Rob

Not sure. The pieces I have had were slightly rounded in parts and not struck in a collar designed to impart a well struck up design to the edge, i.e. there was a good chance that the original edge would have been visible, or at least in part as a loose collar appears to have been used. Taylor's restrikes were all struck with a collar as far as I am aware. Attached is an example I used to have which you can see has evidence of the collar, but equally is rounded in other parts. That's why I think they may have used a slightly loose collar. The coin had undertype, so was not an iffy one.

I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't..................... - well, maybe I can sometimes.

I concur with the above. If you can agree on a basic structure for date (or in the case of no date the ruler), obverse and reverse together with making as intuitive as possible the rendering of the variety, then the system can be used for any denomination (which doesn't need to be included because you are describing that in advance and so is at the top of the tree in the description). i.e. you only need to learn the structure and not the minutiae which will always be the preserve of specialist collectors. It does work as I have used this for my stock for the past 30 years. Things such as using resistor colour coding translates into a 0-9 figure, screws are xx for the thread size and yy for the length, integrated circuits are their code, commonly used products are the name under which they are marketed, all are quite logical and the system readily translates into completely different areas of material and products.

If everything commences with the year you then only have to worry about the varieties. Starting at 1 is always going to be a problem because there is a real chance you will find number 0. 1860 and 1861 are likely to be the most problematic, but spare a thought for applying the same principle to W3 silver.. Date followed by die also allows the same die ref to be distinguished year on year.

That's not a good idea. Look at the debacle that is the revised ESC. Leaving aside the fact that the concordance list is faulty due to the introduction of new varieties which were apparently incorporated part way through the revision, you now have two parallel sets of numbers which means a need to quote both old and new because you can't simply rely on the new which appears to have been poorly proof-read and many people will have the old book which doesn't relate to the new numbering in any way shape or form. Far better would be to accept Freeman, Peck, Gouby et al for what they are, i.e. a reference written at a particular point in time, and start afresh with a name and format that couldn't be confused with anything that has gone before. Then you can build a new reference taking into consideration the drawbacks of all the previous attempts. Sure you have to learn the skeleton structure of the format, but that shouldn't be beyond people. BCW have managed this in the case of Elizabeth I to some extent by using abbreviations for the number of letters in each title. Fixed legend formats can be ignored, so the legend doesn't need to be part of the reference unless noted. Dates can be written in full. You could use a semi-intuitive form to identify the number of leaves/berries for example, In fact there is so much detail in common that date, bust type (which eliminates the need to list leaves or berries, reverse type and a small subset at the end for varieties will probably suffice. There is nothing to stop you using any previous coincidental numbering as the way forward as this would be easy to remember. It is important not to be reliant on any one person who could relinquish a task or even pop their clogs at the drop of a hat, so the case for a logical numbering system that can be extended by anyone which others would instantly relate to should be paramount. Anything number or letter parameter should remain so. So a reference would start with say a date (1860), bust type (1-9 or A-Z), reverse type (01-99 or AA-ZZ(?), or similar including special characters, 2 characters for special features- say BR for B over R, and a digit or possibly 2 for varietal extensions. You could do that with only a 10 or 11 digit reference that anybody could remember. It would be as simple as remembering someone's telephone number.

I think they generally do quite well, but the modus operandi of the NHS (or any other government funded body) doesn't lend itself to maximising efficiency. I was referred to the local hospital last week and saw the doctor an hour after my appointment time because they couldn't find my notes. For the full hour I was waiting there was a member of staff leaning against the wall outside the department doing absolutely nothing while the others were busy scurrying around. No idea what her job was but presumably it wasn't very taxing! She was still stood there when I left. Having said that, A&E from experience tends to be pretty good at sorting out things when needed at that moment in time, and the follow up replacement collar bone operation for my son was sorted within a couple weeks.

Pass. It's on its way to Matt. From memory it's mostly things like open and closed 9s.

With allowance for the misprunts - yes. This country is gradually being guided down the road to a complete nanny state where all thinking is done for you, nobody is responsible for their own actions and if you screw up there will always be someone available to counsel you or lawyer to sue on your behalf as it is always someone else's fault. Bring on the coin trauma nurse.

The problem is not so much who uses what reference rather that all references seem to have the infuriating habit of not including a variety listed in other tomes. It is not unknown to have to refer to Coincraft in order to find a variety. I would normally use Peck for the bronze decimal patterns unless it was a later addition unknown to Peck, but Freeman for the currency. The real bugbear is the inability to produce a logical numbering system that also allows for expansion. The most amenable solution in this case is probably a set of references for each denomination which starts with the date and includes an element that readily identifies a variety such as A for an 1862 halfpenny letter by the lighthouse, but would need several components to build up a full reference that could also be used across the board for all varieties and numismatic material. I think you need an 8 character reference to make this workable.

Let's just hope they don't lose it in Tahiti, because some metal detectorist in the future would have a hell of a job explaining how a Northumbrian styca found its way to the middle of the Pacific.

Wrong island, and a bit late. The postie could have been interested in abstract art though and misinterpreted the address label.

The postal service. I sent a package to somewhere south of Paris before Christmas which has gone awol. It turned up today............... in Tahiti.

New dies are always coming to light, albeit infrequently. Not related to pennies, but the past 10 years has seen a new bust recognised for both James I and Charles I shillings. And I would love to know what the attached punch was used on. It currently sits in the box of halfcrown punches in the RM museum. It does show signs of being used.

Doubt it. It was in the January 1971 issue of Coins, incorporating coins and medals. It was in a pile of catalogues I picked up at the weekend.

Sorry, that should have read Cole's article, not Court's

Not back to square one, but it leaves you open to accusations of under or over insurance. Probably not something to worry about too much given a coin can sell for quite a spread above and below a nominal 'book' price. Prices generally aren't going to change by more than a few percent year on year except for the current favourites. Basically an insurance company is only trying to ensure that you aren't claiming for multiples of an item's true worth. If the actual value of your collection is something you obsess about, you will buy the latest price reference just to satisfy your curiosity. At this point, you would, or should, know whether the value is out of line with cover. It all becomes irrelevant if people manage their affairs in a tidy manner and keep proper records, as you can then counter claims of over insurance by pointing out the description which matches a figure in a book, and similarly a cost price for a given item if unadjusted for changes.

Not the easiest with the double striking, but I would go for class VIIb, SIMVN ON CANT. Possibly a die duplicate of Mass 2008.

A quick question for you penny chaps. What level of detail do people collect to? Is it date example, Peck/Freeman number, Gouby variety or as far as you can go? Just wondering, as I came across Court's article on Edward VII pennies in the January 1971 Coin magazine and noted that it contained details of more varieties than the mainstream publications that was only really matched by Groom, though with differences. It was also considerably more extensive in scope for this albeit limited range than say Santa's site including the rare varieties sections. Just wondering with a vested interest in finding things I could potentially sell.

Most dealers will carry out valuations, but it depends on what you want to insure it for. If to cover replacement at cost, then it would obviously be necessary to provide evidence of that cost. If insured to current market values based on reference tomes, then a regular review of the insured sum will be required and bear in mind that could go both up and down from year to year. In terms of cost, that will depend pro-rata on the number of items to be valued as the time required for each coin would not be wildly different. In terms of cost, time is money, so an hourly rate based on the average wage plus expenses is a reasonable ballpark figure. Insurance companies will allow you to change valuations during the year, usually accompanied by an adjustment in premium. Keeping images of the collection would be good for proof of ownership if recovering property, but a chocolate teapot in terms of proving that you paid £xxx for it. I offer receipts for sales at fairs, but less than 10% of buyers want one, You are not alone. In terms of insurance premiums, the specialist insurers will generally want 0.5% of the sum insured as a premium. There's an element of swings and roundabouts in how the premiums are apportioned, but the total rarely diverges by much.

Yes. Nobody would begrudge you making the most of an idiot.

Stand firm! You're going soft. That's the thin end of the wedge. Get rid of your coins and with nothing to do there's a danger that KP will look attractive as a last resort.

If you are local to Birmingham they will be at the Midland this weekend, or if in Yorkshire at York Racecourse on the 20-21st of this month. You could drop it off at either place.

Might be a hint of A pellet S in one quarter,but is essentially clipped/worn down

Does anybody remember the 11-14th century medieval penny/denier/whatever with the large flat based crown, facing bust and hair which looks like a Christmas tree either side, ie triangular with a pot at the bottom representing curls - it is quite distinctive. Where was it issued and by whom? I can't find a picture of it to show. Thanks.

Thanks Colin.