Leaderboard

Not by allowing all and sundry to invent arbitrary changes/inventions in a number of scattered and unrelated sources. Ideally, there should be a central recognised "official" source of this sort of information. Penny collectors are lucky in that they have Michael Gouby who is still prepared to acknowledge and document additional varieties but, when he retires, there will be an enormous gap.

Except in the case of Freeman of course, who actually studied a massive random sample from circulation ; while not perfect, his estimations of comparative rarity are as accurate as will ever be achieved for the bronze coinage. In terms of actual numbers of exceptionally rare coin varieties that were barely or not represented in Freeman’s sample, there will always be an element of flux as demonstrated by RS’s excellent ‘Rarest Pennies’ register. A ‘unique’ ‘slender 3’ 1863 penny becomes three known for instance, and more will be found. And in the end, it is market availability and demand that determine the price. In general I can see where you are coming from. One has to hope that those declaring, and particularly publishing, rarity values make every effort to ensure reasonable accuracy. You will not find a ‘rarity’ value on any of my coin tickets, for good reason. Jerry

The 'braggadocio bit' isn't, for me, the problem. (Would anyone claim not to have a swagger when owning such a fine collection?) I don't think the ability to spend cash and tell everyone about it gives anyone, except Michael Freeman, and Michael Gouby, the right to assign Freeman numbers or rarity symbols. Only immense academic effort is rewarded by the assignment of such rights and privileges,not spending cash....

Hmmm...you state the the 1954 penny will hopefully not be sold or seen again....have a good long think about that statement and how it sounds....

The rarity ratings attributed by Freeman are as accurate as could have been made at that time , but new types discovered since then would have suffered from the mass meltdown in the 1970s , where as the numbers of scarce and rare types known by Freeman and other collectors would have been enhanced , due to searching for and including into their collections , and hording , a good example would be the 1951 penny

Absolutely. So this rather means that someone who realises this through experience wouldn't ascribe a rarity number at all......!!

Rarity is a somewhat flexible attribute as further examples of rare coins are found. It would be better to quote rarity as an opinion rather than fact. Freeman numbers, however, refer back to a respected and universal source of documented information and are clearly not open to change or invention.

True, but interestingly skill, luck and stamina do reward the financially less buoyant. Seeming to get harder with the passing of the years though. I remember once thinking Norweb was perhaps the best collector of more recent Brit issues and esp. of 19th and 20th Century coins. One could occasionally find better specimens of some coins that she had but not overall. Still it was enjoyable to occasionally pip those with pecuniary advantage. I suppose what annoys some is the braggadocio bit, though that does not diminish the achievement.

You really shouldn’t be so sensitive to criticism, I have already stated that it is your prerogative to act as you wish. As they say, you can take a horse to water etc. Jerry

Hi Paddy, sorry I missed this one! Well from a quick look it’s a Calais legend (Villa Calis) to the reverse and an annulet issue so screaming Henry VI annulet issue halfpenny, and a likely mule? Is it still of enough interest to you for me to dig deeper?

Thank you for your warm and generous welcome, which is very much appreciated. My pennies are listed on www.penny-collection.com so i can now sit back and wait for you to tear my claim of having a very fine collection into pieces!!! I have read some of the threads on here and i certainly do NOT claim to have equal knowledge to many of those who post on this website - so i am very much hoping to learn new things from you!

That coin has certainly seen some history! Difficult to be sure if it is a halfcrown or a Shilling without a scale. It is, however, definitely a Chester coin because of the C beneath the bust. Here from my collection is one of the 1689 Half Crown who referred to: