Rob

I still don't understand why people get so uptight on eBay about sellers charging postage, nor why they should lose any rationality if it is not charged. Why does everybody expect everything to be done for free? Maybe it is symptomatic of benefit culture Britain. If people can't be ar**d buying something because someone has the temerity to charge postage, then sellers not bothering to supply at a loss is a reasonable response.

Thanks Garrett. Scott - PM sent.

Peck. Otherwise known as English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the British Museum 1558-1958, p167. Not cheap, but essential reading for any serious copper collector. If you want a copy, I have a couple available.

They were only struck for the first 3 months of 1698, as there was a glut of halfpence and farthings in certain parts of the country. An Act of Parliament to stop coining being passed on 12th May 1698 and effective from the 24th June. This explains the relative rarity of the 1698 1/2d.

As I peruse old catalogues, one question that periodically occupies my mind is whether I am better off being a collector today compared to say the second half of the 19th century when the great collections of the likes of Cuff, Bergne, Brice, Shepherd or Montagu were assembled. It is far too easy just to compare prices then and now without making allowances for inflation both in wages and the cost of coins. With the average UK wages standing at around the 25K mark, this translates to about £232 at the turn of the 20th century based on inflation in the intervening years. Against that must be compared the average wage for various groups of workers or people in certain positions. A Manchester bricklayer was on 10d /day while the average manufacturing job paid £36/year. At the other end of the scale, the Archbishop of Canterbury was on a stipend of £15K pa.whilst a keeper of a department at the British Museum was on £800 in 1896 and his deputy half that amount. With Britain in a 20 year long slump that bottomed out in 1896, consumer prices were a quarter lower than at the end of the 1870s. The price of coins at auction broadly followed the price index down over the last 10 years of that period, but this merely reversed the strong upward movement of the 1870s when a considerable number of serious collectors were competing for the limited supply of quality coins available. Whilst it is only possible to objectively discuss the high end coins as these are the only clearly identifiable prices, a ballpark estimate of relative cost can be made by comparing the cost of a Saxon London mint penny in Fine (probably today's VF as these lower grade coins would not be illustrated) - 2/6d, with the current ballpark figure of £200-250 for a common type. The same coin in VF in 1896 (today's gVF or better) was retailing at 3/6d. FDCs were about 8s. In the case of triple unites, in the Montagu sale of 1896, the eight Oxford coins sold for between £14 and £46, with most selling at more than twice the cost of 20 years previously. Today's VF triple unite would sell for say £50K, yet 20 years ago was making only £5K at auction. Is the average man in the street today, in a better or worse position than his predecessor when it comes to collecting with consideration given to relative cost, relative availability, affordability, the number of collectors etc? It isn't a clear cut answer. Thoughts ladies and gentlemen, please.

It's important that interest rates return to real values because it sends out the wrong message when too low. Low rates encourage the profligate to borrow beyond their means and lay the seeds for another consumer disaster. Those that don't borrow meanwhile have to park their money somewhere where it will earn a real rate of interest. If I can in something and get 1% over inflation after tax, I'm a happy camper. Part of the problem is that a 'healthy' economy requires people to buy things they don't really want, and the most likely candidates are those who don't have the money. Consumer spending is under control at the moment because memories are too fresh, but give it a couple more years and the same old story will repeat itself. We need to make things and export our problems. Then we can spend without much concern.

I don't think we will see a slow-down in top end material prices until interest rates return to a realistic, above inflation, rate. Artificially low rates don't help anyone. The idea that it will force people to invest in the economy and create jobs is pie in the sky. That involves a risky venture with no quick exit-route. Putting your money into commodities and collectables however is a position that is markedly easier to extract yourself from, whilst still offering the chance of a real return. That has to be part of the reason that desirable pieces have exploded in price, as the best will always find a new home with relative ease.

The point I am making is that those unaffordable coins of today, would have been just as unaffordable to the likes of the majority of today's members had they been collecting at the time. In one way you are better off today because a good number of us in our current jobs would not have had the disposable income 120 years ago, but measured against that is the number of attractive items that have been systematically stripped from the collector's reach following bequests to various museums. Some household names in numismatic terms have deprived today's collectors of a lot of quality material, the likes of which has not been replaced and is unlikely ever to be in the future. Henderson paid top whack and bought extensively at the Montagu, Murdoch and other large sales around the turn of the century, but then promptly gave the lot along with his library to the Fitz in 1933. Blackburn museum's collection is entirely down to the Hart bequest in 1945. Weightman and Clarke-Thornhill both gave the BM first pick of their collections, with the remnants being sold to collectors. Just look in the back of your copy of Peck to see the amount of material taken out of the system and then compare with the paltry remains listed in the Weightman sale of 1926. Baldwins complained at the time that the remains of the Clarke-Thornhill collection were barely worth having when compared to those the BM took (basically any examples of dies they didn't already possess - not just types). C E Blunt assiduously collected coins of Marlborough mint to the extent that he had a virtually full set, but then gave them all to Devizes Museum. It is somewhat unhelpful that the majority of types are unique, with the other rarely offered. Birmingham Museum took Peck's George III coins in their entirety in lieu of death duties - again, many were unique. Norweb gave her Charles I to the ANS. J P Morgan's family offered the collection to the BM in 1915 after he died on the Titanic. Some were released to collectors, but again, a good number were upgrades for the museum collection. All of these collections had first class material and this makes a severe dent in the quality of coins available, which in turn pushes up the price of the dwindling pool of choice pieces. That more of us have disposable income is a double whammy when it comes to prices for quality, but then it has to be set against the fact that you are at least able to play the game if you save up. The cost of individual pieces is not so much of a problem. A coin costing a half-crown in 1900 is little different to today's purchase of a few hundred pounds in relative terms to the daily wage.

Some coins have always been outside the range of the average bloke. A salary of £30 pa doesn't permit the purchase of a triple unite at a minimum of half that sum. It's a difficult question that I'm not sure has an answer. So many choice pieces from past collectionbs have been squirreled away in museums, never to see the light of day again. Their removal from circulation means lower quality collections, but then, coins have never been more accessible than today. While you say you couldn't afford a £5K coin today, the chances are the same would have applied to a sub-£10 coin in 1900, but you have more disposable income today than you could ever hope to amass then. Today you have sufficient surplus to save up for something. Also, coins are continuously being found, meaning that yesterday's rarities are no longer so. Knowledge is not lost, so we can build on the past. That's a big positive.

Every sale has one or two things that get through under the radar because people are too busy focussing on the choicest pieces, but to all intents and purposes there are very, very few bargains to be had. Those with a good database will pick up the things that move within the trade, or those bought by dealers at auction. The big problem for dealers is eBay as it is a place you don't want to be. The costs are too much to absorb, the odds are stacked against the seller by the platform owners and the buyers mostly don't want to pay the prices seen in the parallel universe. There are collections coming through, but not in the quantity the market demands. There is a perennial shortage of quality material, which is why the market is where it stands at the moment. All the top stuff goes well over book 95% of the time.

Yep, that's why I say you should not confuse investment and collecting because the numbers are quite sobering. With investments, the necessity to be able to sell just as quickly as you can buy is paramount. Selling through auction has a 3 month lead time in most cases which ought to frighten off investors, but not collectors who are likely in for the long term. So not only do you have to wait for your money, but you also end up with less in many cases than would be if you sold to a dealer. The problem is that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it, whether it is to sell for full book price, or buy everything at 99p on eBay. Ultimately, if you want both the former features, then the middleman won't bother and the market will become illiquid. The 20% commission has only been around since 2010-2011. Buyer's commission was only introduced in the early 1980s, in case of Spink at 5% in 1983. This was presumably to counteract a precipitous downturn in the British economy and coin prices in general which fell by a third -ish, and led to a considerable reduction in their income. Prior to that, all expenses were met by the vendor. Within a year or two it had risen to 10% + VAT and roughly at the turn of the millennium increased to 15%. As they all pee in the same pot, other houses broadly followed this schedule.

All things on ebay have to be priced at least 15% above their typical market value to take account of the amount that sellers have to pay to ebay in fees. Try using dealers. Normally they will offer a no quibble return if you are not happy. Better still, go to fairs and talk. You can see the coins in hand and compare between dealers for similar items in many instances. eBay is the best place for people to dispose of problem coins because it is inhabited by the largest number of people who know least about what they are buying.

Ah, the eternal contradiction. Collecting for investment or for pleasure? Rarely do the two coincide. You might decide to collect VF coins of a certain type because you decide that is all you can afford. What do you do when an UNC piece appears at the going rate for an EF? Do you buy it because it's a bargain? Conversely, if you decide that only the best will do, what about the VF coin at Fine price? Both things are clearly bargains, with the first clearly a good investment because the market will always find a home for the best pieces. Some or even many things will not float your boat, but would nevertheless be good investments with hindsight. Your grandchildren may not appreciate what you have accumulated for them. In that case, make sure the coins are going to appreciate over inflation (which is something you are unlikely to be able to predict).

I can try to take new pictures. The relief is better than the image, but that's because I'm crap at taking photos.

You have set yourself a difficult task if you only intend to collect what you dig up. You could end up with literally anything. If you are going to purchase coins, then this is a frequently asked question. There is no right or wrong way to collect, so just do what takes your fancy. One of each monarch, a specific denomination, a specific reign, a theme - all have been done before. On the forum we have people who collect farthings, Victorian silver, Charles I, type collectors, milled, pennies, hammered, Roman, mediaeval, or in my case diversity. I can't tell you what to collect as only you can decide what you like, but it is fair to say that if buying coins, get the best you can afford and don't buy in haste. Very few things are unique, so with patience a better example will most likely appear in the next few years.

A cursory look around didn't bring too many examples to the fore. Neither Norweb nor Martin Hughes had one. Shuttlewood's was comparable to mine. The problem is one of recognition. Until the basic research has been done, all rarity guides are only rough guesstimates, so would only be illustrated if worthy of being a single coin lot, i.e.typically gVF or better in an old catalogue. Apart from that the norm was a bulk lot of coins in mixed grades with no concern for rarity unless indicated elsewhere. It is one of those rarities that might creep under the radar. It's is unquestionably rarer than the 1st issue shillings and probably rarer than a VF example of these. B, C or W should be able to help with the stats, and probably point you to a good image (from their cabinets) People are both lazy and greedy, relying on the research of others to find out what is 'officially rare', and then falling over each other in the quest to either acquire or already possess an example. We aren't exactly over-run by 2nd issue 3B shillings either, though they're not as rare as the 3A

Yes, but it is still a fairly dire example. Less than fine for something that is reasonably obtainable can only be rationalised by assuming the buyer wishes to maintain uniformity of grade. I can accept that they might not want to spend hundreds on an unc or EF example, but if you are going to waste £20-30 on a washer, why not spend the same on a VF coin with an unambiguous date from anywhere other than eBay? This has all the hallmarks of planet eBay living in a parallel universe. If anyone wants expensive washers, I have a huge supply.

Don't bank on it. The number of people asking if they paid too much for a purchase doesn't point to due diligence. Course you can.

OK, so the value is not zero as there is an intrinsic metal value currently standing at 0.43p spot, but a waste of £1.99 is not too far wide of the mark. The seller can be forgiven for not reading the date correctly. In fine they only book at £5 and £12 respectively, so extrapolating back to an appropriate grade, the cost/value question is still a moot point. Certainly not an expensive mistake by the seller. Had it been in unc or thereabout it would have been an expensive mistake, but then the seller would have been able to read the date with ease.

Un-necessarily spending £1.99?

I paid nearly £100 for it 10 years ago and didn't see another to even give me the option of upgrading in the next four years. It's a rare type, though not as hard as the 3J (3 known?)

My heaviest one is 13.47g

Send an envelope full of crisp fivers to me and I will do it for you.

Looks like all the 1827 pennies got shipped to Smethwick. No wonder Spink price them so highly, there aren't any in London.

Yes. Thank you Rob. I see the Nicholson 172 is the same diameter. Mine is much more 'irregular' in shape though? Do you have anything to add regarding the no stops and E over B? Nothing that hasn't been discussed before. The point Stuart raises about damaged punches has some mileage in it because you see intermittent composite letters right up to George III. Although not on the scale seen during the 1695 recoinage, the mint employees would still be using the same stop-gap measures they used 20 years earlier, or as indeed you would do today if you didn't have the correct tool. It could be a B, but a high grade example would be better to confirm or dispel the idea. The existence of the no obverse stops is a moot point in my view. Nicholson 172 has very tiny pimples where the stops should be. The question is whether they are filled stops or whether they were lightly punched guides that were never bottomed. It is reasonable that guide points would be used to get the legend spacing correct just as you see wire line circles on hammered coins. This in my view makes it a legend with stops because you can see something there, but if they were never punched in to completion, does this make it a no stops variety? Because the coins used by Peck in the BM to categorise it as a variety are not in high grade, it makes the variety suspect and open to debate. Add wear and you can eliminate any detail, so ambiguous varieties such as this should really be confirmed with as struck coins rather than on a whim. My coin is only gVF and doesn't qualify. It doesn't please the variety collectors to hear of a reduction in numbers, as they need a continuous fix of established and unrecorded varieties to search for and expand their collections. As regards an irregular flan, this is an occupational hazard when you use a fly-press and no collar. In fact, I think it is surprising that no examples have crossed my path any larger than 27.5mm. Although production will have been a monotonous exercise, every so often you would expect that the person put more or less effort into the job, or you might find that the blanks were annealed softer than usual. All of these things can potentially lead to an inconsistent product. I used to have a G2 halfpenny (attached) which had a significantly spread flan. You can see the diameter of the die within the perimeter. Obviously the lack of detail to the high points is as a result of the metal filling the room rather than the die detail, because it was probably much as struck.