TomGoodheart

MORRIS. A. Collector. Large collection of Charles I silver sold through the dealer Lloyd Bennett over several years. Characteristic white card with underlining in red ink. 31mm.

LYALL. R. Collector of WI cut/ countermarked coins, Lancashire/Cheshire tokens and Charles I silver, particularly shillings by variety. Chas I collection sold through DNW Nov 2015, Mar 2016, Dec 2016. White, 32mm.

Sharp. M. B. Collector of Charles I (primarily shillings) and subsequently worked at Baldwins (to whom he sold his collection) and then DNW. (I believe this is a Baldwins ticket in his hand. 807 was Michael's client number at Baldwins) Lined card. 34mm.

At first glance it looks OK to me Declan. Weight should confirm it (around 2g) but nothing screams 'replica' to me.

Personally, I'm just not seeing the coins I want, in the grades I want Rob. I rather assumed that anyone with nicer pieces was either holding on to them, or perhaps selling privately. More likely the former. Maybe we need another collection or two coming to the market, however when I consider Bob L's coins, or even Alan Morris', the proportion of coins I'd really like to own as opposed to the overall number, was still small. I guess that's the problem with a 'maturer' collection .. I'm on the hunt for either nicer coins or the scarcer ones. However whereas in the past it was finances (or lack or willingness to spend the necessary) that limited acquisitions, now it's simple lack of material. And of course, that fuels the problem. Until I can upgrade what I have, I don't wish to part with any of my coins. In fact, if possible and unlike previously, I would prefer to add further to the collection without necessarily disposing of existing coins. But that means I have little to sell, ... assuming there are even specialist collectors in my field any more to buy what I have to offer..

Someone is going to be very unhappy in a few days ... http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SCARCE-KING-CHARLES-I-SILVER-HALFCROWN-NEWARK-SEIGE-PIECE-OF-1646/122589512483?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649

Afraid my powers don't appear to allow me to edit posts Rob. Maybe @Nordle if he sees this?

Not sure how easy it is for Admins to reorder a thread (Chris or Matt might be able to), but I've pinned it so it will be easily found. OK, it appears I can remove comment posts from the Ticket thread and put them here to keep the 'original' tidy, so there's a result!

Good stuff!

Message sent.

I wrote to him on 13 June: "Sadly, your friend's item is a copy worth a couple of £ The plough mark unfortunately erases where the coin was stamped COPY, hence his confusion" I sent him a link to the Dorchesters listing too. Hopefully you'll have no problem getting your money back.

Are you looking at 'just' milled coinage Pavel? Because I've noticed that in the hammered section identification is very basic ..probably based on whatever information the original collector gave the coin before it was donated.

Stanley Gibbons up for sale Having accumulated Noble Investments, Baldwin's, Dreweatts & Bloomsbury Auctions and Malletts, as well as several additional philatelic interests and even gotten into wine dealing, it appears the beast requires feeding even more money to fuel expansion. Remarkable. And ... who the heck is going to buy it? Or will they, having spent years in acquisitions, break apart? An odd business strategy to my mind .. Views anyone?

The F. Elmore Jones Collection of English Coins. (Glendining). Auction (12 May 1971) – Anglo-Saxon Silver Pennies // Auction (13 April 1983) – Norman and Plantagenet Coins, Part I // Auction (10 April 1984) – Norman and Plantagenet Coins, Part II.

In the absence of images if you can read and tell us the legends on the reverse (non-head side) it might help a bit ..

Goodness, that's a puzzle Rob! My thought are that the crosses (?) inside the crown might be a useful indicator. In the first image and one on the green background they are more like open triangles. The others, they are filled in, suggesting to me some wear. Then possibly focus on the hair as it touches the crown. For example the small pic from a catalogue (top of second post) suggests some die fill/ wear in that area to me. Be easier if there were some obvious progressive die cracks but, beggars can't be choosers in these things! If that helps at all?

Just to let you know I've hidden your slightly over the top post Prep ( and I'm afraid 1949's quote of it). I appreciate some members have a blunt way of putting things that isn't too everyone's taste but I feel the response was a bit disproportionate. That aside this thread seems useful, particularly the discussions about cleaning, so if everyone has calmed down, feel free to carry on...

The new makers are good. I asked for a custom made drawer for my PN cabinet and they did a very decent job, even though it turned out to be a more complicated a task than I first imagined! Plus they use rather more environmentally friendly stains and varnish than in Peter's day.

LOL Different things appeal to different people prep. Nothing wrong with detecting - I can quite understand the thrill of the 'treasure hunt' as I enjoy beachcombing and get as much thrill from finding a bit of broken Victorian pottery or a fossil as I do a coin that fills a gap. So long as sites aren't damaged in the process and the details are recorded for the geeks amongst us of course. But I like coins for the design. They are little pieces of art (not to mention propaganda). And ultimately, it's nice when that art looks pleasing and the design is clear and you can appreciate the work that went into making the thing. Particularly the sort I collect, where it's all a hand process from die engraving to striking and a slip or off-centre hit can result in an unreadable mess! Yes, some dug coins can be in excellent condition (particularly ones buried as part of a hoard). But most just aren't. And if I had to choose between a coin that's been stuck in a pile of mud somewhere for 400 years or one that I know has been held onto by collectors I can name, I will usually find the latter more interesting, that's all.

I disagree. It's as much the history of the coin as the fact that it was minted sometime between 30 Jun 1631-21 Jun 1632 at the Tower of London from silver mined and refined in Wales at Thomas Bushell's mine near Aberystwyth. We know that because the reverse design bears the Prince of Wales' plumes above the shield; an agreed sign to show coins minted from Welsh silver. Beyond that, what do we know about any coin? Whose hands it passed through, how many loaves of bread or pints of ale it bought will always be guesswork and imagination. But who thought it worthwhile keeping to study, to show to friends, to save from the melting pot and pass on to others, these things are facts. Coin collecting has been going on for thousands of years, although until the 1600's probably only among the really wealthy. Without collectors, given that the majority of coin was collected up, melted and restruck in the Great Recoinages of 1696 and 1816, we would probably have but a fraction of the hammered coins that still exist today. They'd have just been chucked in the melting pot or made into jewellery or something. And without numismatic research we'd know little of how to tell when a coin was struck, which king it represents or where it was made. We'd have no easy way to tell if we have a typical example or something unusual. We'd have to guess at where the metal that our coins are made of came from, who designed them and in some cases who struck them. You want 'the guy that made the coin' .. well, that's part of the history that depends on collectors too. Facts are the history to me. Not the 'what might have been's or romantic guesswork about the soldier who received this coin is his pay and what he spent it on or whatever... But as I say, different strokes for different folks!

Here you go. I can guess from the dint in this coin that it was dug up. When and where is now lost to time. However I do know (with Rob's help) that it was owned by the architect Frederic Walters (1849-1931) and when his collection was sold in May 1913 it was bought by the firm of Baldwins on behalf of the collector Grant Francis. Francis used the coin (2, IIb,2 above and the background to the pic of my coin) to illustrate the type in his paper in the British Numismatic Journal (1918) in which he attempted to order and classify the known varieties of silver coinage of Charles I. His numbering system is still used by some collectors today. Francis' collection was sold by Glendinings in March 1920 and the coin ended up in the collection of Richard Cyril Lockett. A collection so large that it took 11 sales over 6 years to dispose of them all. My coin was bought by Baldwins in October 1956. Sadly, there the trail goes cold until the coin turns up again (unprovenanced) with the dealer Mark Rasmussen in April 2004. I bought it subsequently from another dealer the next year, but only really managed to piece together some of the collector history fairly recently. Having illustrated catalogues helps, as does coin 'tickets' which are little pieces of paper that collectors use to describe coins in their collection. While having a ticket with a coin is not absolute proof that the coin in your hand is one described in a book or catalogue, it helps. Rob's Rawlins crown example is of a coin sufficiently well known and recognised that one can track it through the hands of collectors with some degree of certainty.

I have a few coins that were detector finds prep. One that was hidden away as part of a hoard on land owned by a Royalist, sometime around September 1642. However, the majority were probably found by workers tilling fields, digging foundations or other building work, since they were found before detectors were in common use. I know this because I know when they were bought, came up for sale or whose collections they were part of. As for found in drawers .. very few I imagine. Although I do have one that was found, with others, in an old disused safe! Personally I always like to know a bit about the background to my coins and if they belonged to earlier collectors then that makes them more interesting to me. Digging up my own? Not so bothered. But, each to their own!