Sylvester

Well there's a number of ways we could do this... Now i presume since your father has such an extensive collection that he knows how to grade and whatnot... If so you could either purchase a cheap coin book and look up the prices once you've catalogued the dates and grades of each and every coin. Or you could PM me with a list, lets say 50 coins at a time (so my inbox doesn't overflow!) Starting with the pennies, state the grade and dates and i'll be happy to look them up for you. It'll not take me long to get through 290 coins. Then i could give you an approx value per coin and let you add them all up! Obviously the 1960s stuff won't be worth a great deal even in UNC, as they are pretty common. But the earlier stuff might be. Unless it's all below AVF condition, then it might not be worth all that much. But we'll see. Regards. Syl.

... and you could mention that in those days you could build a collection from change in your pocket spanning 100 years and five monarchs, but now all you can get are 30 year old coppers. Or, you could look forward to the Euro and say how we would be able to pick out coins from other countries in our change. After all, we haven't changed our currency for 30 years... Mark I have removed a whole bagful of 1971 stuff from circulation as part of my experiment into how common the Machin head copper stuff is. 1971 is at the top, 1982 is the least encountered. (unless you count 1972 proofs with 0 examples raked out of change) Syl.

Now just before i ask the question i'll be brief here...(brief me...never!) I got into collecting 13+ years ago and focused on modern milled pre-decimal stuff. I always wanted to go back to the early milled though and give that a try, but i never had the cash. Then came University and the student's loan...then came the early milled spending spree. Finally making up for lost time... BUT Now i've got an urge to go and buy a whole load of early hammered coins, that's pre-1400 stuff to me. (Never was bothered about all the Charles I stuff) I do fancy getting my mits on some Anglo-Saxon coins if i can, well the later ones anyhow, the Edward the Confessor and the AEthelred stuff. (Not too bothered about Sceatta yet). Now does anyone else have this specialisation problem?

My collection was alot like that too, totally random till about 2 years ago. Now i've got a direction but i do deviate slightly, alright quite a bit. Main Collection is Sixpences 1674-1787 trying to get them in as higher grade as possible. Secondary collection is now 20th Century sixpences, all in BU condition, (will accept those coins that miss the BU grade based on their tone alone) Third collection being English Hammered, no real focus here just whatever catches my eye, preferably minted between 978-1399. I fancy some hammered gold when i get around to it, i just lost out on the chance of a hammered gold quarter noble last week, someone pipped me to the post, so i've got a virtually UNC 1750 sixpence coming instead, to replace that cleaned one. Fourth gothic florins/Edward VII Florins. Fifth anything else that i like the look of. So there is some focus beginning to appear, but i still need to work on it. I've just cleared out my spare coins from my failed attempts at collecting shillings and brass threepences. I do fancy some tin farthings though. Sylvester.

That's just the kind of thing we need! I need to know years in which more crowns or whatnot were minted than other denominations. I've taken the basic approach of having fewer minted of the upper denominations per say, and more of the lower denominations minted. But if it turns out that the bigger denominations were always minted in bigger numbers then my figures are waaaaay out! But it's a start!!! Syl.

Actually i don't want to get flamed by the female members here for stating this... But i know a few women that do so much clothes shopping you could say they collect both clothes and shoes!!! (One had over 200 pairs of shoes on the last count!)

Oh i know... don't worry i make sure i've got enough for uni to take out the money i owe them, and enough so i can travel backwards and forwards. Then the rest is mine...

Also make sure you mention the fact that 1967 pennies are not R@re! LOOKS LIKE COIN COLLECTING IS ON THE UP! I mean if they asked you there must be a market for it, otherwise what'd be the point? Looks like you're onto a winner here, and some advertising for yourself too! Hope it all goes well! Syl.

Arrh i think they've disabled guest voting due to some technical problems earlier on. But since Emperor Oli is registered he's allowed vote

Eliza; Is there any mention in those books of yours of mintage ratios? That is the percentage that is usually minted per denomination. Bascially i've just been informed that the Spanish minted 8 reale coins and they more often than not made up 57% of the total mintage that year, whilst the other denominations made up a mere 11% for any given year.

Great idea, but they'd probably do what spammers do and change it slightly to 'R@re' or even 'Rair'. And I think ebay should charge for 'Rare' but refund the fee if the item sells for over it's start price. I mean there probably are lots of other items that really are rarish. They can use the tern 'very scarce'

It's not that i think people shouldn't be allowed to sell crap on ebay, afterall i think 1967 pennies fall into that category, i've seen far more of those than i have 1972 pennies. I just think they should sell it for what it is. It might seem strange but i've often seen low grade common coins described as such go for far more than they are really worth, even if the seller made a big point about how common and low grade the coin was. Conversely i've seen them being over rated and the sellers just get no where. I sometimes think they should be made to pay to use the word rare, something like £2 every time it's used in a sentence and £5 if it's in the title. That way the only people using it would be those that are actually selling rare coins and would get such a good auction that paying a bit extra for the word rare wouldn't even be noticed. There's nothing more infuriating than seeing someone selling a beaten up 1997 £2 coin with a reserve of £5 and having the words 'rare', 'once in a lifetime chance' being smattered throughout the auction description and L@@k at every available opportunity. Sometimes i feel like telling them what they can do with that £2 coin. I.E. Go to the friggin shop and spend it as £2...! Syl. (It's these same people that state, 'It was my uncle Eric's therefore it must be rare because it's old. Look it even had a date that starts with 18, and it's as shiny as if it was new... i even polished it last night! MUST BE WORTH AT LEAST £200!!! I think it's a penny, can't read the last digit though, 90 something'.)

Three things upset me about that auction... 1) Referring to the Queen's head as upon the back of the coin... grrrr it really annoys me when people do that! I'd have though it was obvious which was the front and which was the back? Same goes for a £20 or a $2 bill. 2) The use of the work L@@K, most auctions that i see that used as are usually selling crap. 3) Bad circumstances forced him to sell it, wow 10p debt? That's not to mention he showed a picture of the wrong coin (one which was better nonetheless), and the persistant use of the word Rare! Anyone would have thought it was a 1954 penny he was flogging...

This is better Chris/Eliza/etc... Tell me if you think these figures are a bit more realistic! 1674; CR = 31,000 HC = 65,000 SH = 160,000 6D = 315,000 4D = 10,000 3D = 10,000 2D = 10,000 1D = 10,000 1675; CR = 5,500 HC = 10,700 SH = 27,000 6D = 53,000 4D = 10,000 3D = 10,000 2D = 10,000 1D = 10,000 1676; CR = 320,000 HC = 630,750 SH = 1,580,000 6D = 3,153,000 4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM. 1677; CR = 460,000 HC = 920,000 SH = 2,270,000 6D = 4,525,000 4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM. 1678; CR = 25,000 HC = 50,000 SH = 120,000 6D = 240,000 4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM. 1679; CR = 280,000 HC = 560,000 SH = 1,350,000 6D = 2,700,000 4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM. 1680; CR = 200,000 HC = 360,000 SH = 900,500 6D = 1,801,000 4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM. 1681; CR = 95,000 HC = 200,000 SH = 500,000 6D = 1,000,000 4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM. 1682; CR = 40,000 HC = 78,500 SH = 195,700 6D = 391,000 4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM. 1683; CR = 220,000 HC = 440,000 SH = 1,081,000 6D = 2,160,000 4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM. 1684; CR = 54,000 HC = 107,000 SH = 267,000 6D = 533,000 4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM. And that's it so far... Only approx but it gives an idea, Maundy figures are very approximate and those shown are probably double, or even quadruple the amount of what they would have been in most years. Does give some strange results though, the 1674 Crown is much rarer than the 1675 one, (both are rare), although the mintage figures suggest otherwise. If the mintage figures are averagely near accuracy then i guess the 1674 crown was a candidate for a meltdown for later recoinages. Also note how few sixpences seem to have been minted in 1675, suddenly becomes apparent why the 1676/5 overdates are really the only coins known. (Do they exist without over dates? Looks like they didn't use too many dies in 1675, so there'd probably be surplus dies left over for most of the following year). Syl.

Right Chris... Eliza and who ever else is listening; we have one small problem with these figures, that of the Maundy Money... I'm still very sceptical that they'd mint anything near 700,000 pennies. Looking at the post 1816 mintage figures i think i'm right to think this, where most figures usually go no higher than 5,000 on a really good year! So if i average out the Maundy stuff at about 7,000 pieces per year of each denomination (but i think more may have been minted for the 4, 3 and 2d coins, upto 10,000 as afterall they were for circulation purposes!) If i can figure out a realistic average figure for the maundy stuff in any year then the rest should follow into place. If only we could find these weights of all silver minted without the maundy stuff then it might be a whole lot more accurate and simpler. If you think the silver is hard, the gold coinage is going to be much much harder. Afterall the guinea went with inflation so the guinea relation to the pound changed year in year out, so figuring out the figures will be very difficult. Looking at mintage figures for elephant and castle guneas though it appears the majority of coins minted each year tended not to go above 30,000 pieces. Syl.

Right this is a rough estimate for silver coined in 1674; (Note that weights of the coins vary as much from say 14.8 grams to 15.3 grams with halfcrowns). Based on the average weight of each silver denomination i get these as the following (all weights in grams for calculator simplicity); CR=30g, HC=15g, SH=5.8g, 6D=3g, 4D=2g, 3D=1.5g, 2D=1g and 1D's = 0.5g... (this makes the following figures anything up to 30,000 grams out at the most, if those figures above are stuck to, but giving for variance in weight it could be as little as 25,000 grams out which equates to 833 crowns, or 12500 silver pennies! which is still some way out. Hence why i've put the calculator figure (as i found it out) first followed by a higher figure of what it could potentially realistically have been) Very broad figures are; 1674 CR = 15, 944 - 16,000 HC = 31,888 - 32,000 SH = 79,720 - 80,000 6D = 159,440 - 160,000 4D = 239,160 - Lower at 239,000? 3D = 318,880 - 320,000 2D = 478,320 - 480,000 1D = 956,640 - 960,000 Following the latter figures we are still 17,000 grams out, or 567 crowns in weight down. So add a few hundred crowns on and a few hundred half crowns on and we are getting there. For crowns 1674 is a rare year. It is perhaps the case that the maundy stuff has lower mintages. Though not necessarily the same mintage from 4d to 1d as in this period 2d-4d coins were issued for circulation. Only the penny was reserved for maundy purposes. Quite what they do with 960,000 of them though? perhaps the mintage of these could be as low as 700,000, which equates to 4333 extra crowns or double that figure in half crowns. So revised figures could be; CR = 17,000 HC = 40,000 SH = 80,000 6D = 160,000 4D = 240,000 3D = 320,000 2D = 480,000 1D = 700,000 TOTAL MINTAGE IN GRAMS = 3,844,000 Which is much nearer to the 3,839,283g that i initially got. So no matter how it breaks down the mintage figures are still small when compared to the post 1816 stuff. Syl. Other dates to follow...

Right i've just converted all those weights for the silver between 1674-1684 to grams... Now comes the tricky guess work bit! I'll try dividing the total mintage in £s so that it's roughly equal between all denominations from Crowns down to maundy pennies. Then i'll see if the numbers i come to when added up are near the average weight for that year. If not then it's back to the drawing board. Syl.

i'm just standing...

I though Emperor Oli lived somewhere near Manchester? Actually in Manchester? First thing i've got to ask about that 50p is are there any lines running down the edge of the coin? Secondly does the coin state 'NEW PENCE' on the reverse or 'FIFTY PENCE'? That's both reverses! With you saying a 1970s coin i'm inclined to think it says 'NEW PENCE' Is this the case?

Excellent Eliza! I'm not half accumulating these sixpences... Charles II coins left to get; 1675 the no overdate variety (currently in the process of trying to aquire one of these, having to trade in some my coins now to nab this one, totally out of cash!) 1676 the no overdate variety, exists??? 1677 1678/7 1679 1681 1682 1682/1 1683 1684 Oh it's all go! There is a 1681 available but it has some die flaws and is in much lower condition than i wanted, so i'll pass on that one! Sylvester.

Although the prices in the Coincraft one are now getting further and further out of tune with the newer books. I would say it is the best general book i've come across. The milled section gives all the die axis stuff, illustrations of most coins, mintage figures, a whole section on hammered patterns, touchpieces, milled patterns. The book is set out by denomination rather than by monarch. Each monarch's coins get it's own introduction, plus collecting tips. So lets take crowns for example, George IV crowns get an introduction, followed by collecting hints, followed by the price guide. Then same for the William IV stuff etc. The hammered section is phenominally well thought out. Where possible all the mints used are listed and under each mint every moneyer accounted for is listed. (+ varying spellings etc) I think it's still worth it! Even if the prices are now out. At about £20 for a 750 page A4 size book, i think it's well worth it. Syl.

Spink's was the first coin book I bought when really started collecting and it has taught me a few things but some of it still baffles me I must admit i've been bad and i haven't bought any coin price guides since the 2000 Coincraft one, (in January 2001 i bought that!), prior to this i'd been working from Seaby's 1993 catalogue. (Prior to that i was working from a Spinks 1985 one). I doubt i'll buy another one for a while. If i see a coin for sale at a certain price on a coin list somewhere, i just tend to call in at the local WHSmiths pick up the new coin book, look up the price, make a mental note, and leave again. I might buy next years though, wouldn't want to get too far behind as prices are rising pretty quick these days. (Breaks these unintentional 8 year cycles you know!). Having scouted through the 2003 one in the shops, and the 2004 one the prices in my area of coins seem to have gone up a bit, but not phenominally. I'll admit that i don't find Spinks/Seaby's or whatever it may be that useful, decent price guide and all yes not to be doubted. But for actual background info, i think i'll wait for an updated Coincraft if one is ever forthcoming. Chris are there any decent books out there on Early Milled stuff? (Not George III cos i've got all the coins i want from that reign for now...both dated 1787). Looking particularly for stuff from 1662-1758 inclusive. Preferably 1674-1694 hint hint! Syl.

Right die axis... Best way to do this is to hold a coin, any coin... hold with the obverse facing the right way up. Hold the coin so you have your finger on the top of the coin and the thumb around the bottom edge. Then turn the coin sideways to see which way up the reverse is. If the reverse is the same way up as the obverse, then the coin has been minted with 'medal' alignment and will be shown as an up arrow, if the reverse is 'upside down' then it will be in 'coin' alignment and will be refered to in you're book with a down arrow. US coins are still minted in coin aligment. Most other countries are now with medal alignment.

What even Bradford? No i must admit i do try to avoid Leeds at all cost, can't stand the place if truth be known. Syl.

Yorkshire is like a whole other Country isn't it! Wow. Yeah it is, the attitude up here is quite the same...! A whole different country down south... Yorkshire encompasses West Yorks, South Yorks, North Yorks, and that other place now it's either East Yorks or the East Riding of Yorkshire, i'm not sure what it is officially called. (I think it's the latter). York is technically the capital of the county, but then again there is Leeds...