TomGoodheart

Yes, I guess the theme of this thread applies not just to hammered coins. And as Mark says, Spink have been saying pretty much this same thing for many years. I'm not sure if that means that I have followed the market ,or if as one matures as a collector then the less nice looking pieces lose a bit of their appeal? And of course there are still many collectors out there who revel in finding a scarce variety providing the key features are clear enough to allow identification. I do think the 'investor set' has influenced things. If you can afford a Picasso, why not pick one that is nice to look at? And if you can have your pick of nice ones then choosing one that has been owned by a Rockefeller or Chrysler can't do any harm, surely? Same with coins. Particularly if you know little about the things. The reassurance an earlier collector has seen fit to give space to an object or that everyone that sees it goes 'oooh!' must make a difference. For me I guess it's that nice examples show off the die engraver's art more effectively. The fact that a coin will prove easier to sell later on makes no difference at all really. Well, OK, maybe it does a bit.. .

Yes. When I first started I intended to try to find an example of each Sharp combination if I could. My 'ideal' was to find as good as, if not better than, the Brooker coin where possible and used him as my benchmark. Of course my budget was never sufficient to match Brooker. He collected legend variations and mint marks as well as by type. A type collection was enough for me. To work within my budget I never bought a duplicate. Either I upgraded and sold on the original coin or if it had different but equal qualities I passed. But more recently I have stopped worrying about filling gaps. In fact there are quite a few coins I bought for that purpose that I would happily be rid of now. Although, unlike perhaps in the US with more modern issues, it's not really possible to state for certain how many individual examples exist of a particular variety it's certainly likely that, as Stuart says, some are down to single figures. Consequently you have to compromise on quality if you want one. And I have moved away from that completest view of late. I am, I realise, a collector not a numismatist. And a collector with quite strong aesthetic views. I want a collection I get pleasure from and for me that means enjoying looking at my coins. The mere fact that a coin is rare no longer 'does it' the way it once did. The trouble is, non-specialist collectors also generally want a coin that is pleasing to look at. The number of serious collectors of Charles I Tower shillings is, I suspect, quite small. And relatively speaking, the number of coins available, large. Most of the people I know will have an example of the Sharp D6/1 I originally posted already in that there are 12+ coins and 6+ collectors. Will we ever return to the days of collectors like Brooker or Osborne? Probably not as it requires more funds (relatively) than it used to. But also I suspect because non-specialists are more interested in the better grade end of the market, making it harder to find pleasing examples ... of course Rob might say 't'was ever thus' ... who knows. Just giving my perspective here!

LOL .

Oh, I admit I agree Nicholas. Otherwise I guess I would have bought it myself! For me, the idea coin will be full and round with a clear design and decent toning, but so few within my budget (or in some cases at all) are like that, it's a balance of features I like and others I can live with. But somewhere in that balance I certainly aim for a pleasing portrait. Yes, I have a few coins I bought for some other feature; the reverse design, the mint mark, provenance or that, overall, it appealed to me at the time. But there are very few in that category I wouldn't upgrade in an instant if I could find the key feature with a better portrait! .

£160 from Lloyd. .

Welcome Sunnyboy! As people have said, modern errors tend to catch peoples' imaginations and then prices eventually settle down when collectors get a better idea of how many examples really are available. And of course, unless a coin is unique (and no modern issues are) collectors want the coin in the best possible condition. As soon as it's been spent and been bashed around a bit in circulation it loses some value. That said, and although I wouldn't actually buy any of these issues, I'd be delighted to find one in my change! .

Thread here: http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/7188-a-blast-from-the-past/?hl=stockton%23entry75197]http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/7188-a-blast-from-the-past/?hl=stockton#entry75197]http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/7188-a-blast-from-the-past/?hl=stockton#entry75197 .

It makes you wonder how dealers survive then...... Yes. It's clear a profit can be made, particularly if you select from amongst the best known examples. But the timeframe needed to make a profit would tie up funds for significant periods ... Unless you're a millionaire to start with you'd need to balance potential gains with cash-flow somehow ... I'd imagine there are many 'better' businesses, where profits can be realised almost straight away.

Mmmm ... I was looking on eBay and saw this: .. fairly worn example I reckoned and no better than a good Fine to my eyes. However NGC have decided it merits AU53 ... something I doubt they would have done if it wasn't from the Eric Newman collection. Subjectivity is clearly a worldwide phenomenon.

I believe that's coinageofengland's coin that was discussed earlier, no? Same light line from 10 o'clock to 3 o'clock on the reverse and marks by the I of GRATIA on the obv and ET on the reverse. .

Just received a link in an email to prices realised: https://www.spink.com/auction.aspx?id=15031 .

Definitely! Certainly with the Charles Tower coins it's less price (which suggests to me that they aren't that much more expensive, relatively) but availability. I look through something like the Dolphin Coins catalogue from the early-mid 1990s and there are so many coins I would happily snap up if I now had the chance. Now? I'm finding it really difficult to find nicer pieces, whatever the price. .

Gosh, no! Not enough pennies at present for purchases. What was the hammer on that one anyway? .

Though maybe not this one for a while? S.2787 Sharp C2/3 .

I know.. I've shared all of these before: . Another G1/2, S.2799 .

More of a chocolate brown in the hand... S.2784 Sharp B2/1 .

One of those 'sharp as a knife' but with all the faults of hammered coinage (double striking, breaking flan, weak patches where the flan is thinner in parts...) S.2799 Sharp G1/2 .

I have two, neither perfect. The first is decently struck but has graffiti on the obverse and on a wibbly flan: The other is nice and round but less well struck on the reverse (corroded, maybe?): .

They're getting better at faking those NGC slab labels too! Nice to see enthusiasm for hammered gaining ground here.

Thanks Rob. Silly money IMHO. Odd about the legend error on a (presumably) specially prepared die though! .

Out of curiosity, anyone note what Lot 145 went for? Charles I (1625-1649), Silver “Fine Work” Shilling? .

BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32485012 And the site of the new National Civil War Centre itself. .

Welcome Leendert! What coins do you collect? .

Yeah, what Rob said! The Pyx details are the basis for stating that coins with particular privy marks were issued between such-and-such dates. But sequencing bust designs is not such a precise science. For simplicity I assume Francis and Sharp did their homework and rely on their views! .

I believe .. S.1154, Aethelred II last small cross type. Mint? ... Exeter, I think (EAXEC[...] )... though again with the proviso that I have no experience with the series! .