Rob

1905 is not difficult to find in low grade just as the other years are easy to obtain. The real rarity is one in mint state for which you would get a lot of competition up to at least the £2-3K price bracket. You are also observing the phenomenon of more rare coins appearing than you would expect. This is because they are worth more and so people sell them in the hope of making a greater profit. 1934 crowns see the same effect. 932 struck, but nearly every auction of modern milled has an example. The 1936 is three times more abundant based on RM figures for the quantity struck, but you don't see any more in sales, in fact you probably see fewer, but the price of a mint state 1934 is over 5x that of a 1936. Key dates always sell above the common years pro-rata because there are fewer examples to go around amongst collectors.

For the same reason there are no halfcrowns (currency) between 1851 and 1873 inclusive i.e. supply and demand, or for that matter Elizabeth II pennies in the 1950s or George V pennies in 1923-5. Coins are produced according to the demand from the banks and the quantities in circulation. If they don't order any coins of a particular denomination, then the mint won't produce them. You also have to consider that coins were regularly struck from dies bearing the previous year's date when there was a supply of unused dies, or alternatively old dies that still ahd some life left in them. The cost of producing new dies would have been much greater than the cost of punching the new date over the old. Overdates can be found for many years until the late 1800s on all denominations. Sometimes they are obvious, at other times less so depending on the depth to which the new charater was cut. Mint output can also be restricted due to maintenance work, an example of which is 1882 where most of the coins struck were made by the Heaton Mint with only a handful struck at Tower Hill.

I've heard anecdotal evidence about fake 1905 shillings where a 5 has been transplanted onto a higher grade 190x shilling which has the final digit of the date removed. So I would avoid any 1905 shilling where the position of the 5 looks a bit off, or has surface/tooling marks around the 5, or has heavier toning around the 5. There is one on eBay at the moment that I think looks a bit questionable. Anecdotal doesn't come into it. Here is a 1904 converted into a 1905, but the person responsible didn't do a very good job of it and the metal forming the 5 fell off.

Not as bad as this one. A clear attempt at deceit given the decision to relay the important piece of information in the smallest font size possible.

In the early 1980s they dropped across the board by about 30-40% following the recession.

Hoard finds are an occupational hazard which we are all risking when we pay for rarity. It may happen on the odd occasion, but for the majority of coins will not be a factor any time soon. If it does happen, bite your lip and move on. Don't ask which one(s) is/are going to be affected as I don't have a crystal ball. This effect is insidiously creeping up on us for all issues of hammered coinage thanks to the single random metal detecting finds. As for cherry picking, I do need some sort of payback for the money spent on the library. I've bought too many things in the past which I have regretted when a superior example has appeared post-purchase. Then you have to buy two if the condition warrants it and dispose of the lesser one which ties up capital that could be better used elsewhere. Forewarned is forearmed.

Prices can go down as well as up. Another example that springs to mind is the 1671 crown with T/R in ET. It dropped from £950 to £350 over a 3 year period which was a reflection of the realisation that it wasn't as rare as previously thought. ESC rates it as R4 (11-20 known), but this is clearly an overestimation of rarity. An inherent problem with reference material where you have absolute rarity values stated is that people take it as gospel and price things accordingly. When the picture becomes demonstrably clearer, something has to give - and that is usually the price because the book remains the same. 80-100 years ago, prices for rarities were astronomical relative to the "common" types. e.g. The undated Exeter crown with the 12 barrel garnishing was known from only 3 examples in the 1920s, but now is known for about a dozen coins. As a type it is still relatively scarce because the Besly B2 die combination only applies to this type whereas the other undated Exeters cover dies C3-C7a. Individually the dies are all scarce rather than common, but collectively approach the latter. My B2 which is ex Morrieson 441 sold for £7/10/- in that sale. In the same sale, lot 447 which is a 1645 tower/rose (Besly D18) sold for £22/10/-. This is known from 8 or 10 coins. Compare that with lot 442 which was an undated type C3 (Brooker 1011 this coin) and a 1644 C9 (Brettell 361) where the pair sold for £2/12/-. Today the B2 (12 barrel garnishing), C8 (1644 date divided by mark) and the 1645 tower/rose should attract a premium to the commoner Exeter undated, 1644 rose and 1645 tower crowns, with the tower or rose/EX types somewhere in between. What is not rare is the A1 Truro where I have over 100 images and counting of coins in grades deemed worth illustrating. Relative pricing will change over time in line with adjustments to the knowledge base.

I've noticed a fair difference in the thicknesses of 5p pieces, but whether that is down to what you have seen I can't say. If the collar is slightly loose then you will get a higher rim. There are also differences in the 10p too. A 1992 I've got in my change at this moment is notably Thinner than the 2003 or 2010, though whether this is normal I haven't a clue.

What's with the five letter word when four would suffice?

Applicants can pick five universities to apply to. I think each of her choices has a good reputation and offers positives. Oxford has the advantage of being known worldwide, handy as she's doing languages and wants to travel. Plus accomodation is cheap(er)! Personally, I liked Nottingham as they seem to have thought more about how to arrange the year abroad and charge less for it. But in the end it has to be somewhere she feels comfortable, I guess and the few days spent at interview will give her a chance to find out a bit more from current students. My daughter finished at Nottingham last year and I know a few others who also went there - all spoke enthusiastically of their time there, but all were into medicine or sciences. I don't know any of her former schoolfriends who did languages, so wouldn't like to offer an opinion, but as long as they are red brick universities she'll be ok.

Yes. I'm mostly proud of the fact that she has confidence in her abilities. She has offers from other universities so I'm sure will end up somewhere decent, but one from Oxford would be nice! Depends on what she wants to do. If Oxford or wherever offers the best course or is run by the person with the best reputation in her chosen field, then that is where she should aim for.

That's good. She has passed the first test by actually applying. Strange as it may seem, historically some of the courses aren't oversubscribed to the extent that similar courses at other universities are because fewer potential students apply thinking they will be rejected on ability or whatever. OK, it might be the difference between 5 or 6 times oversubscribed compared to 9 or 10, but the minds of some students and presumably their peers and teachers constitute a bit of a problem in this area. It mostly boils down to self belief.

Well it has 2 bids which I assumed was from a couple of his mates, but one is from a big gun so perhaps it would stand a closer look. Given the unillustrated side is the one that usually has the bad faults, it might be worth a punt to see how bad things can really get.

Part of the problem here is that Spink can never be more than a general guide. It states quite clearly that the indicated price is for the commoonest type. If you get a rarity though, the price may exceed that listed many fold. If you are into anything even vaguely esoteric, the only solution is to do your homework. So true regarding Spink base pricing, a prime example of this that I know of is Spink 2766, the 1a3 type Charles I half crown is found with the cross calvary mint mark on (for what I have seen) 95% of the coins (about 20% lightweights) available, so while still a scarce coin the 'book' price is a good guide for this coin, but the negro head mark also listed under 2766 is known on only 3 coins held in private hands whilst the castle on only 2 known privately, compare this to the same mark on the type 1b (with plume- S.2767) it becomes very clear how rare these coins are but only recognized with further study. So while the Spink guide is well regarded it's worth remembering it is just that 'a guide' The same principle applies to most Spink numbers where it covers a range of marks because one mark is invariably more or less common than the next. You and Tom will probably remember the E2/3 I picked up about 5 years ago with the tun mark, over crown on the obverse. We are still on 5 straight tuns and 2 over crowns in total despite much catalogue searching and racking of brains. Compared with the number of bells and crowns available with the plume over shield reverse, a single figure number is peanuts.

Part of the problem here is that Spink can never be more than a general guide. It states quite clearly that the indicated price is for the commoonest type. If you get a rarity though, the price may exceed that listed many fold. If you are into anything even vaguely esoteric, the only solution is to do your homework. I quite like patterns and proofs, I also collected halfpenies and shillings as preferred denominations. Spink list those items found in the sets together with a handful of other items, but the entries are patchy and the lists inconsistent. Supposedly they don't include patterns, but then list the 1807 prof 1/2d, which is of course a pattern as it was never produced at Soho. To take this point further, they list prices in FDC, but in the case of the 1807 silver and gold proof 1/2ds, neither of these coins (both of which appear to be unique) are FDC. They are both better than EF, but not mint state, so why not quote the prices paid for the real thing? It is both a mess and a minefield out there, and the only safe way is to be self-sufficient.

People seem to forget that book prices may or may not be relevant. Just because Spink says it should be a certain price, doesn't mean it is correct. Any given price can be over or under reality - you simply have to do your homework to find out what is an appropriate amount to bid. Some salerooms realise higher prices than others, but that may reflect the confidence that bidders have in the cataloguing, or alternatively, some auction houses build up a reputation in a particular field. The location of the sale will also be determined by the contents. You only ever get general foreign sales in this country, but if you want to collect the coinage of Baden-Wurttemburg for exampe, you would go to Germany for a sale. This means that higher or lower prices may be realised for what is nominally the same thing depending on the location. I don't see why you wouldn't put in an absentee bid because you will either win it or lose it. If you know what prices are in general, then whether you win will depend on the demand in the room on the day. If you don't win it doesn't cause a major problem because you can always try for the next one. If you don't get a rare and desirable piece because your bid was too miserly, then tough. If you know something is worth more than book and you want it, then bid it up because you may rest assured someone else will. If you are confident in the cataloguer, then the rest is up to you.

And I would agree with him, don't get too focused on the price books, if you are telling me that compared to auction houses on a specific coin, similar grade coins are selling for less on ebay, then buy them on ebay if you want one, and sell them through the auction house if you have one to sell I think it is too easy to assume that you are comparing similar items. But if you are comparing similar items the above guidance would make perfect sense It's just that on eBay you always have that nagging doubt that what you are bidding on isn't all it's claimed to be. Sure you can always try returning items, but it's hassle you can do without, so you don't bid strongly unless you are certain of what is on offer. By definition that means a common coin can always be bought elsewhere when you see one and are happy with the price/grade as seen in the hand. A real rarity will be recognised as a particular example with a likely provenance of sorts and so if two people are armed with the same info you have a real competition, otherwise it's caveat emptor. If you have done your homework, you will be aware of the selling prices for this coin or other examples, but if in doubt you will nearly always err on the side of caution - that's just common sense.

This is by far the best policy in any case. Baldwins, DNW and St. James' all have viewing before the sale on the day, so if you want to see specific lots in the hand, then turn up at 8 o'clock and check the ones of interest. Spink don't have viewing on the day, so must be viewed beforehand. Most provincial auctions have pre-sale viewing, though the sheer quantity of dross in the bulk lots makes it a full day's job to sort through in any case. Thankfully, a bulk lot in the major rooms is typically limited to a handful of coins in Fine to VF with a few defects i.e. creased, chipped, worn or just plain ugly. Seeing the coins gives you the advantage of only bidding on what you want. If you see a coin that would disappoint you should it be won, then don't bid. This certainly reduces unwanted purchases.

And I would agree with him, don't get too focused on the price books, if you are telling me that compared to auction houses on a specific coin, similar grade coins are selling for less on ebay, then buy them on ebay if you want one, and sell them through the auction house if you have one to sell I think it is too easy to assume that you are comparing similar items. Rarely do you find low to average grade lots in the major sales whereas on eBay they are the norm irrespective of what grade is claimed. You find that book prices or better apply in the saleroom simply because you aren't working with a complete unknown (or at least not to the same extent, nor as likely), nor in general is the grade likely to be out by as much as half a grade - certain places excepted. That gives people more confidence to bid higher, plus if an auction lot is misdescribed, then you can send it back just as you can with any reputable dealer. Prices on ebay seem to be based on a two pronged approach. The first is that any high grade claimed is more than likely suspect and so the item is priced down accordingly. At the bottom end, you find higher than expected prices, probably because Spink etc only price grades down to fine and so the direst item seen must therefore be fine. Using this assumption, it is easy to see that VF can easily be unc in the eyes of the average punter. Common things in less than unc don't sell at all well in auctions and are better sold on ebay where people pay over the odds on what is a minor outlay of some tens of pounds. The two venues genuinely cater to different markets. A currency KGV shilling would never make a single lot in an auction if only EF. In fact only rare dates would have any chance in UNC, with most being consigned to multiple lots, but that EF shiling would be your standard bread and butter on eBay. A rule of thumb seems to be that it has to have a fighting chance of making £40-50 hammer to be considered for a single lot.

Looks Roman given the amount of wear. Must be at least 2000 years of it there and not the 200 claimed.

I believe I should agree with the first as I have been made aware of an instance where this was witnessed and the info passed to the winning bidder (needless to say the hammer was at the max). Heritage I am not sure about as I have won things below my maximum on most occasions. I have never won a lot at Noble below my maximum; something that has happened to others as well.

There might be a small premium to book for some varieties, but on the whole there are so many micro-varieites that it is really only the preserve of the specialist die student. Missing stops or bars in the legend are frequently down to die fill, and so unless it can be shown that the missing feature was on the die in the first place, it isn't really a significant variety. Conversely, where you have say an A for a V or one letter struck over another different character is important because there is added detail which can only be due to either an incorrect character or a die flaw. Flaws have irregular edges and so it is possible to discriminate between the two. Personally, I take the view that varieties should have been on the original die and should not be the result of wear and tear. However, not all will agree with me.

Is this one of these? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HENRY-VIII-GROAT-SILVER-HAMMERED-COIN-/290633233622?pt=UK_Coins_BritishHammered_RL&hash=item43ab1734d6 That is the second one along in the gallery - same "coin".

Which is precisely what I've been saying all along. The only long term solution for any indebted country is to export its problems elsewhere in the form of a trade surplus. Wealth recycled within a country can be broadly neutral as incomes are spent locally, though there is still a drain on the national resources from the non-wealth generating section of the economy, for which read government departments and services.

Why on earth does it have 5 bids up to £3.99 already? Intrinsic value based on the spot copper price is 2.3p ish, less refining costs to remove the crud. Collectable it is not.