Rob

I don't think the potential number of examples extant is large enough to do a meaningful survey. You can establish relative rarity values using a scattergun sampling approach when dealing with common items, but when you are talking about genuinely rare coins I don't think you will get the answers you want. Let's do a survey. How many people on this forum will own up to having a 1933 penny? We know there are supposedly a small number in private hands, but even an answer of one would suggest that one in 30 or 40 (this being the number of regular posters) people had one. You are talking about a coin which has supposedly a population three times greater in private hands, or if the numbers are wrong maybe 3 or 4 times more again. The numbers simply aren't large enough to get even an approximate estimate of rarity other than to say it is likely to be a double figure number.

What grade is that one, Rob? It was unc for wear, but with two small rim marks and a bagmark either side.

The only numbers you can have any faith in are the mint's own. All the estimated rarities given in the various references are just that (estimates) and have been proven to be wrong time and time again, in both directions. There are unique coins which are approaching double figures, or perhaps have reached this number by now. References tend to feed off each other, and those collectors who can't be bothered to compile their own data and cross check the published figures take things mostly as gospel. You need to gather all the info you can and start off with a sceptical viewpoint on any published data.

These days the design is engraved on Dave's dinner size plates and reduced. The hammered coinage was made up from many small punches which means that individual punches can be identified. We are talking about two totally different technologies here. By extension there will be very few features that are significantly individual to any issue of modern currency from the last 100 years. Dare I say it, but micro-varieties are likely to be the majority, with tooth pointings probably the most significant.

When you are talking about coins that are supposed to only exist in single numbers or low double digits you have to include slabbed coins because so many examples are in them. To exclude a slabbed example of 1 in a supposed population of 10 is a 10% error. Include 2, one of which has been resubmitted and it is 10% in the other direction. The potential errors are huge in percentage terms.

A census of eBay? Why do I suddenly feel tired!! Sick note from me too. I've got a terrible pain in my arms and hands. Operating a mouse and keyboard is impossible.

Good VF-nEF. The lion's nose on the issue tends to be well struck up unlike the previous issue. 1925 shilling as an example.

That explains the reverse but i see no signs of that on the obverse.the bust and legends are bigger than another sixpence i have If your proposal is that this could be a shilling obverse, sixpence reverse, then the flan would either have to be extremely thin, if it's spread to the dimensions of a shilling, or it's actually a shilling flan, given that the obverse sits on it about right! So, what's the weight? dont know the weight dont have any scales the coin measures 23mm A sixpence is 21mm which bear out the spread flan theory - so at 23mm just over 10% too large. ok so nothing spectacular then.does this spread flan effect the value?thanks rob youve put some effort into this Using the widest diameter on your coin as 23mm, the ratio of coin diameter to the outside of the legend diameter on my screen is 65:56 The corresponding dimensions on my example are 21mm and 19.5mm, so the diameter of the outside of the legend is within 0.3mm for a spread and not spread example. Sixpence it is. The bust goes all the way to the edge on a sixpence. This won't affect the value which will still be based on the grade and type.

I know what you mean but am still not sure it will show anything other than the existence of the said coin. My rare (I've never come across another) 1935 proof penny is slabbed by NGC. What would this tell someone searching slabbed 1935 coins, beyond the fact that they do exist? It certainly wouldn't indicate rarity. I'm not trying to be awkward, just pointing out the hurdles to interpreting these figures in any meaningful way. Slabbed statistics are worse than useless. Different grades for the same coin counts as two coins if resubmitted; some slabbed coins don't exist because the variety is wrong (though there might actually be a genuine example in a different slab; many coins are removed from slabs and so may be double counted if slabbed and unslabbed populations are combined; NGC used to have several designations for the same generic piece (1797 pennies spring to mind) based on whether someone remembered to put a space in the label detail; slabs get crossed over from one TPG to another because their registry sets are only allowed to be in the host's slabs, so get double counted. All in all the statistics are highly unreliable and best ignored. All it says is that there is likely (but not guaranteed) to be a certain number of an item around. Something we already knew because the reference books included the item in the first place.

That explains the reverse but i see no signs of that on the obverse.the bust and legends are bigger than another sixpence i have If your proposal is that this could be a shilling obverse, sixpence reverse, then the flan would either have to be extremely thin, if it's spread to the dimensions of a shilling, or it's actually a shilling flan, given that the obverse sits on it about right! So, what's the weight? dont know the weight dont have any scales the coin measures 23mm A sixpence is 21mm which bear out the spread flan theory - so at 23mm just over 10% too large. Using the widest diameter on your coin as 23mm, the ratio of coin diameter to the outside of the legend diameter on my screen is 65:56 The corresponding dimensions on my example are 21mm and 19.5mm, so the diameter of the outside of the legend is within 0.3mm for a spread and not spread example. Sixpence it is. The bust goes all the way to the edge on a sixpence.

Spread flan. The force used has been sufficient to impress the design plus displace the metal beyond the boundaries of the dies.

Not aware of any, but there again not looked.

I submit that this post was a deliberate attempt to stir up past grievances. :angry: :angry:

Type if it is a generic issue, e.g. Eliz 6d or an in your face difference such as a large and small bust or flan size with the caveat that it probably needs to be commonly available to be appreciated. Variety if the coin can be readily identified without recourse to magnification or at least only a cursory glance. Legend varieties would fall into this category as would various bust types of similar size and appearance, but detail differences, flan size or marks. Most would come into the variety category in my view because either they are obvious in the hand, or provide differences for a significant reason. So overdates and overmarks are distinct issues attributable to a specific period in time for example. Micro varieties are where you need to refer to a reference, glass in hand, to categorise the coin based on subtle differences in fine detail. Once reference material has been published, the boundary between variety and microvariety becomes blurred. The deeper one gets into a particular subject, the more important the differences become in the eyes of that collector, so one man's variety is another man's anathema. As a rough guide, I suggest it boils down to the number of dimensions required to define the coin. Type can be summed up in 2 or 3 criteria at most, variety in 3 or 4, microvariety in as many as you want. Obviously some flexibility is required here.

Letters in this time were often compounded from a selection of punches. The most obvious one is the A-V where the crossbar is added afterwards to make the A. F plus a bottom bar is another. P plus a straight line a third example. G can be made starting with a C and a C can be made from a defective O. The possibilities are endless, so just because a letter isn't perfectly formed doesn't mean it is an error. I and 1 can be interchanged too. I have a 1700 halfpenny with a farthing I used for the 1. There is a good few years worth of research available for anyone interested.

Depends how much you want to spend. Better are available and should be found in a reasonable timeframe. They are nowhere near as rare as the halfcrown or shilling in high grade, but are still scarce. Aim to pay 2-3 times that for a 1903 or 4 in similar grade. Thanks as ever Rob, priceless advice ... but why are 1905 florins priced at 3-4 times 1903 and 1904 (just going by latest Tony Clayton prices)? Is this an example where price guides are massively wrong? This is what his website says you might expect to pay a dealer for Eddie 7 florins, is this way out Rob? ok, it wont let me post another image at the moment, in summary: 1903 VF 35 EF 120 1904 VF 40 EF 150 1905 VF 160 EF 600 If so, I am using the wrong information to guide me! You seem to readily rely on Tony Claytons website for prices Paul. Go through some auction houses realised prices and check those, those will be more up to date for this year. A little homework goes a long way Thanks Dave and noted, it is true that I use Spink and Clayton et al as a guide, realising that I might be able to obtain the coins in those grades at auctions etc at half the dealers'/listed prices if I do my homework ... but I was trusting them as relative price guides, i.e. 1905 florins realising 3-4 times more than 1903 and 1904, perhaps I shouldn't! Always learning! It depends on the grade. In VF or a bit better the differential isn't so great as above EF reflecting the supply of material. A lot of so called rarities are only rare in high grade. A good example is the 1925 halfcrown. 2, 3, 4 years ago(?) there were over 4000 low grade 1925 halfcrowns in 11 lots in an Australian sale. That amounted to some serious ballast. To suggest that it is worth £30 based on Spink prices in fine is clearly nonsense. It isn't worth paying 6 or 7 times that of a common date in fine unless all those rarities were melted.

Depends how much you want to spend. Better are available and should be found in a reasonable timeframe. They are nowhere near as rare as the halfcrown or shilling in high grade, but are still scarce. Aim to pay 2-3 times that for a 1903 or 4 in similar grade. Thanks as ever Rob, priceless advice ... but why are 1905 florins priced at 3-4 times 1903 and 1904 (just going by latest Tony Clayton prices)? Is this an example where price guides are massively wrong? The price posted isn't excessive. I would have said that a 1903 or 1904 looking as the image does would cost about £100 with the 1905 reasonable value at £200+. Mint state you can name your price within reason for most years, but that requires a lot of patience to obtain one. 1905 florins quite often appear in lower grades. It is above EF that the price differentials really kick in. I'd say that the EF prices are too low for 1903 and 1904. Having said that, the market has softened of late for mid grade pieces whatever they are unless highly desirable. £120 for an EF 1903 seems very cheap.

Depends how much you want to spend. Better are available and should be found in a reasonable timeframe. They are nowhere near as rare as the halfcrown or shilling in high grade, but are still scarce. Aim to pay 2-3 times that for a 1903 or 4 in similar grade.

Could be interesting but, as always, close-ups with better images are needed, especially with a coin that's low-grade. Could be a 'T' ?TERITVS or any of a number of possibilities. There appears to be a second leg (?shadow) where the 'T' (as in fourth letter) should be, suggesting other potential rotational variables. You're going to have to start experimenting with the macro settings on your compact. firstly thanks for all input.ive taken another scan and lightened it as much as i can.also scanned it from a different angle.to me it now looks like an I over T I see the underlying right hand leg of a V to the right of the I? No, it's just a straight TIVS.

There will be rare die numbers, but the only person likely to know them is(are) the nerd(s) who made a full listing of appearances in sales. It will not add value unless you can find two people both in need of the same die number. Date rarity versus condition will determine the price paid. Most die number collectors trawl through piles of dross given the potential size of a complete collection and rarely want to spend more than a few pounds i.e.melt.

He's even got a misprunt on his eBay id. 'thewinnertakesiall' should surely be 'thewinnertakesfall'

Hmm, not sure. There is some damage to the edge of the coin at that point, but superficially it does look like 'L' upside down. There is an I over V variety, and it could be that what looks like the horizontal stroke of the L could be an extended serif of the top of a V joining the serif on the I. Do be aware that there are many lettering errors on William coins due to the scale of the Great Recoinage going on, and the low priority afforded to copper. I over V in TERTIVS is probably the most unambiguous of the legend errors as it is clear all the way down the grades. It is also 1700 and not 1699. This is the Peck plate coin for P702. Apologies for the crappy photography - the camera was in autodefocus mode however hard I tried.

It's a bit dark to say, but the pit immediately next to it makes an id difficult. Pitting, corrosion lumps etc make false identification easy. Please post lighter pictures if possible. Thanks. William III copper is littered with legend errors, so it's not impossible, just that the quality of the strike and the typical condition of the coins leads a lot of people to see errors where they don't exist. This is particularly relevant on ebay where every other coin seems to be a 'rare, unrecorded variety', so start out as a sceptic and be prepared to change your mind.

Ok, what do you think of this theory.. We know that milled technology goes back to Elizabeth I but was initially rejected - violently - by Mint workers who thought it would put them out of a job. Also, it was apparently noticeably slower at producing coins in the early days. What if "finework" coins where quality counted for more than speed as only a very few specimens would be produced, were milled rather than hammered? This seems even more likely with Briot's issues, as his milling presses were introduced to the Mint in this reign. What I'm saying is, that BM example looks too high quality to be hammered, and it looks in all respects identical to the milled issue. Although regarded as a hammered coin because the currency strikes were indeed still hammered, the finework specimens could have been milled, yes? Don't know at the moment, but if so you would expect the flan to be of even thickness throughout. Gut feeling is still no because the flans are still not perfectly round and were produced at times other than when Briot was making his milled coinage (e.g. James I). There is also a degree of excess metal which is not normally seen on either Briot or Mestrelle coinage. I think it quite likely that the flans were cut out using a circular punch as was the case certainly in the case of Saxon pennies.

It's banter one that causes all the grief.