Rob

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.

The biggest diameter piece I have is also 27.5. Although they are not supposed to have been struck in a collar, mine has remarkably sharp edges for one struck without restraint. Nicholson 172 applies in this case.

Why would anyone slab a VF coin in the first place? The difference between mint state and the faintest trace of friction is far more obvious than the same amount of wear to a vf coin.

Yes

Same for the halfpennies, but the proofs are always notably shallower than the currency pieces.

My numismatic library takes up the best part of two rooms. She doesn't like it when I encroach on the living room. She complains that my rubbish occupies every room in the house - a complete distortion of the truth as I refuse to store things in either the upstairs or downstairs loo - and the bathroom is devoid of books.

The security edge is usually in a deeper groove than that on a currency piece. Proofs have very shallow edges similar to that, but the rim/edge of your coin which would be nice and sharp says it isn't a proof. Your coin looks legitimate. An image of a proof edge is attached below.

Based on Tom's respose, I think I detect a preference for the relative beauty of red felt.

And the key to THAT is to have a lunatically high disposable income!! Or buy selectively, like Marvin. For me it depends on whether a coin is for research or the collection. For the collection, I don't want to go through the hassle of disposal, so will accumulate as many images of the target coin as I can get and then decide on a list of acceptable pieces. After that it is a case of waiting patiently. On the other hand, if I want to do a bit of research, then as many examples as can be obtained is the ideal situation which inevitably means a compromise on grade. Colin G must be in the same boat with his farthings, or Chingford with his coppers. After all, none of us have unlimited funds on tap 24/7.

Given the seller's other items, how can this be described as rare? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-Scotish-Alexander-III-Silver-Penny-1249-1286-Hammered-Coin-/321582338686?pt=UK_Coins_BritishHammered_RL&hash=item4adfcd127e

The key is to buy things that you don't want to upgrade.

What would you do with the money if you sold all your coins? Put it in the bank and lose a guaranteed 1 or 2% a year? There are several people on here who say they have never sold a coin from their collection. It's the tracking down, acquiring and completing goals that drives collectors. Although money is a concern for all bar a handful of people, most seem to buy with a view to building a collection and as a consequence do not insist on everything costing 99p which can then be sold for a fiver. i.e. there is a fair amount of leeway in the price they will pay, and any profits are secondary.

I need a P1237 or P1238 too, but that one doesn't make it with the deposits seen. Many a coin has been ruined by lacquering and subsequent attempts at removal.