TomGoodheart

Welcome SC. If you'd like to start a thread to introduce yourself then here (Free for all) is as good as any. Just remember, if you want to add photos of your collection (which we always like to see!) there's a limit of 150k per post to what you can upload from your computer so quite a few people link to flikr or photobucket (or similar photohosting) sites.

Not an ebay coin I know (actually from Antony Wilson's site) but this penny portrait amused me. It looks as if the King is choking on a fishbone! Or maybe it's the dysentery the poor chap died from? Either way, not a happy fellow.

Th vast majority of my coins were under £200. It used to be you could get a respectable (common but VF) Charles I shilling for £50 but this has crept up over the last few years and I'd expect to pay around the £100+ mark. The least I've spent was £18 which was for a coin that's pretty knackered but a clear and unusual privy mark. Yes, as Rob says, there are always rarities in any series and they will be pricey. I've been lucky in making contacts and have managed to buy a few coins privately that would otherwise have been very difficult to find. But generally shillings were produced in huge numbers in Charles' reign, more are found regularly and so they are never going to be very expensive unless in exceptionally decent condition or from premium collections. I guess one of the things that makes me a collector (though I'm not sure about 'ordinary'!) /numismatist rather than investor or 'hobbyist' is that I'm fairly happy not buying coins. I get nearly as much pleasure searching the interwebz for examples and sales prices to compare against my coins and sharing views and the little knowledge I've picked up with others. Currently (as usual) I'm searching auction/ dealer sites for coins both new stock and archived information. It's free (apart from the cost of a broadband connection) and educational. Keeps me off the streets too.

Yeah, it's been machined out after it was put into circulation. People used to (and still do perhaps) do that to two coins, leaving a reverse and obverse; one also lathed to a smaller diameter so they fitted together to form a small box. I inherited the face side of a penny someone has done this to and believe the 'bottom' went missing sometime. Maybe yours was like that once? A curiosity but not valuble at all I'm afraid.

A 1092 penny for under £10? Now that's what I call a bargain. But seriously, that sounds like a nice selection. Can't remember if you said how you're storing them Hello? If you don't mind that thay aren't on display, I keep a stock of small (2" x 2") paper envelopes to pop coins into (particularly ones I pick out of change, but if I sell a coin I also send it in one). I bought mine from Colin Cooke. About £5 for 100 if I remember correctly. Just an idea.

£1882 (inc buyer's premium) nearly six years ago. And in case anyone thinks I'm in Rob's league, the next highest I've paid is less than a third of that.

Thanks Rob. The problem is that pretty much all my coins (apart from the ebay purchases) are from dealers or auction houses who didn't have or pass on details. Very few are particularly striking so unlikely to be the highlight of a major collection. The 'simplest' solution is when I recognise a coin in an earlier sale, but that depends on photos. It was quite time consuming for me to go through the catalogues, SNCs an dealers' lists I have to find a few, but for any others it'd be searching blind since for the most part I have no clues at all to go on. For example, this. Quite an acceptable coin with old tone that suggests it has been in collections for a few years but Goldberg's don't mention any previous owners. Likely the details were lost when it was PCGS graded. It came unslabbed from Neil Paisley. Unless I find a photo from an earlier catalogue or sale, I doubt I'd spot it from a description. Assuming there even was one, that is!

I know you're right. But I think it's important to distinguish between prestige and provenance. A coin from a prestigious sale such as Norweb or Bamford will carry a premium just for that alone, and the better the coin is, and the longer it can be linked to those sales, the better for its future. But, such sales also carry a proportion of relatively mediocre coins - break the link and suddenly those are cast adrift. However provenance is generally irrelevant to mediocre stuff, Oh, in price terms, that's quite likely the case. However I have coins owned by Shuttlewood, Osborne and more recently, Morris. None of these coins are spectacular (OK, one is interesting) but I would still be very interested to know where they bought them and who owned them before. These aren't Brookers or Locketts but they are still serious collectors of Charles I coins. For all I know one of my coins could have been a minor item that passed through the hands of a well known collector, but without very serious research I have no way of knowing. Osborne for example is a pig of a sale to unravel; quite a few multiple lots and very few photos. Provenance will make pretty much no difference to the eventual sale price of my coins. But I'd still rather like to know!

Yes. That is certainly amazing for an AU coin. Though personally I would grade it BS.

As we've discussed before Rob, sadly even without the slabs, people seem very casual about tickets. And while they are not essential, they are both historically interesting and save time when you want to know a bit more about provenance. I wish even if people don't use them themselves they would at least pass on the ones that come with a coin. (I also wish auction houses wouldn't use square tickets, but at least they are better than nothing!)

Maybe a trip to Cambridge? Fitzwilliam catalogues There are copies in the BM, the Fitzwilliam, the Ashmolean and the Warburg Institute according to M & R. Whether they have buyers' names though is another matter. Spink will have a copy of the catalogue and Baldwins may possibly have one, though their library is a little disorganised. Peters business idea's patent...RPcoins-ancestorycoin.co.uk Ah, but would you be willing to pay for the info? I think that's a bit like the slabbing question. For a valuble coin that you might be interested in selling, then the provenance will add interest if not value and (to me at least) might be an asset. A small cost could be justified. But the idea might not take off if places start to scan their documents and post them online. The Fitzwilliam copy for example it says 'some prices handwritten', but obviously we don't know what details that might include. A (even low res) scanned copy could answer that. Of course, I quite like looking to find out where my coins might have come from - not to the extent of Rob's library - but many people won't have the time or inclination ... I guess the main problem is that it'll likely only be the private collectors. Auction houses and museums will have their own resources they can refer to, or judging by some auction listings, just won't bother.

Maybe a trip to Cambridge? Fitzwilliam catalogues

Nice portrait. He looks very happy!

Er... hold on a second. LOL Sorry. Just sometimes I forget it's 'Predecimal' not 'Farthing variations unlimited' Nice to see members showing enthusiasm for getting hammered now and again.

Well, you say that. But it's actually London Coins, a UK firm. Of course it shouldn't be too surprising given their interest in swaying us all to the benefits of slabs. But £80?? For a £2 coin? Will anyone buy do you think? It's the London Coin Company, not to be confused with London Coins Ltd who have the close link to CGS UK. Ah, thanks for that Nick. Because confused, I was. And as Yoda says (somewhere) Confusion is the path to the dark side ..

Sounds like you'll need a big cabinet Peter! And returning to Dave's original question, my eyes were drawn to this amongst Lloyd Bennett's latest offerings. I was especially interested to see that while NGC had graded the coin XF45 (which is a decent EF if memory serves me) Lloyd is more conservative in his estimate. Lloyd Bennett Which I suppose goes to show that yes, you do get EF coins. But that when it comes to hammered there's a degree of subjectivity, depending on personal experience and expertise, to any grading.

Well, you say that. But it's actually London Coins, a UK firm. Of course it shouldn't be too surprising given their interest in swaying us all to the benefits of slabs. But £80?? For a £2 coin? Will anyone buy do you think?

L@@K! (Actually I don't know if this is a laugh or whether I should cry ..) PCGS graded Darwin £2 coin

Well, I did edit it to 'pretty much' nobody .. LOL I think if you want to collect hammered then Charles' is a good reign. Coins were produced in (for the most part) considerable numbers and so are readily available on sites like ebay and there are enough papers and books around to serve as a catalogue for what's available and so to draw up a wants list. Plus you have a decent choice of denominations. Unfortunately as Peter says, quality costs. Yes, I've read comparisons with the US market which say how relatively cheap our coins (even 350 year old ones) are, but even so prices have and (at the better end) continue to rise. I've recently cast a critical eye over my small collection and there are quite a few coins for which I'd be very happy to get back what I paid for them so I can reinvest in better examples, but I guess, 'twas ever thus. The more coins you see, the longer you collect, the more you get a feel for what's 'average' and what is rather better than. So, if anyone has any specific Chas shilling wants .. pm me!

not to me either..........each to their own. Did I ever mention how much I like the fact that pretty much nobody else here has the least interest in the shillings of Charles I? Or at least, those that do are in the minority! LOL

That's quite possibly so with thinner / earlier coins. With larger coins like shillings it appears a number of roughly circular pieces were cut from the plate then stacked into a pile, a bit like a sausage. The ends of the 'sausage' were clamped to keep the individual blanks together and then someone went along the sausage with a hammer bashing the whole thing more-or-less circular. This means that you tend to get thicker edges and an almost concave lens like shape to the blanks. The result being that legend is well struck up but the bust/reverse design towards the centre where the metal is thinner is weak. I imagine bashing the edges also caused quite a few blanks to stick together. Coupled with the fact that the dies were not made from one master die but punched from a number of puncheons (up to three for the bust, one for the privy mark and numerous for the lettering and elements in the royal shield) makes the liklihood of finding a perfectly struck coin nigh impossible. And that's before you take wear of dies and subsequently the coin itself into account!

Oh, and an example of an American description of a hammered coin that amuses me: Lot 2161 Great Britain. Charles I (1625-49) silver Shilling (1643-44). S-2843. Tower Mint issue, under Parliament (1642-48). "P" in brackets mm (Spink #98, struck 1643-44). Extremely elusive variety, the first time this cataloguer has ever seen this peculiar mintmark on a superior coin! The standard catalogue describes this issue as "coarse work" and that is clearly an understatement, for the die-work here is almost comical. The reason, of course, is that the talent escaped London with the king at almost the same moment this very coin was struck. The king was under threat of life and Crown even at the outset of the Civil War, when this coin was minted. He was as yet not disowned as Monarch, however, and the weak Parliament which preceded Cromwell's rise to overlordship was the official issuer of this coin, or "in the king's name" as the saying went. If you understand this groundwork, this historical context, you must perforce be impressed by this extraordinary specimen! NGC graded MS62 but the cataloguer is at a loss to explain the number. The coin is clearly Choice and without wear, peering at it under magnification. The surfaces are original and elegantly toned a medium gray color. While crudely cut, the portrait is extraordinary, suggestive of the strife of its day; the king's bodice shows some fascinating little details, vague emblems of majesty. The shield is equally interesting and well struck. So too the legends, although they are only partial, some letters being off-flan because of its shape. The rarely seen mintmark is crisp in detail. At first glance this coin looks like nothing, a crude cobbling of elements. The more you study it, though, the more you realize it's a simply superb example of this emergency coinage, made at one of England's most horrific moments, outbreak of its disastrous Civil War, which when it ended in 1660 brought back a monarchy totally different in power and attitude from that which prevailed in 1643, when this coin was made, almost even then "in memory" of once-mighty kingship. NGC graded MS-62. Estimated Value $600 - 800. The Cheshire Collection. Realized $1,208 MS-62 ... and ugly!

As Rob and Peter have implied, it's quite possible for a hammered coin to be EF. Strictly speaking EF means a coin that exhibits very little sign of circulation, with only minimal marks or faint wear, which are only evident upon very close scrutiny. (Spink) or ... virtually perfect but will have, however, very slight wear on high points of the design ... (Dowle & Finn) The problem as you'll know is that hammered coins were very rarely struck on a perfect flan. Consequently there are often weaknesses which make the coin less attractive or may be taken for wear, but are actually there from the outset as opposed to being due to wear. Milled coins come out the press as perfect as they can be but even then, die wear causes minor variation. How much more so with hammered. This coin for example is pretty much 'as struck'; but you'll see there are areas that aren't as crisp as could be, particularly on the reverse. Plus there's a scratch! It's spent much of its life in a museum (Hunterian) cabinet so it should have suffered very little wear since it was acquired. EF? Could be, because it's difficult to distinguish softness of strike from wear from a pic. And that's why I think with hammered I'm not sure there's much point trying to micro-grade that gVF/nEF border. I'm sure you'll agree it's a blooming nice coin. As for me, I'm happy to leave it at that! Of course, everyone is interested in price. So I think the Spink F - VF range is 'good enough'. If your coin is towards the better or worse end, it provides a guide. But in the end, what you think is an acceptable price for a coin will always be related to the condition of other similar coins you've seen and what they have gone for. That's why I'm constantly learning and revising my expectations as more material comes to light. But it's a personal thing. What I might be prepared to pay for a coin might be much more or less than anyone else, irrespective of actual grade. As Rob says, if the only examples that exist are much of a muchness, what does the grade matter if you want one? It will come down to availability and eye appeal. That's why I'm not interested in what grading companies say. Particularly the US ones. I simply don't believe they have seen enough hammered coins to say what the 'finest example' might be and so I suspect they slant their grading based on what they have seen before, which really they shouldn't if they are supposed to be working to a system based on how much physical wear a coin has been subject to.

They all look Brasso'd to me. And Brittannia's face looks ... really odd, IMHO. But, hey .. what do I know.

???? What the heck? And look at the other items too!