Rob

The VF market has to encompass the bulk of collector interest because there simply isn't enough EF or better material to go around once you go back to the 18th or 19th century or before. The down side of this collector base is that they also have less disposable income to spend and are the first to batten down the hatches when the economic tea leaves are unfavourable. That is why it is always the middle markets that suffer first and most.

Buy fewer coins, but don't drop your standards. They might cost more at the moment, but somewhere in the future prices will stabilise or drop back. It has always happened and always will in the future. Over the long term, some you will pay too much for and some will be a bargain in retrospect. If you are in it for a hobby, things will even out eventually. I have bought fewer coins because I feel some of them are going to silly levels. Interestingly, I found out that I spent less last year than in any other since 2003. Part of this must be that as time progresses you have fewer gaps to fill, but there have been many occasions where I've said I'm not paying that much however desperately I would like it. It doesn't stop me spending on something where I am unlikely to see another anytime soon though.

It isn't as clear cut as you might think. Americans view our coins as cheap. That's why a 1901 1d sold for $600 in a US saleroom - finest known, i.e.highest graded equals worth paying megabucks. This country is not unreasonably the largest source of British coins, which means that any overseas interest will look to these shores when trying to buy the series. The internet has unquestionaly made buying easier for a worldwide customer base, but the real driver of prices will ultimately be the same old boring supply and demand. The finite numbers of coins available are augmented daily by detector finds, but the old cabinet toned rarities that have been sought ever since collectors existed are the real prize. There are now a lot more people chasing the limited numbers available, and we can't all have one. A few very wealthy individuals will pick up more than the likes of me and you, but it is only a relative thing. Even the less affluent collector can win something he or she desires if he is prepared to push the boat out, even if only on a very occasional basis. It was ever the same with a clear pecking order amongst collectors even back into the 19th century. Looking from the other side though, more than one person on this forum has spent quite a bit in CNG sales or from their shop, so it isn't all one way. The exchange rate has been quite stable for a while and so currency volatility isn't really an issue. It has been in the past and will be again in the future, but the climate is benign at the moment. There is a ready supply of money from both sides of the Atlantic for the right pieces, and both sides will compete on fairly equal terms.

You mean things like this?

We have pies up here too. Holland's Pie Foundry is in Baxenden, near Accrington.

Yeah, I never figured out why that is. The initials are after all of the South Seas Company, whose (Indonesian) silver was used to make the coins. But C SS it reads ... Nice find! thanks its a very interesting piece, me thinks that the inside of the coin was inscribed correct including what should be ss c but the outer lettering was 90 degrees off the mark CSS or SSC depends on how you read it. With the date at 12 o'clock, the French Arms at date reads SSC across the top. On the regular one, starting at 12 o'clock and reading clockwise it also reads SS C SS C. Was the C/SS a recut die or just an error correction? That needs to be checked out. Is the die axis inverted as normal for coins of this era? I ask because we can deduce the die was made with a square spiggot from the William III transposed errors, one of which has the date at 9 o'clock, but in that case the only arms in the correct position are the French ones.

Not I but I really wanted that Barnstaple. It was such a pleasing example but I'm not willing to pay way over the odds. It ticked every box. That's why it went to nearly 4x lower estimate. As I said before, if you have only one or two examples of a specific moneyer/mint/type then most people will put up with virtually anything, but few people are likely to be able to live with the 11th best out of 12.

The lower grade ones were cheap, but that's just a reflection of the undesirability of a lesser coin when better are available. If you are spending a few hundred pounds, it makes a lot more sense to spend twice as much on a decent example, whatever you are buying. After all, you are unlikely to have a solitary coin as the collection, so a couple dozen more or fewer in number doesn't affect the overall quality of the collection. A lot more coins in low grade does affect it for the worse. Apart from that, who won the 2nd hand Lympne, Barnstaple Helmet and the 2nd reign Ed. IV Abp. Neville penny?

I suspect the first has some relevance, the second not. You get with hearts coins that have a very small, but visible trace of hearts (I have one available if anyone is interested). The implication being that it is due to a worn punch in some instances, or just a punch without the hearts added. In the case of the first point, I have never seen anything written about the star, but the most obvious reason would be to differentiate between the chief engraver at Edinburgh, James Clerk, and his assistant Joseph Cave. Taking the coins, the most obvious thing is that the crowns and halfcrowns have an E mark only and you would expect them to be the work of the Chief Engraver. That would then make the E* coins attributable to Joseph Cave. E* is rarer than E which would agree as the assistant usually engraves the reverses, though this isn't guaranteed. The 'Edinburgh bust' punch was probably made by James Clerk as the Treasury Papers for 1711 list the two of them making a shilling and sixpence obverse and reverse and puncheons for small coins.

And probably the maximum allowance for the description section too!!

Picture?

Blame it on insecurity. The minute you have natural toning which can take on any form there is an automatic assumption that it's hiding something, whereas a monotonous colour from dipping will show all the detail evenly. Bizarre really when you think about it - so many people who are happily taking a coin that has knowingly been dipped and therefore messed with a bit, in preference to a coin that may or may not have possibly been played with.

Ironically enough, unlike currency a proof is less collectable if defective as they were never intended for circulation. For these, the closer to perfection, the greater the desirability and hence value. Mistruck proofs are decidedly rare, though you get some patterns such as the Victorian decimal series where defective flans are the norm for certain types. The number of proof and pattern collectors is considerably lower than for currency, though most will collect both. The number of proof or pattern only collectors is minimal.

The silence is deafening. Just a reminder to anyone who can but hasn't contributed so far. Any grade coin is ok as long as the image is good enough. Thanks to those who have sent images.

I'm looking for as many of their previous lists as possible. There have been about 70 prior to today. If anyone has any duplicates or surplus to requirements, please PM me. Thanks.

It certainly is "Ultra Rare" - the only coin in existence that is Fine, Very Fine, and Extremely Fine, at one and the same time!! I was going to say it is ultra rare. Certainly the only one I've seen in VF-EF looking like that.

OPPS????? Make it 52 years and call it quits.

The only tea time related story would have been Spam. (sorry) A few of the regulars from 7 or 8 years ago were minors who have now grown up and moved on. Geoff T commented one day about William, who he met in his post school years at the RNCM in Manchester where he was studying. There will always be losses for this reason, but less explicable are those who post hundreds of times in the space of months only to disappear.

If you look at the poll I did regarding who has literature, there were just over 30 people contributed. Some regular names were missing, but many were there. A couple of these appear to have stopped posting, but we have added others. A core of 40-50 therefore seem appropriate bulked out by a similar number, possibly slightly fewer, who post intermittently, but have done so over a long period of time. A lot of members have never posted, but register just to add their contact details with an email or website address. This is almost never coin related. Chris will have to answer the second question.

Can't be a bad thing to get away from this "Gentlemans club" way of dealing!! I think if this sort of thing was still going on in todays market then the prospect of another bust would be much stronger! The choicest pieces will always find their way into the hands of a select few. Granted we all have 24/7 access to coins, but if you have something special in whatever issue, then there will always be a person with a lot of money willing to take it off your hands. Those things don't come to market as a rule, being sold privately, with or wothout an intermediary. It's the path of least resistance for a dealer as well.

Anyone buying today has an uphill task relative to the collectors or dealers of 40 or 50 years ago as the price of coins relative to inflation has vastly outstripped the latter. Looking back through old catalogues at the prices obtained at auction, 6 or 7 years ago I was using a multiplier of about 50 times for Lockett coins coming back on the market, so a £10 coin in the mid-late 50s was selling for about £500 in 2005ish. That multiple has increased to nearer 100 times today for many items. That applies as a rough guide to silver. For copper and bronze the increase is even more mind-boggling because relatively few people collected them prior to the 1960s. Although only an anecdote, the increase in prices was put into perspective by a collector who casually mentioned that a certain coin cost him one shilling and threepence in the 1940s. Today that coin books in Spink at over £1K in fine!

I'm going for a reworked die because there doesn't appear to be any doubling of the bust detail and the displacement of the letters is in different directions, most are in the same direction, but a few aren't.

What did lot 2579 go for? Thanks

The reverse looks a bit odd. The initial cross on the reverse is suspect as is the ON with the disjointed diagonal bar and I'm not sure about the straight bar on the closed E of HENRI. Having said that, it is double struck, so you can get odd looking letters as a result. Clive might have a large enough selection of short cross from this moneyer to die link if possible as they are quite common. I'm afraid I've only got one example of a John which is a 5b1/5a2 and the reverse is double struck, though it is an enigmatic coin where the reverse reads IOHAN ON LUND, which is thought to be a mistake for either a Canterbury or an East Anglian mint signature. The 5b has a pelleted S which helps identification. Pics attached if they are of any use.

Drop me an email if you want me to bid, Rob. Thanks Steve, but the images arrived two days ago for the lot I was considering and as a result became less interested. I've gone from being willing to push the boat out to seeing if I can get it cheaply with a view to selling on. I'll probably lose out to those that collect by numbers though.