”. My heart raced a bit as I checked the submission, but there it was labeled as P-1122 Bronzed and graded PF-62 BN. As it turns out, I cherry-picked the coin from an auction house and then cherry-picked it again out of my collection. This marks the second time I have cherry-picked myself this year, so perhaps I need to be more careful on the front end. In this case, buying the coin before the book wasn’t a bad thing, but had I continued to do so, I may have never discovered what this coin actually was. This story goes to show how important it is to fully immerse yourself in the area(s) that you collect to avoid making potentially costly mistakes. To put this in perspective, an example of this same proof variety graded by PCGS as PF-63 BN sold this month at Stacks Bowers for $1320 (with BP) whereas a business strike 11 leaves variety graded PCGS MS-63 BN sold for $432 (with BP) last year.

18 hours ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

Thanks for the heads-up!  I'll try to track down a copy. May try the ANA lending library if I cant find one for sale. 

Happy to help! I'm out of town at the moment but if you would like I can send you a picture of the cover. I think the title was something along the lines of ”America's Foreign Money”.  

I imagine this was a clerical error of some sort. I have noticed this before on some British and Irish coins as well. I would email customer service about the issue.  

I have two main core collections, English and Irish copper from the reigns of William and Mary to that of George III. At the moment, English copper has taken the majority of my focus, but this is mostly because Irish material comes up less frequently. Within both of those core collections, I have focused my attention on the numerous patterns, proofs, restrikes, and currency strikes of the Soho Mint. My ultimate goal would be to complete a Peck variety collection for the English Soho coins. The sheer number of examples needed combined with the number of "unique" and "likely unique" pieces make this an impossible goal. 

On 10/8/2019 at 5:08 PM, LINCOLNMAN said:

I have two core collections: 1) US Type, including colonial type and foreign types that circulated in the US. 

You may already have a copy of it, but Schilke and Solomon published a book on the topic in 1964. I bought a copy a few years ago, but I have yet to take the time to read it. 

On 9/30/2019 at 6:21 PM, LINCOLNMAN said:

A nice change, but, sadly, could be very inconvenient. 

I rarely carry cash, and checks are essentially archaic for trivial amounts. I have had the same checkbook for three years now, and I have only used two checks. One of which was used to pay for a purchase at a UK auction house that only accepted checks and bank wires. Although I only used cash when I was in Europe this summer and it made me realize how much I miss receiving coins in change.  

That is a good reason to have a few oddballs in your collection Coinbuf. I want to join a local coin club, but justifying the commute is hard; however, it may be worth if they do fun stuff like this. 

Bob, I imagine you have a very eclectic collection. About 90% of the stuff you have shared is something I have never come across before. The ice card is definitely among that number. Although this makes sense because I assume not many survived since they were made of cardboard.  

47 minutes ago, LINCOLNMAN said:

Unfortunately (?) whenever I buy a piece that catches my eye outside of my main areas of interest, the piece strangely begins to breed. My icon is a Jean Dassier damascened medal of Elizabeth I. I bought it about three years ago because I thought it was beautifully made. Once I learned that it was part of a set made c1731 I had to have the whole set, which in turn led me to collect all the medals engraved by Dassier and his sons. I now have about 250 medals. It's a sort of sickness, the result of which I have no oddball examples to share as nothing remains odd for long. I likely need professional help. Very nice proof set BTW, beautiful toning. 

Very cool! My entire Soho collection started somewhat like this, so I can completely relate. Your Dassier is essentially my Jean-Pierre Droz. The whole set came together when I purchased my first pattern halfpenny engraved by Droz. I researched the coin a bit, and it directed me to the history of the Soho Mint, which I found fascinating. Now my entire collection is mostly focused around the English and Irish coins produced at the Soho Mint. 

We all have that odd coin, token, or medal that doesn't really seem to fit with the rest and yet we like it all the same. The type of piece(s) that appeal to you in a way that is unique to that item. For me, the coins in question are part of a 1957 Jersey proof set. The most distinguishing factor about these coins is that they depict a time in history that is nearly one and half centuries after the era of my primary collection. Furthermore, they are rainbow toned, have little connection to me personally, and are so far removed from everything else I collect. Although I probably wouldn't buy another example again, I have no regrets about this addition to my collection. 

So what kind of oddball pieces are in your collection? 

I have never been, but I would love to go. The trip would cut too far into my budget, so I would not be able to buy anything. Window shopping would be fun, but it would be unfair of me to crowd a table if I am unable to make a purchase. Maybe I will make the journey after I finish up my Ph.D. Of course, I can only imagine what my wife will say if I tell her I am traveling to Orlando for a coin show. 

17 hours ago, CRAWTOMATIC said:

I believe there's a few videos on YouTube.  Maybe ask @VKurtB since he loves the Tube and all of it's top notch numismatic advice being spread about.  

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

Nothing too special, from Boulton I have a PF-62 (grades are my own opinion, the coins are raw) 1795 Hertfordshire 4, and a PF-61 1792 Warwickshire 389.  The Hertfordshire 4 was Boultons favorite token design and he had several that he used to show prospective clients the kind of quality work Soho could do.  The Warwickshire 389 was the only 1792 dated token the Boulton made for John Wilkinson, the iron manufacturer from Shropshire (the tokens were long ago erroneously attributed to Warwickshire instead of Shropshire and that has never been corrected.  Probably because there has not been a new book on the series since 1910.)  From the Watt collection I have a MS-62 1791 Lanarkshire 2 from Glasgow.  Why Watt had this token I don't know other than the fact that he was born in Scotland and this is one of the few tokens the firm made for a concern in Scotland.  And of course it is a very fandsome design.

Very cool! Thank you for sharing. I am not nearly as well versed in his tokens as I am his regal issues. I see myself eventually going in that direction but for now, there is more than enough for me to focus on. I find that period of history to fascinating and the token trade was an integral part of it. I see the two as historically inseparable. I also find it very interesting how these tokens were viewed by some as collectible items form the start. That seems to be a somewhat unique aspect of these token for the period. 

I mailed the coins off to NGC today along with 3 other invoices. The scheduled delivery date is this Thursday but I sent it registered so who knows when it will actually make it. I will be sure to update the thread when I find out more. 

35 minutes ago, CRAWTOMATIC said:

haha Personally I do like the old designs of the UK half pennies and large pennies.  I was just being clever and the Brittannia reverse where she's seated always reminds me of an old-style wheelchair. 

Haha now that you mention it, I can see where you are coming from. Your post made me chuckle. 

18 minutes ago, CRAWTOMATIC said:

Small coin.  Reddish Brown in color.  I prefer to call it "August Rust" to be poetic.  Very unforgiving profile on the obverse.  Always use a down angle when you have that many chins.  Reverse has a lady in a wheelchair with a sheer linen dress on getting ready for her weekly sponge bath.

Haha, I take it you do not find the design particularly appealing. I share your disposition but in relation to the vast majority of 20th century US coins. Take for instance Jefferson nickels, Washington quarters, and Franklin/Kennedy halves. I find all of those to be in my personal “take or leave” category.

16 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Aww, I thought we were about to witness a chat board first-time event. 

You and I both. I was very hopeful. Can you provide us with the basic details Conder101? 

I also haven’t experienced too many issues with the software. I have noticed that the threads can be slow to load at times but nowhere near the level experienced by others. I do agree that the picture size limit is a bit troubling.

For the most part, this is true; however, Peck (and maybe Doty?) specifically mentioned shipments of coins containing a small number of proof coins housed in these shells. I would agree that the majority of the pieces with the original shells likely did originate in either the Boulton or Watt family holdings. I was not provided provenance for these coins so I’ve erred on the side of caution. I contacted the seller to see if he has any additional information. I would love to be able to track these coins to either Boulton or Watt! 

You are absolutely correct, the shells are an extremely unique piece of Soho history. I only wish more had survived. It is sad to think of all the unique history that was lost when coins were separated from their shells. This is the reason that I will not consider having the coins encapsulated without the shells. I refuse to risk separating them. The whole point of submitting them is to preserve them together. 

3 hours ago, Conder101 said:

I have two pieces from Boulton's collection and one from Watt's, unfortunately mine did not come with shells even though they came directly for the initial sales.

Oh come on....it’s just mean to tease me like that. Do you have any pictures? 

7 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Did you talk to NGC about the shells before you sent them in? They might be able to accomodate you, but the multiholder which would best serve your needs has been discontinued for a long time. I really hope they're able to help you. 

I haven’t sent them out yet, but I have been in contact with Mr. Heller. He has already proven to be extraordinarily helpful. Although I shouldn’t have expected anything less. The customer service alone is more than enough reason to keep coming back to NGC. 

2 hours ago, ChrisH821 said:

Very cool! How do the shells hold closed? Does each half hold the edge of the coin or do they hold onto each other?

Good question! You hit the nail on the head. The two halves fit firmly against the edge of the coin. The pictures don’t do a good job portraying the dimensions, but the shells are just barely larger than the coins. 

18 hours ago, KarenHolcomb said:

You're a trip Kurt. 

What. About those pictures?

I completely forgot to post the pictures! I started a new thread with pictures and short intro.