Sylvester

Best way to understand what i'm on about is to get a pile of 10p's and stack them and then look at the edges, you'll see a difference. There are two different milling types (you can only tell from the edge of the coin). The first type (early type) the coins actually look thinner and this is because the milling kind of curves away from the centre of the edge. Making the edge of the coin look rounded. The edges look blunt and rounded as if they've been sanded off. The second type (later type) has flat straight across milling and these look broader. These have sharper more clearly defined edges. WARNING; It isn't alway easy to tell them, apart. All of the thinner type are dated 1992, the fatter type date 1992-onwards, so take a 2000 one and compare it it a 1992 thin variety you'll see what i mean. Both the thin and broad milled varieties of 1992 are common. It's when you get into die varieties that it gets more complicated and the scarce (even rare?) varities crop up. I'll explain those after you've figure out the milling! Sylvester.

Yes as far as i know the 5p's have two different types of milling, in 1992 the milling on the 10p changed from wirey milling to flat milling, likewise the 5p changed at about the same time i believe. But i've yet to come across a scarce example of a 5p piece. Other coins worth looking out for; although none are rare they might be out there in circulation, (proof and uncirculated set escapees), including 1998 and 1999 £1 coins, 1986 20p's, anything 1972, (other than the crowns of course), two pences of the following dates, 1973, 1974, 1982, 1983 (especially so!), and 1984. Five pences i believe 1993 were not issued for circulation? and of course pre 1997 £2 coins, which still can be found circulating but much more rarely than they were some years ago due to being supreceded by the new bimetallic £2 coin. Sylvester.

When i say 'large edge milling' i mean the edge is flat, rather than thin and curved...and yes i am talking about the small 10p not the old large ones. Sylvester.

It always makes me laugh how people always end up thinking the following things; The 1997 'Elizabeth with necklace' £2 is rare...false! The 'new pence' reversed 2p is rare...wrong! unless it's 1983 of course because new pence was dropped in favour of 'two pence' in 1982, all 1982 and later are 'two pence'...hence why 1983 is rare, as the wrong reverse was used. How many people upon discovering that the 1933 penny is extremely rare, jump up and say...oh i've seen one of those/i've got one at home! (if i had a 1933 penny for everytime i heard that i would have had every existing example 10 times over.) Funny how when it comes to the real scarce coins, no-one's got a clue about em. 1988 £1 coins, 1992 10p piece large edge milling variety with L, I and A of Elizabeth pointing AT the dots and the 1 in '10' on the reverse pointing AT the dots. Now these coins are truely scarce. Sylvester.

More likely to come across a 1988 £1 coin! Funny how no ones heard about those though, not rare by any means but definately scarce. (Lowest mintage by far...a future investment?) Sylvester.

Silver coins are by far the easiest (i find) to scan. Gold is not so easy. Copper, well it depends on the lustre (shine) of the coin, the dark toned dull ones are much harder to scan than the brighter ones (by no means should you clean them though!) Sylvester.

Some coin shops do have a box full of junk coins, and i once came across a whole load of em, all for about 5p each. Sylvester.

Right...lets see; Since you've got the coin at hand, it's a bit hard for me to tell, but does the lettering on the Obverse (front, portrait side showing the king) read something along the lines of this, starting at the bottom left of your coin; + C O E N V V L F R E X If so then from what i can tell from my coin book (it's very complicated, lots of different varieties many of them not illustrated, and so many kings with the same name etc...) that your coin is of Coenwulf of Mercia (796-821), and is an Anglo-Saxon penny...that's if it is indeed British. With regards to the reverse well i can't find one that matches, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as the last line in my book for Coenwulf just states; 'R. (stands for reverse/back) various types from...[then gives some prices]). As for a price on this coin it is very difficult to quote a price on it as i don't know whether the coin is genuine or not, i'm not an expert by any means on this period of coins, and there are so many varieties. But to give you a clue of the value, and this is a rough clue if the coin is from the period it appears to be from, and is a British coin even! then the rough price would be £250 upwards. And my catalogue is dated 1993 so expect the price to have changed a bit. Sylvester. My advice to you is to get a coin dealer to examine it, as they will know much more than i do about it, especially one that specialises in hammered coins Now i've just got to identify the other one 'Possibly Aethelred' did i say? i'll get back to you on that one.

Could you possibly make the pictures bigger? Or better still make out the letters/legends and type them out, (if possible i know it's not always easy). The coins look Anglo-Saxon, one looks to be Aethelred? it's difficult to tell though. (Plus i'm not a specialist on hammered coins). If you can get a bigger picture i'll have more of an idea, i will have to go and consult a coin book on this one. I presume they are both pennies. (I'll get back to you on this...if someone doesn't beat me to it). Chris might be able to tell you more though. Sylvester.

Spade Guinea? Has the reverse got four cruciform shields (cruciform because they are in the shape of a cross, with a rampant lion in the centre; which incidentally is the lion of Nassau) and four sceptres between the shields? William should be spelt GVLIELMVS? If so then it's William III guinea. To give you an idea of the value i would ideally have to see a scan of the coin as there are several varieties of William III 1701 Guineas, from the most common examples, to the 'fine work' example and even an elephant and castle one, which go for considerable more. If the coin has a spade type i.e just the one shield on the reverse (not four) then you've got something else, what though i couldn't say. Sylvester.

DEI GRA [DEI GRATIA] = By the Grace of God BRITT OMN [bRITTANIARUM OMNIS]= Of all the British (possesions) REX = King (as you said) FID DEF [FIDEI DEFENSOR] = Defender of the faith IND IMP [iNDIAE (Spelling?), IMPERATOR] = Emperor of India So basically translates as; George V by the grace of God, King of all the British possesions, defender of the faith and Emperor of India. Hope this helps Sylvester.

I do think that the Churchill Crown is ugly, but i do have another contender/s... The last ornamental shield guineas of George III 1774-1786 with the obverse by Thomas Pingo, that obverse is naff! (So to speak), The Spade reverse of 1787-1799 is also somewhat unappealing, very flat, very basic...very 'drawn with a pair of compasses and a ruler' (Coincraft's opinion of the coin), i agree. Sylvester.

Greek i thought, not a 100% sure on that though. Sylvester.

I think they'd just Latinicise them anyhow... Darren - Darius Colin - Colinus Nigel - Nigelus (actually sounds pretty Roman that one) Kevin - Kevinius/Kevius/Kevus As for Wayne well that could prove interesting! Waynius? Wayno? I'll stop now :-) Sylvestius

I can't wait to see what happens regarding William... Gulielmus V (The amount of people on Ebay who think that means George is amazing!) Sylvester.

What i really want to know regarding the coinage is will Charles' coins call him Charles III or the proper version Carolus III?

Oh yes...i'm glad it's not just me. I really struggle to grade these coins, with the obverse of nearly every Edward VII coin that i've graded coming out as a FINE, even when the coin is much better. The reverses are somewhat better, but i always find it annoying how on the Florins the last digit of the date, (the important one!) is always the first to go...so is that 1906? 1905?, 1903? or perhaps 1908? The other coins that i find hard to grade are the George V obverses, especially the early ones, and the 1953 first issue of Queen Elizabeth II where the striking is somewhat flat and it caused a great deal of trouble at the mint so much so that in 1954 the obverse dies had to be recut to gain the sharper strike of the latter issues. I also find the fourth portrait of QE2 used from 1998 onwards somewhat challenging due to the low relief. Sylvester.

Keeping them like i did with all those George VI Florins in 1993! You ask whether they'd be worth anything in the lower grades, well possibly not due to the fact that modern mintage figures are so high and there are alot of uncirculated and proof years sets out there. Here is something to get you thinking though, coins such as the dreaded Churchill Crown (which is one of the few coins that actually looks much better as the condition gets worse!) could actually be pretty rare in bottom condition as the majority of them would be in average condition and upwards as they were not intended for circulation. I doubt very much whether anyone would pay extra money for a lower graded specimen but i bet it would make an original approach to collecting, e.g attempting to get a full set of crowns from 1951-1981 (the cupronickel ones) in the worst possible conditions would be a real challenge! Sylvester.

Another comment i feel i really must add... I'm glad that you picked up on the age doesn't = price issue, although many non collectors often believe that the older the coin is the more valuable it is, this is simply not the case, a good example of this is a Roman coin from centuries ago can sell for a few pounds, whereas a 1953 sovereign for example sells for thousands of pounds, the short answer is supply and demand, as mentioned in the previous post. Another thing, and the thing i wanted to add is the grade of the coin determines the price, this is why there is soooo much emphasis on learning how to grade properly, the better preserved the coin is the more money it will sell for. And of course the number one rule, (this is almost like one of those rules from physics E=MC2 for instance), well in coin collecting the main rule is... *When you clean a coin, not only do you remove the dirt and history of the coin but also the value. Cleaning a coin is the equivalent of folding up a crisp white fiver, you add creases on a note thus devaluing it, well cleaning adds scratches on a coin devaluing it. Many beginners equate clean shiny bright coins to be worth more than 'dirty' or toned coins. What surprises most novices is that attractively toned coins often sell for a slight premium! Sylvester.

I'll answer this question...better late than never i suppose; This is a very difficult question to answer, because everyone likes different things, some like hammered coins, in which case i'd suggest starting on Edward I pennies. Others like Roman coins, many choose to start with milled coins. Because milled coins tend to be what the majority of people are most likely to come across then it is no surprise that this is the most common area for beginners to start in. The milled series is divided into 3 different areas for the most part, early milled 1662-1815, modern milled 1816-1970, and decimal 1968-present, since the latter is technically out of the scope of this group i'll leave it out. The early milled series is rather expensive and far more complex than the modern milled post 1816 coins. Most beginners start with the post 1816 stuff therefore, which i would recommend as a good place to start. Then comes the choice of gold, silver (cupronickel too) or copper/bronze coins. Gold coins being the most expensive of the three probably puts most people off on a limited budget. Copper/Bronze coins are a good place to start, farthings, halfpennies or pennies. I would suggest that the best approach would be to collect in stages, (be ambitious but don't go beyond your means or capabilities), for example a good place to start would be Elizabeth II farthings all EF+ condition, cheap to assemble a full set dated 1953-56 inclusive, the next step would then be to progress to George VI farthings, and as you gain more confidence and experience go further back to the more expensive coins. Silver Coins...which are my favourite, in short i'd say low grade Edward VII Florins, but shillings are always popular as are halfcrowns. The important thing is to start cheap and work your way up, every coin collector makes mistakes during the first few years of the hobby (and if you're anything like me, you still make mistakes after 10 years or more), remember the more expensive the coin, the more expensive the mistake's going to be, until you get used to such things as grading, how to spot a cleaned coin etc. Hope this helps. Sylvester. (Brass threepences are also a good place to start issued from 1937-1967 and a proof issue in 1970, most of which are easy to aquire in top grades...i attempted this myself but found myself distracted by other coins, the hardest lesson of all is realising you can't buy every coin and of course deciding what to specialise in!)

Just my department as it happens... regarding 1697 6ds without obverse stops, i must admit that i have not come across one. The very fact that you mention that it is a York mint issue though doesn't surprise me. The provincial mints often employed people who couldn't even spell the king's name in some cases. The 1696 issues can be found without obverse stops so it might be possible that the wrong obverse die was used (a 1696) obverse die, with a 1697 reverse die (since 1696 and some of 1697 share obverse 1, I would imagine that if the die was fairly new during the transition period from one date to another they'd just change the reverse die to the newer date). I've never come across this before but i should imagine there would be a slight premium over an issue with stops, as the 1696 issue without stops trades at a slightly higher level than those with. (Usually about £10 more for one without stops...as for the one you have who knows since it's unrecorded?). Hope this helps... Sylvester.