Leaderboard

There's a strange irony about that. The very rare and the extremely rare are prized. But the one off otherwise unknown variety, is not. It isn't "collectable by collectors" as only one person can ever own it. I say "otherwise unknown" because if an 1863 die No 1 or 6 were to appear, it would be a one off, but part of a known family - so the same rules don't apply (as it were).

I think that a genuine new variety, a new die, or number or letter overstrike would have no difficulty attracting a massive premium. But I am inclined to agree regarding the dots and die flaws, at least until published. Jerry

Even with a unique item there will be plenty of competition from those who collect the series. It isn't so much a case of the demand not being there, rather a case of the elevated price reducing the number of people willing to fork out. I think a lot of people will view the rarities as an expendable luxury when the funds required would pay for a lot more of the pieces they want. Other than a lack of funds, there is no reason to exclude the rarities, as all contribute to the overall story.

Agreed. It's not "one in a series". Like my 1964 filled die sixpence with the I of GRATIA missing - unless others turn up and it gets recorded, I'm not going to make a fortune from it.

This has been a interesting discussion about Dots, Apostrophe's, etc. I agree with Mike and Jerry, that once a variety is "published" it will be more of a accepted Variety, regardless of the number available to collectors.

Yes, the Anne sixpence is a well known replica. I think the rest are OK. Jerry

I,m not too sure if his other coins are fake, the 3d doesn't look quite right. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Queen-Ann-Silver-Sixpence/143461503434?_trksid=p2485497.m4902.l9144&redirect=mobile

Here is mine as a comparison also:

Put anything into a reference volume and everybody wants one. There is a huge number of box tickers in the hobby.

I think what I mean is that a coin exhibiting, say, a single dot, such as the 1946 penny possessed by Bob, with no other known examples, is never going to be collectable by a group of competing collectors, as a) there is only one, and b) it isn't going to spark that much interest.

Collectable is an interesting word. Does it mean "capable of collection", in which case anything could be regarded as collectable, or "worthy of collecting" which could very much apply to a unique item ? In the case of a unique coin, there is probably a fascinating story behind it, which may or may never be told but would be interesting to discover.

I think it is pretty much uncirculated, but slightly weakly struck on the obverse. My reasoning being that the apparent flattening of the nose on the shoulder and to two hair curls is not backed up by the evidence seen on the legend. In the case of the latter, each character has slightly raised edges to the letter and I would expect that to show wear if the hair was as flat as it is. I spent quite a while to come to a conclusion I could rationalise. That's mine by the way, not the OP coin. Yours is certainly around the EF mark. Possibly just shy of full EF given the wear seen on the laurels and over the hair generally, but worth looking at in hand. There's a bit of obvious wear to the Garter star rays too

That will teach me not only to go back and look at a missed picture, but read the rest of the page as well! That makes your example possibly unique? And therefore sadly undesirable as a collectable though a very interesting curio.

I'm struggling to join the dots. Can anyone give me a synopsis of this ellipsis hypothesis... ?