Rob

Just because large companies make billions of pounds in profit, that doesn't mean to say they are greedy, nor that the return is excessive. To get an example, I just had a look at the latest figures for Scottish & Southern and the important numbers are as follows. Turnover £28.33bn Gross profit £3.19bn Profit before tax £2.11bn Net profit £1.50bn I don't know if these figures are representative of the industry as a whole, but a pre-tax profit of under 7.5% is hardly an excessive return, and the treasury benefitted to the tune of £607.2m from taxation. There is no point being in business unless you make money. Taking the anti-capitalist viewpoint whereby no profit should be made, then the shareholders would be better off folding the company and putting the money in the bank - then we can all live happily ever after in our mud huts with none of the capitalist paid-for benefits such as medical facilities, social welfare, transport, education, etc. Company taxation pays for some of the services that everyone wants, with the rest paid for by government IOUs. The latter is not sustainable. All those who want greater funding (or even the preservation of current levels of benefits) would be better off backing businesses instead of looking to see who they can strangle with taxation next. Tax receipts spent are money that's gone up in smoke, almost invariably on consumption. A sustainable business model can produce taxable profits, the taxation of which can provide sustainable benefits for all. That is the only viable way forward if there is to be any hope of maintaining this country's living standards. If a sole trader made the same rate of return on turnover, in order to earn the UK average salary of about £25K he would have to invoice £1/3m. Multi-billion pound companies make multi-billion pound profits, but the important number is the percentage return, not the cash number.

The difficulty in getting people to agree on grades is exemplified by this coin. In various sales down the years it has been assigned completely different grades as follows Montagu 516, very fine Hamilton-Smith 95, an unusually good specimen Lockett 2460, mint state Willis 298, very fine Lloyd Bennett, good very fine or better. For my part, I'd give it nearly EF because the amount of friction is minimal. It has flat bits, but the traces of friction to the high points which have removed the toning show little actual wear (or as Peter mentioned in a different thread - as struck can be almost flat!). A comparison with the two other decent examples of this type (Morr. 1645 F-7) shows the inconsistencies you have to deal with even with coins struck from the same die pair. In the case of these two, different parts are struck up better or worse. And all that is compounded whereby the reverse die is too big for a half crown! Most hammered coins are curate's eggs.

On the whole, low quality silver isn't an issue until the Henry VIII debasement, though clearly any emergency issue has been produced under less than ideal circumstances. The problem of bits falling off is usually due to the digging tool rather than silver quality or thickness. Ghosting doesn't affect the grade because it is clearly seen for what it is. Obviously, the thinner the flan, the more prone it is to ghosting, but if all the unaffected areas are clear, then you can assign a grade with confidence. Ok, here's an example with a bit of everything. Grade this. It has flat bits, well struck up bits, striking splits, very slight double striking and isn't round.

The problem with grading hammered is that there is usually a requirement to qualify the grade at some point because of the uneven strike. Double striking is common and depth of strike all come into play. It is a field where XXX for issue has some bearing on the grade. Although it is nice to go strictly on wear when giving a grade, the vagaries of human inconsistency lead to a lot of subjective input. A similar depth of strike to both sides occurs on occasions, but more often than not one side will be stronger. This manifests itself quite well with Elizabeth I shillings where the portrait is frequently weak whereas the lions' faces are clear. The larger the coin, the more likely it is that you find areas of weakness interspersed with what appears to be fully struck detail. It is even possible to have a coin as struck with virtually no detail, meaning that grading doesn't lend itself to a volume such as Red's milled book. It would be possible to provide a few visual guidelines at the risk of it being limited to a handful of contributors, but the images would soon show the inconsistencies you have to deal with. Far better that people do the research to recognise what is normal for the issue in their chosen speciality and that means lots of images captured off the web together with a fair sprinkling of auction catalogues for the better quality items. For low grade references, eBay as usual will provide all the detail you could ever need.

What about no. 20? Presumably the senior member of the family, but it does make you wonder what happened to numbers 1 to 19. Perhaps they've been subjected to a spot of digital euthanasia.

It's no surprise that US collectors take a liking to British coins when other parts of the former empire have many collectors in this field. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa have all produced good collections of British, so why not the US? Americans are big into their roots, so there is also a healthy collecting base of many European countries as well as other parts of the world. Irish and Scottish coins are similarly popular. There is a parallel collecting base interested in the investment side of numismatics which becomes noticeable the wealthier the country, but the collector is well represented in all fields. As has been said previously, some investors inadvertently find out that collecting can be fun too and so pursue the hobby.

Today seems as good a place to start as any. So many people sharing the same birthday. I'm not sure why they bother. mohiboliv01 (26), saymajaan22 (26), najfalinia (26), Gollapeebb (26), porshi (26), tasfiamoni (26), Labonna (26), saymajaan20 (26), janemanroba (26), saymajaan21 (26)

The key to a good catalogue is not to put too much info in it. You only have to look at the early Anglo-Saxon sceats to see than an attempt to be more comprehensive has resulted in a section that is difficult to use. People want to see prices, but any attempt to be comprehensive is likely to result in rejection by the reader. Basically avoid any ext. rare references, but don't attempt to be over complicated.

Problem might be that not many use it. I use an old edition for world coin type reference rather than an up to date copy. Is there an online edition anywhere to see what is in the current volume? I know it probably goes against the grain, but a note after certain sections referring the reader to more comprehensive lists might be the easy option, just as Spink do for Elizabeth I for example. I know that doesn't give prices for the individual varieties, but there again neither does any other tome give anything other than a selection. Price are always going to be volatile in the case of patterns. Do you take auction prices or those after dealer markups? Baldwins prices in their recent lists are close to 50% up on the saleroom for the pieces they bought, though some are more reasonable. It's a bit of a conundrum. As for Krause's numbering, it has always seemed a bit haphazard. Coincraft's numbering, while a bit more cumbersome, was at least logical whereby they used the monarch and denomination as the basis for their code.

Mine has the defective O and the R is just broken. The Gs are both intact, but the first one only has a thin top to it. The centre of the reverse is weaker than the rest, but not particularly so with all the garter detail present. That's on a better than EF coin.

Unless any are key dates, melt value.

I think you will find this is a gripe in every walk of life, it certainly was when I was flogging pensions and investments. I don't think there is much that can be done about it other than to forget the bottom line for a moment and console yourself with fact that people without two halfpennies to rub together can be just as interesting as captains of industry. An event in the past springs to mind. Someone was looking for a particular date and die number shilling, probably having obtained most of the known varieties given the short list supplied. I had the die number, but the price was about £100, so he turned it down as too expensive. But the question worth considering was that having spent many hundreds, if not thousands of pounds building up the collection, was say x5 the normal amount spent really that much in context. Most people are grateful if you can fill a gap in the collection when you get to this point.

That's only 2 extra reigns, so shouldn't be too difficult. The Elizabeth won't be difficult to find and you can easily pick up a Charles I Aberystwyth cheaply in VF - in fact it might be harder to get one in fine! As for where mid-range collectors sit in the event of a market meltdown, the concensus seems to be that the middle will be hardest hit. The bottom will be fairly immune because half of **** all is still **** all, and the top will retain its value better because the people in this range are less affected by liquidity problems - that is, unless banking transactions cease to function. I think you mean "all of **** all is still **** all" don't you Rob? There are enough Fine collectors around to ensure the bottom end prices always hold up. No, I mean half because there are plenty of bottom end collectors who will always pay pence for a coin, but having a value offers scope for a price erduction. Therefore **** all has a value when it comes to washers, despite my opinion that many should be melted rather than portrayed as collectable. Dare I say it, but if the economic proverbial does hit the fan, is it too much to hope the we could have a scenario when even the bottom dredgers start to become discerning? Could this usher in the era when only complete dates are acceptable? I always have difficulties in assessing this area of the market. Granted everyone wants a bargain, but it is difficult for dealers to cater to people wanting to spend pence when the time spent selling the coin is the same, whether it is a 50p, £50 or £500 sale.

That's only 2 extra reigns, so shouldn't be too difficult. The Elizabeth won't be difficult to find and you can easily pick up a Charles I Aberystwyth cheaply in VF - in fact it might be harder to get one in fine! As for where mid-range collectors sit in the event of a market meltdown, the concensus seems to be that the middle will be hardest hit. The bottom will be fairly immune because half of **** all is still **** all, and the top will retain its value better because the people in this range are less affected by liquidity problems - that is, unless banking transactions cease to function.

A good way of sorting out the potential spams is where they give their birthdays. A few weeks ago no less than 8 or 9 people shared a birthday, were the same age and had made no posts. They are all typically in their 20s.

This spam is becoming a real pain in the a**e. Adverts for everything under the sun in every language under the sun. Now a post for reverse phone calls. Virtually every birthday is for someone with a link to a site, 6 or 8 people frequently share the same birthday, all have the same age and have nothing to say about coins. Rant over.

You don't mean that, do you? 1893?

There has to be £2 worth of coins in that lot. At less than 30p per coin you were hardly ripped off. At 15p each plus the 1807 penny for £1.10 it's £2.

Having spent the odd 5 figure sum on an 1808 penny, methinks the owner might realise what he bought.

Why on earth would you hope to get the unique 1808 penny in a job lot of crap off ebay!

If in doubt, buy both. You can always sell the one you don't want.

It's only in the post war years that there has been a tendency to collect a denomination. The first real denomination collection was that of T W Barron, whose collection of crowns was sold in 1906. Prior to that collections were almost exclusively accumulations of almost anything that could be bought. In the 18th and 19th centuries the number of top end collectors would have been much smaller than it currently is, and as a consequence they were able to build truly massive collections encompassing all periods, denominations and countries. The same names keep cropping up when choice pieces are involved, but the also ran material had to be somewhere in relatively minor collections which would be more highly regarded today. Extracting useful information from catalogues of the time is not easy when confronted with a typical lot description such as " Charles I Oxford Mint half-crowns, all very rare varieties and all very fine"! I suppose that the ever restricted collecting fields are the result of a combination of increased prices, a greater number of collectors and a greater interest in specific denominations following the publication of the works of Morrieson, Peck and the like. The latter is crucial to the development of denomination collections as few people have the self-discipline to compile the lists of varieties in the first place, though many will gratefully use the fruits of their labours. Any restricted collecting field will become a standard reference if pursued in depth. Thus, not only do you see Peck, ESC, etc references in catalogues, but increasingly you will find notes such as Adams or Bamford lots as a reference for pennies, or Cooke numbers for farthings as examples. Brady will undoubtedly become one of these references as it was a comprehensive collection of hammered groats in the same way that the former have. These are often supplemental references to the major ones which invariably have holes - each and every reference being incomplete from day 1. An additional benefit accrues from the illustrating of present day catalogues which until 10 years ago was a major undertaking. Modern computer programming has been a real boon in this area, as it has provided a cheap method of showing coins virtually in the flesh compared to the previous need to rely on frequently inadequte descriptions. This should not be underestimated in its significance as people will spend more on an item they can see.

I'm no expert on that period and reign at all. But what is that piece? Just from the illustration it looks like a hybrid between late hammered and very early milled. But of course it can't be - it must be one thing or the other. The last issue of Charles I Tower mint shillings with mm. sceptre which according to the notes on p.xxii in Brooker ran from 15/2/1647 until 9/11/1649. Choose your own four letter adjective for the typical quality of mint output at this point in time. Any round sceptre coin with full, well struck detail is desirable.

Allan Davisson had a reasonable example of this in his last sale, though short of the Hughes coin. Sceptre shillings on a full flan and struck up well, particularly the last type are not so easy to acquire.

£22 postage looks a little excessive!!! Must be for the insurance as 1927 pure silver coins are like hens teeth They could be in pure silver because the picture shows the obverses of two identical pieces. If they were different there would be more reason to be suspicious about the pure silver claim, but as we are talking copies they could have been made yesterday and so the description must be taken at face value. I though silver was debased to 0.500 in 1920? It was. 2 identical obverses means either they can't be genuine, or a copy and paste. If not genuine, then as copies they could easily be 925 silver - god, it's no good when you have to explain. I thought you would have seen through it, or maybe I should have used a different emoticon.