TomGoodheart

Ah, yes. I collect all sorts (I've just picked up a very nice 1983 fake £1 coin. Appears to be gold plated lead!) But Charles shillings are generally the only coins I actually buy!

And all appear to have a scratch along the neck on the edge of the hair ... very suspicious. And worrying.

[in best chavlish] Is you disrespectin me an sayin I is Old??

There's also a very similar scratch running down the neck towards 7 o'clock that just touches the hair and similar weaknesses on the tops of the ET of AT.ET and [MB.F.] ET [ If this were a hammered coin those features would lead me to think it's a replica but with milled .. could be coincidental die weakness? The scratches however, well, any near identical scratch kinda strengthens the replica idea, doesn't it? Good spot Dave. Hope you didn't pay too much, LOL!

See, I've always thought of myself as a "middle sector" collector. I currently have 66 coins in my collection which I imagine is a fairly small number. Many of them cost under £100 which is about Spink price for Charles I shillings in Fine and it's very rare for me to spend over £300. In condition, they range from Fair (or Fine on a good day!) to 'as struck' (being hammered they all tend to have some defects but say, decent VF). I buy with money I receive at Chrismas and for my birthday and if I need more .. then I just have to sell another coin. Although the last purchase was effectively with money I was 'lent' by Wifey! Will I buy less in the near future? Well, in some ways I already do. There are less gaps in my collection, less opportunities to buy the coins I want because they rarely come onto the market. And I'm hoping to gradually upgrade many of the lesser pieces, but again, the reason I haven't before is because I bought the best available at the time and improvements are again not easily found, even if I had the money. Oh, I dare say that if I had plenty of funds I might well buy a few decent pieces when they come up, since prices seem reasonable. But I'd buy to sell on not to add to my collection. So am I responsible for the middle market bombing .. maybe!

LOL OK, let's (or rather let me) look at this dispassionately. Slabs. Inherently ... I have little objection to slabs! When I first started collecting I bought some Hartberger plastic flips, which are really just fancy versions of card flips; a fold-over piece of card with a hole for the coin and plastic film to protect. And I thought my coins looked quite fine in them! Plus they were protected when daughter wanted to look at a coin I didn't have to worry about it being dropped or sticky fingers ruining it. My main gripe with slabs is actually the associated grading, which I worry makes collectors lazier. Instead of coming to their own decision about grade, buyers tend to accept the slab. But we've all heard of re-slabbing in the hope of a grade improvement. Plus with US grading I do wonder if the average collector can tell the difference between a 62 and 63, despite the price differential, but that's perhaps another matter. The question is, are they buying the coin or the slab? For that reason I wonder if buying slabbed coins is a .. different experience from buying unslabbed? I also find that slabs can hide defects (particularly on edges) and make it difficult to really see the coin. A fairly big negative I think. I've only bought one coin that had been slabbed (but 'freed' by the time I saw it) and was pleased to find the nasty scratch it originally featured on the reverse had gone. It must have been on the slab! (Slabbed on the left. Unslabbed right. Both from dealer's pics!) But my real reason? I just prefer my coins in a nice felt lined tray and the fact that I can pick them up and re-examine them with a lens any time without a piece of plastic between us! Auction houses? That's fine and in the past many big collectors have used auction houses as their dealers and have formed useful relationships and magnificent collections. But for the medium collector like me, the buyer fees add a significant hike to the price and no auction house is likely to phone me and tell me about their latest offerings in the hope of securing my interest. Whereas dealers hopefully remember me! The internet? I kinda thought that we use the internet the same as everywhere else! However the only 'dealer transparency' I've found is from sites that list auction data. In order to get access to the historical data which I need I'd have to pay a (to me) significant amount and I'm not prepared to do that (I could buy a very decent coin with $600/£375!) As for other aspects of the internet, well, I simply could not have assembled my collection without the internet. I have bought from delaers and action houses as far flung as Australia, Germany, the USA from the comfort of my living room. The internet? I like! As for the final bit about hiding collections, like Gary, I don't think that's the case, surely Geoff? Yes, I am not going to advertise to all and sundry that I have a coin collection because people have distorted ideas about the value of such things and I don't want to be burgled (again)! But if people like you or my other contacts know that I have one of the (now 8) known examples of the Sharp G3/2 Charles I shilling, that to me seems to be a good thing on balance. Firstly it gives everyone the opportunity to compare dies and examples, so scholarship benefits. Secondly, if ever I did want to sell then I'd have thought people knowing that there are only x of such coins would help the price, not hinder it. I'm sure I could find a buyer with little difficulty and the fact that I can include such coins in my collection, and people know that, I'd have thought would give my overall collection a little bit more .. kudos, perhaps?

I can only assume the links are malware and they just hope someone will stupidly click one. Because, like probably everyone else here, I'd be so irritated at the way the sites are marketed, I'd go elsewhere on principle. Fortunately, like Peter, I have a comfy sofa and have never been attracted to the idea of having sex with a phone.

I did discuss that with him and suggest that he really doesn't need to start a new thread each time he puts a new listing up on ebay. I thought that if people are interested they will find the For Sale forum. But he seems to like to keep it up to date and as it isn't causing any problems I've left it up to him.

Looking better (Hi Chris!) Did you see my message about the recent ones having a location or jabber as 143040? A couple joined as far back as September but have never posted. Might be worth getting rid of them too? I suspect there are more but if they don't post I guess it doesn't really matter.

Well, I've deleted and blocked what I can. But I don't have the ability to delete members, or in fact block them until they actually post something! So there may be a bit more spam before it's all sorted but I'll see what I can do.

I quite fancy something that isn't really a coin. Well, it is, in that it's a gold Angel, however I'd like one that has been pierced as a touchpiece. I also collect amulets, talismans and religious medallions too, you see. Here's a rather nice example off Antony Wilson's site. Though a silver one would be nice also!

I guess that'd be up to Chris. The only problem I can see is that someone would have to 'approve' the newcomers and Chris isn't on here much. I forget who else is a mod/admin, but assuming there are still a few active, or we get volunteers it could work. Again, it would be Chris who would need to set the level of what admins can and can't do in terms of deleting posts / members etc.

Which will have to do instead of the jaw drop smiley I would have liked. I'm sorry I didn't list anything this weekend as clearly there are idiots about. For I can't believe that eight people would bid on a coin that they haven't seen, let alone one that the seller has illustrated with a picture of a WRL replica. I just wish I'd thought of it, then I too could be £160 better off! hammered 1653 shilling Scam, do you think? Or stupid?

Oh, I thought they were modelled on Stephanie from Lazytown .. ...... ..................... Stephanie from Lazytown ................ Some groat or other

Thanks! It can just go back in the drawer then. I just found it in my browsing (looking for a tray to put the State Quarters Wifey brought back from the US) and thought if it was at all interesting someone here could have it.

Bog standard I presume? It's from two scans. The colour of the reverse is closer to the obv in real life.

Ah, that Sir, is an example of what the coiners at the Mint were capable of, if they took care over hammering a coin! Of course, it's been fortunate in starting it's life as a decent circular flan (most weren't towards the end of Charles' reign and it has to be assumed that quality control at the Mint just got forgotten) It also clearly never came near anyone tempted to clip it. And having never hammered a coin myself, I wonder if a bit of luck didn't come into the fact that the dies were nicely aligned to give a central strike on both sides. But those are the factors that make it a rarity. Less so for the number produced than for the fact that, as Rob says, most of the output was crap to start with and time has not then improved them at all!

Indeed, and Spink's sale in March (1236, Lot 128) was also pretty decent. I guess I just started thinking what a shame I wasn't collecting at the time of the sale (a thought that possibly occurs to us all at some point!), though whether at the time I'd have paid the Hughes price ... not so sure! btw Rob, I don't suppose you have any intel on the Shuttlewood sale? I'm curious about HS0329 (Shilling type 4.4 m.m. ® Untidy strike on squarish flan)) Sadly not illustrated, so unless someone has a coin with the Spink tickets may be impossible to track .. just I have a coin that is on a squarish flan ... (Yeah, I know, very ebay: assuming one's bog standard piece of junk just has to be that coin from that collection, but yanno .. one can hope!)

Well, last night I sat down again and took another look at my little collection, with a few auction catalogues to compare my coins against and ended up thinking that perhaps I hadn't done quite so badly as I occasionally feel! But I was reminded of this little gem. Now as I think I've mentioned before, I'm not a lover of numismatic perfection. I like my coins to have a bit of character - to look as if they were made to circulate and I have no problems if it shows that they have. So this to me is the best I could aim for. It's certainly the best example I've seen. And I'd not say no if I were offered it, though it might make a few of my other coins look rather .. poorer! In fact I'd be pleased to pick out a number of coins from that collection (Martin Hughes'), he had a very good eye for a nice coin!

As Rob mentioned, I guess I'm an inverterate collector. I collect all sorts, but coins are the one thing I spend money one. If it wasn't coins I suspect it would be something else. I guess I got it from my Dad though his enthusisasm was stamps. However, like most of his generation he also picked coins out of change and kept them. When he died I cashed in all the 'hands' 50p pieces (£50+) and took the silver bits to a local coin dealer and ended up with around £100. Looking through the library to see what the coins might be worth I came across a book called The Splendid Shilling and that was it. Shillings were a fond memory to me as I'd spent them in my childhood and I liked smaller coins and when I found the book I decided that's what I'd collect. Well, like everyone else I was restricted by budget and when I discovered the appeal of early milled I realised the best I could do would be a coin from each reign (ideally the first date issued) and possibly an example of each major bust change. Oddly I resisted Charles I because of the complexity of the series - Dad had bough the Coincraft book and that was my guide. Eventually I found ebay and my luck changed because there I met a couple of Charles I enthusiasts (it's not a big world really) who recommended a couple of books. At around this time Wifey found out I'd spent a decent amount on coins and was none too pleased! But since it was Dad's money really she asked how much I reckoned I'd need to form a decent collection. She allowed me half! It was the book of the Brooker collection that really did it since that meant that I had a guide as to what was available and what a coin in (generally) decent condition looked like. I'm sure most of us wouldn't be the collectors we are if it wasn't for a Brooker, a Peck or a Gouby. The idea of collecting cold is frightening to me, but with effectively a catalogue to shop by ...! My friends continued to teach me and it has to be said, some of the rarer pieces I wouldn't have (or know about) if it wasn't for them. Some I've picked up because of knowledge. Yes, condition is important (and I would love to upgrade a few of my commoner pieces and shed some poor examples) but sometimes rarity means you have no choice. I have a couple of coins for which I only know of one other example. Should I have waited until a better one came along? I guess that's a choice we all have to make at some point. Mostly my collection is about getting a representative coin for each known variety and finding any unrecognised ones! Where the coins are common enough then yes, I'm after better ones but 'finest known' isn't something I worry about (nor can I afford on my budget!) I dare say my little collection would look different if I had bought the book first or had patience (even now when I am aware that if you wait better examples do turn up eventually, I still buy too soon!) but .. that's collecting and that's me. I'm moderately happy with what I have. I'd just like some more money to spend, but I'm also aware that it's probably lucky I started collecting when I did since if I had to do it all now my budget wouldn't stretch, nor would some of those opportunites be there!

It is indeed Charles I. The reason it has a Scottish shield is because it was produced for Scotland, which during Charles' reign (and in fact, up to the union in 1709) had its own issue of currency. Scotland was odd because its coinage was worth a twelveth of that of England and so this is actually a Two Shilling piece (worth (in England) as Peckris says, twopence). If you look closely you might see that not only dies it have the Scottish reverse but Charles is wearing the crown of Scotland. The difference being that the English crown has two lys on either side of a central cross. The Scottish crown is reversed with the lys at the centre and a cross on each side! Scottish on the left and English on the right: I believe this coin is numbered 5594 in Spink (who use a different numbering system for the coins of Scotland, Ireland and the Islands than that for England), since it has a smaller mark of value. The privy (mint) mark is unclear but I'd guess it is a triangle and the coin would have been issued in 1642 (Fourth coinage). Hope that helps!

Oh, and if we're talking impossible dreams, one of mine is not finding new coins to buy. Instead I'd be satisfied with a time machine which would return some of my coins to how they were when first issued; before someone clipped the edges off, carried them around in a bucket of sand and folded them in half! Alternatively I'd like it to take me back - so I could pick coins I most like out of my change, like my Dad used to. Somewhere between 1640 and 1660 would probably do. I'd find a money changer and swap some gold for a few hours looking through all the shillings! *drool* (I can't believe I'm having wet dreams over coins!)

They used cut up silver plate, weighed it and stamped the value. That is why you get the odd denominations. No melting involved. And if you're really lucky with your obsidional (seige) coinage, you can see traces of the pattern of the original piece of plate remaining under the coin design. Some even carry signs of gilding. I sometimes think a collection of money of necessity/notgeld etc would be most interesting! Sadly the price of siege pieces is higher than I usually want to pay!

LOL To be perfectly honest the whole thing irritated the hell out of me years ago. Why, oh, why did we not go the whole hog and properly adopt the metric system instead of retaining mph, pints of milk and beer (isn't a litre of beer better than a pint? Of course it is!) I used to ask. But now I'm older I kinda like the eccentricity of a system based on 12s and body part lengths. I actually do wonder if it didn't keep us all more mentally agile having to work in feet and pints and ounces. And most certainly, as I watch for the billionth (US) time the checkout assistant looking to see how much change the machine says I need, I think we've gotten used to not having to use our brains. Whether £SD would make a difference I'm not sure. (LSD might!) Maybe there's a good case for cashing in on our british eccentricity and reverting to a monetary system nobody else uses? Then when the EU says "You vill be oving us der twohunnert million Pfunds" we can reply "so, that's ... (licks end of pencil and scrawls on back of ciggy pack) .. 400 Guineas, fifteen groats! No problem Guv, the cheque's in the post, or if you're willing to forget the groats you can have cash?"

LOL I miss the old days when we all knew how many groats to the pint, measured cricket pitches in Avoirdupois and gross meant a dozen dozen, not horrid! It's not surprising that kids nowadays have difficulty working out how many units of alcohol they've drunk, they can't bloody count without an iphone. And while I'm on the subject, whatever happened to those five men that used to fill baths so we could work out the lengths of their trousers or something? I guess they got laid off with the miners or something ... fings just ain't wot they used to be, are they?