Rob

I thought the Adams was well struck. Haven't looked at others since then as it isn't a must have piece. In the unlikely event of me having a spare £5K with nowhere to spend it, I might revisit the 60/59

What do you have and what were you expecting? The polished die coins have a reflective field, but don't have a frosted bust as you might find on a proof.

Coming second on that one with a bid of £1500 still makes me wonder why I didn't bid a bit higher. It seems very cheap with hindsight, but then the world was looking quite rosy at the time, prices for coins were edging up slowly, everyone was making money and there wasn't a financial crisis on the horizon. Go forward 5 or 6 years and the price of a 60/59 to the collector had doubled, whilst half the banking industry was spending its spare cash on changes of corporate underwear. Go forward another 5 or 6 years and the price has trebled from 2003, all paid for by government QE.

The problem of young collectors is not new. Whilst it has always been possible for young people to collect from change, it is, and always has been a totally different matter to expect them to shell out many tens or more of pounds on a coin. People who only collect from change don't need a society and young people tend not to have the financial liquidity required to form a quality collection. Coin collecting has traditionally been pursued by middle aged people or older. Forums and clubs can live side by side. The only members of this forum in the South Manchester are me and Geoff T. Davidrj was, but his membership has lapsed. With so little crossover, I don't think that one meeting place will replace the other. Every member of the South Manchester is on the web, so this clearly hasn't stopped them going to meetings. Anyway, it is good to compare notes and see what people have bought.

We have 2 in Manchester, the Lancs and Cheshire which meets at the university and the South Manchester which meets in the far superior surroundings of the Nursery in Heaton Moor. (Hyde' beers ). I am a member of the South Manchester. We have a core membership of around a dozen who attend nearly all meetings, with a few more making intermittent apperances. For all the talk about them being in decline, our membership has stayed nearly constant, varying only by +/-1 member per annum from one to the next. It probably helps that there are another 3 or 4 groups within an hour's drive, so it is reasonably easy to get a guest speaker to talk about a field that is not normal for the regulars. These operate on a reciprocal basis. There is also an inter-county quiz covering Lancashire and Cheshire. We also have guest speakers coming from further afield, with former RM curator Graham Dyer talking about milled coins, Joe Bispham on Edward VI shillings and Lee Toone talking about Roman to name but three who have given talks. It is clear that they are far less popular than fifty years ago, but that is just a reflection of modern society with its marketing of hobbies and pastimes, far more numerous today compared to the DIY era of post-war Britain. It is unlikely the internet will kill off societies, as even for insular old gits like me it provides an excuse to get out and talk face to face about coins with similar minded people.

yes there is

I think that they were described correctly as I recall, or at least the ones that I looked at. Somewhat ironically, the one that I am uncertain about is ex both Magnay and Adams, and was described as a 3D in both sales. It is not possible to establish the state of the rust spots from the catalogues. There is never a better option than to check in hand. Pricing is generally based on metal type for most patterns. Copper and base metals are the cheapest, silver is more expensive and gold the most expensive. There is no rule, but it is quite obvious that there is a ballpark figure which encompasses most sales of a specific type. Silver pieces are regularly 3 or 4 times the price of a copper analogue. The rarity numbers are a red herring given they are rarely the result of a comprehensive survey, and in any case would typically only look within the country. I don't know why they are published, as you could do just as well drawing lots. In the case of the Moore patterns you have the numbers quoted by Shorthouse, which would imply a similar number (9) of each piece listed. Some of the pieces in the market are at odds with the statement attested by Shorthouse, but having seen gilt restrikes, I have to say that the surfaces of the P2115 listed above did not obviously suggest post-mint gilding.

Certainly don't have any references to sales of these four. All three bronze denominations exist, so it seems a little strange that the other silvers weren't struck. I wouldn't be surprised if a set turned up given the existence of 1928 and 1930 proofs.

Lots of things are misdescribed and the mistake inevitably perpetuated because many collectors have blind faith in the literature and don't question inconsistencies. As always, it pays to know what you are buying, because when the time comes to sell you can rest assured that someone will point out the incorrect listing if wrongly described as a rare variety (but are usually more reticent when a rare type is catalogued as a common one) . Buyer beware applies to each and every purchase. It doesn't matter whether the mis-attribution is intentional or not, just that one day the owner is likely to meet up with someone knowledgable. It could be very expensive. For anyone interested in these patterns, a copy of the Magnay or Adams sale is a useful reference. Both collections had large numbers of them. All three of the above images were from the Adams collection.

Yes, I think those are right. There are small spots on the base of the neck only on the last, but clear cheek spots on no.3

If you read the appendix in Peck concerning Shorthouse's 1885 visit to Moore's workshop post-mortem when the 3 sets of restrikes were made, it is mentioned that there was no sign of the second obverse. This die developed a large flaw and it is likely that he was in the process of re-engraving the P2135 obverse as there is a trial obverse only striking in pewter using the same bust punch as the P2135 but with re-arranged legends. Playing around with the contrast of the image gives a few hints of a prior design with traces of underlying characters. However, no strikings are known as far as I am aware with the obverse die below paired with a reverse.

This is obverse C, a P2115. Unfortunately it is a bit bright and the spots in the middle of the cheek do not show up in relief. I suggest you save the image and blow it up a bit to see what I mean. There are strikings that have the cheek spots fully polished down, but the 3 at the back of the neck remain, which I have always taken this to be obv.C and the flattened cheek spots as obv. D That is why I think both your obv 3 & 4 are actually obv. 4.

It's not that bad. The original strikings must have no signs of rust marks on the neck, so your 1D looks like it isn't given the cluster by the back of the neck at the truncation, but I think your 1B gilt is obv. 1 as I can't see any polished rust spots. My obverse 2 is attached. Your 3D and 4D are possibly the same pairing. It is difficult as the one labelled obv 3 is a bit fuzzy. I will have to dig out the other obverses as I'm afraid I got rid of my examples due to quality issues.

The pictures really don't help. It looks as if the I in HONI is virtually flat, in which case it would be difficult to assign a grade higher than fine, but then the rest looks better. Assuming the I is a red herring, then VF or so is probably right.

The water runs off the grit which is covered in peat on the hills above the limestone. The peat is acidic, which is the reason the caves are formed when the limestone dissolves. The water throughput is such that it remains slightly acidic. If it was percolating through the limestone for years before it resurfaced it would be fully neutralised, but in this case dye tests give a transit time measured in hours from the bottom of Gaping Gill through to Ingleborough Cave. Edited to add that the pool shown looks to be stagnant, so would only be refreshed with acidic water if that section flooded.

You will be pleased to know that I also had to enter my projected spend when registering for the Baldwin sale this afternoon. I entered a quid, and was immediately authorised to bid. Baldwins aren't going to turn potential bidders away unless they have been a problem in the past. It also crossed my mind that this could be the Saleroom fishing for details. The more you enter as a projected spend, the more valuable you are to auction houses as a potential bidder, so I wouldn't be surprised if lists of named large spenders are sold to Saleroom customers to target marketing.

Except that the water will be slightly acidic. Maybe not such a good chance of picking out a gem.

Images won't open for me so I can only see the thumbnails. By definition, I would not get your hopes up

I'm blissfully ignorant of all that you are prattling on about. Don't know who it is and more particularly, don't care. I just see yet another eBay listing not as described and so to be avoided.

Hi. You can make a list and scan it in as a jpg which can be attached using the more reply options bottom right when replying using this page. Alternatively you can use a picture hosting site such as photobucket and provide a link. If the list isn't too long it can be typed, but more important is an image of what you have. Valuations are meaningless without a grade and for that we need pictures.

Nickel is also magnetic

I don't lose any sleep over the valuations imposed by CGS or any other grading service. I find that a coin either appeals or it doesn't. If it appeals, the next question is whether the price is reasonable and can I afford it? At no point have I referred to the 'suggested price'. If you look at prices often enough, a list price will be superfluous after a while. Even the rarities will generate a subconscious ballpark figure, despite none having gone through auction in recent times.

Just buy what you like. It isn't a job from which you earn a living, you are supposedly doing it for pleasure.

I think the concept of groups being undervalued as a whole is a bit of a misconception and more the product of marketing or salespeople trying to talk a market up. Every coin is sold on an individual basis with due regard to its grade, eye appeal etc, so these factors cannot be applied across the board to a whole series. Some sections are always going to be more popular than others, but I defy anyone to say with certainty which ones they will be looking into the future. Whilst it is possible to identify areas of the market that are overheated on the back of past sale results, it takes quite a stretch of the imagination to assume that those areas which are currently out of favour must be undervalued. These areas are selling at lower prices because they aren't as popular with collectors, but there is nothing to say that they must make up the lost ground in the future. Alternatively you can turn the argument on its head and consider which areas are currently overvalued due to the herd mentality of people. If they are overheated, by extension we can expect the market to correct itself with price falls, the implication being that the 'currently undervalued' pieces are in fact correctly valued, and so there is no reason to expect any change in the immediate future. Works both ways. There is nothing to say that prices have to keep rising, nor that the weak areas are cheap.

Any numbering system is ok as long as it puts the reader in the right ballpark when opening the book to search for an entry. No system can ever hope to be perfect as different collectors' requirements vary, with the denomination collector and the reign/period collector probably chosing the status-quo and revamp respectively. Any delusion that references such as 1475PP are a thing of the past will be exposed. The first issue of ESC was in 1949, the 5th in 1992. Unless we stop finding new varieties and striking new issues, I'm afraid the whole thing will start all over again. The original system soldiered on for 66 years, but the non-standard numbering started the moment the book went to print for the first time.