Always buy the book! 0

[coinsandmedals]

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.

[Zebo]

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

[coinsandmedals]

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. 

Edited October 31, 2019 by coinsandmedals

[Zebo]

1 hour ago, coinsandmedals said:

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 for 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. 

Thanks - I'll take a look.

[World Colonial]

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.

[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. 

[RWB]

It should be noted that numismatic books in English are in the minority. European publications go back centuries in every major language, with German and French dominating.

Edited November 1, 2019 by RWB

[Just Bob]

Congratulations. Your collection just keeps getting more and more amazing.

[Jade Collection]

Congrats!!! Did you happen to get a photovision of this coin? If so can you post it?

[World Colonial]

22 hours ago, RWB said:

It should be noted that numismatic books in English are in the minority. European publications go back centuries in every major language, with German and French dominating.

Maybe but how useful is this material to collectors today given what they buy?

I'd guess that what you describe is a lot more useful to European than US collectors, most of the time.  German references in German I can see because there appears to be noticeable collecting of German coinage by US based collectors.  French coins, only a low minority seem to be in high demand from what I have seen.

I'm aware that both languages cover more than their own coinage but from what I have seen, the more recent references are predominantly written in English by either American or British authors.

The only foreign language references I have seen that might interest me are in Spanish but have bought only one, a pamphlet on the Potosi colonial quarter real issued from 1796-1809.  I haven't tried to translate it yet but bought it as it is the only material I have ever seen for this coinage from any mint.  Cayon has written numerous volumes for Spanish and colonial coinage but I don't collect hardly any of the coins in it.  

[coinsandmedals]

18 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Congratulations. Your collection just keeps getting more and more amazing.

Thanks Bob! 

1 hour ago, Mk123 said:

Congrats!!! Did you happen to get a photovision of this coin? If so can you post it?

Thank you! I didn't even think to when I submitted it, but I wish I had. I have a special submission with them now that I did request the service for. If/when that submission is completed, I will post those images.

[Conder101]

Maybe it is just me, but I count 11 leaves on those 10 leaf obverses.

[coinsandmedals]

1 hour ago, Conder101 said:

Maybe it is just me, but I count 11 leaves on those 10 leaf obverses.

 Very nice catch! I was wondering if anyone would bring this up. The area circled red is where the difference occurs. Take note that a single leaf (blue arrow) occurs on the left, and a double leaf (yellow arrow) occurs on the right. Please correct me if I am wrong Conder, but I assume you are referring to the shape pointed out by the blue arrow? If so, I also found this odd when I first purchased the coin. However, when closely examining the coin in hand, this "extra leaf" appears to be nothing more than an illusion created by part of the hair design and lighting effects. There are also notable differences in the placement of the "extra leaf" on the 10 leaves variety compared to the proof example provided. Furthermore, the difference in placement goes against every attributed example I have examined (both raw and graded) as well as the plate picture provided by Peck. 

[Conder101]

Maybe, but without seeing it in hand, from the image I do think it is an eleventh leaf.  The hubs are different though.

[coinsandmedals]

8 hours ago, Conder101 said:

Maybe, but without seeing it in hand, from the image I do think it is an eleventh leaf.  The hubs are different though.

Fair enough, the picture certainly gives that impression. However, given my not so inconsiderate knowledge of the type and my ability to examine it in hand, I do not believe it is the 11 leaves variety. I wish it were because it would be considerably more scarce, but I don’t think enough physical evidence exists to substantiate that claim.

[JackCoulson]

On 10/31/2019 at 7:20 PM, coinsandmedals said:

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. I also foun many information in online library on resource  https://essays.studymoose.com/pay-for-papers on resource when you can pay for papers.

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.

It just looks amazing, very nice work.

Edited June 16, 2022 by JackCoulson

[GoldFinger1969]

On 10/31/2019 at 1:20 PM, coinsandmedals said:

The phrase “buy the book before the coin” is often encountered in this hobby and is a point that I wholeheartedly support.

Still probably true -- heck, I bought Roger's SAINTS book expressly for that purpose -- but I think unlike 30 or 50 years ago you can get lots of information from the internet that in the past you had to get from a newsletter, your LCS, a coin club, or a book.

Tons of free information on the major and even obscure coin types. Useful threads here and elsewhere.