Rob

None of the copper coins in slabs bought for myself have come out in spots. The slabs have a problem though - they tend to crack and split and come apart into a few pieces.

Davies is British Silver Coins since 1816 by P J Davies. It goes into more detail on die differences than ESC (English Silver Coinage since 1649) which only has the most obvious varieties, but covers a shorter period. Your interests are labelled as shillings, pennies and halfpennies, but the books most suited to you will depend on the dates covered and so only some of the books mentioned will be of use. For pennies and halfpennies then the bible is Peck which covers 1558-1963 in the second edition (1964). Slightly more specialisation is found in Freeman's The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain (2nd.ed 1985 or 2006 reprint). Pennies are studied in depth in Michael Gouby's The British Bronze Penny 1860-1970. Hammered halfpennies are covered by Paul & Bente Withers excellent 5 volumes of Small Change covering Edward I-Commonwealth. Dave Groom has produced a book on the "Identification of English 20th century Silver Coin varieties" and another on the bronze, but this covers only post 1900. Generally speaking, the greater the detail, the shorter the period covered. This list is not exhaustive. All of these books have something to offer, and so it really depends on your chosen area. This was recently discussed in the Oooh err, hmmm section link

The date spacing on any coin prior to 1879 is due to the fact that the dies were finished with the addition of the last two digits by hand. The footnote on p.135 of ESC refers. If you look through past sales you will find that pennies and other denominations exist with only partial dates such as a copper 18 penny, or the 181 half crown. True wide or narrow dates are uniformly spaced so. Thanks Rob so its just a normal.Sorry new to all this some members seem a bit sharp Thanks again In my opinion, undue attention is paid to the position of the last digit or two of the date given we know they were hand made. It's ok as part of a die study for a series as it is one of the few ways to readily identify different dies, but for the average or new collector this is not really relevant. To go back to the previous point, here are a couple of images from another thread. 1862 halfpennies with different end spacing and Wide and narrow date 1876H halfpennies. The first is a random result and although technically a variety, it arose by pure chance. The second is a design feature as the dates on both are equally but differently spaced, and most importantly of all consistently so between nominally identical dies.

The date spacing on any coin prior to 1879 is due to the fact that the dies were finished with the addition of the last two digits by hand. The footnote on p.135 of ESC refers. If you look through past sales you will find that pennies and other denominations exist with only partial dates such as a copper 18 penny, or the 181 half crown. True wide or narrow dates are uniformly spaced so.

ESC 1338E yes that is right not no line .shorter or longer line thanks .going down right track now No problem, my thought processes were malfunctioning too - I hadn't considered faulty question as an option.

Well done. Living proof that if you want to obtain a rarity, best is to publicise an example of something unrecorded in any literature and suddenly the whole world has one too. 2 dies as a minimum means there will be more out there somewhere.

What is the reference for the no line shilling? Spink doesn't list one. Davies lists 3 varieties - cross to bead, cross to space and SHILLING more spaced. No mention of what would be a blindingly obvious missing line below SHILLING though. ESC lists a shorter line which is the same visual effect as a more spaced SHILLING. Coincraft hedges its bets and in footnote 10 says lettering and line length varies. I've never seen or heard of one. The immediate reaction would be that no line below shilling is most likely due to a blocked die or it has been physically removed.

Don't worry Michael, it's not that bad, just that opinion is quite divided on this forum just as with most collectors on the issue of slabs. Americans (the idea originated in the US), are great exponents of the slab, but even there you find a division between the adherents and the heretics. For most it boils down to registry sets, where various collectors are vying for the highest average grade score for the series - hence the desire by some for ever bigger numbers on the slab. This should not be confused with eye appeal as a more attractive coin may well grade lower. Good to know there are young collectors out there. First reaction to the fact that he is 9 is that a top grade copper coin is probably safer in a slab than in the hands of a 9 year old because it is all too easy to put finger or thumbprints on full lustre coins and there is no way to get rid of them. The issue of protection is the main benefit of them in most eyes around here. At least he has started with a nice easy series to collect with no real rarities in the currency pieces and they are cheap to acquire, so upgrading whether in a slab or not wouldn't be prohibitively expensive.

Just looked at the finest known section and there isn't a 1938 farthing listed, so God knows if they've actually graded any yet - but if not, I've no intention of being the guinea pig who throws a lot of 1938 farthings at them in the hope of getting back an 88 or a 90. I would suggest that those who desire a slabbed 1938 buy the raw coins and pay for the likely stream of submissions with inadequate grades. Losses should be possible to minimise as it isn't rocket science to grade a coin in most instances, which begs the question why we need to get grading company approval in the first place?

Point taken, but you might have a problem finding people willing to submit coins for slabbing - particularly low value pieces. It's the wrong mindset for most on this forum. Not unreasonably, most take the view of why pay someone for an opinion when they themselves are perfectly capable of assessing a coin's grade. And if you do send it off to CGS in the hope they will slab it with the right number for you and it comes back at less than you are looking for, then they have wasted money. Multiple submissions of cheap coins hoping you will get one back with a high grade label is gambling with the odds stacked quite heavily against you. That's silly. You can get away with recouping costs for lower numbers on more valuable coins, but nobody is going to submit a coin worth a tenner in the hope that it comes back with the right label. In all probability it will still be worth a tenner, even though it has cost you £20 or 30 to get "official approval".

Should get a healthy premium for the latter - much, much rarer than the slabs.

The US reference Krause states that up to 1981 all coins were struck with an inverted die axis, which is presumably what you mean with your question. The 1943 1SFr is therefore correct. In 1982 there was a changeover to medal alignment and so the 2SFr coin may or may not be anomalous depending on the date - which you haven't provided.

He certainly doesn't like full stops, does he. It's the "sorry for the grammer it should read a little batterd" that gets me. It's always funny to see anything corrected with yet another misprunt (sic).

It's the bit at the end I find funny. link That's an apology for an apology

Master broke? Punch used on the earlier coins unserviceable? Who knows? You could ask the RM why the change was made as if anyone is going to answer the question it has to be the people who made it.

You might have to wait a bit more than 5 years for a Cromwell if it means you aren't going to buy your regulation 2 coins a year. It books in this year's Spink at £3750 EF. Mint state you would be looking to pay at least £6-7K with stiff competition for it to that level. It could even go higher with the right eye appeal.

Well, presumably he was responsible for the condition of the coin as his id proudly states. What is more worrying is that it has 4 bids already. Still under melt price though Rob (which is where I suspect it is heading). Hopefully that will be its final destination - for the benefit of all.

Well, presumably he was responsible for the condition of the coin as his id proudly states. What is more worrying is that it has 4 bids already.

It isn't a mule because the obverse changed in this year. A mule occurs when 2 dies that were not intended to be used together are in fact utilised eg. the 20p with no date, or the 1711 3rd bust shilling. In the case of the latter, the 4th bust was introduced on Anne's shillings in 1710 and so the use of the preceding obverse die in 1711 would not be expected. I have no idea what you two are talking about. I've just checked Check Your Change and Chris only lists a single type. There was an obverse change in 1985, and again in 1998. There was not, to my knowledge, in 1992! Dave Groom's book p.210-211 refers.

It isn't a mule because the obverse changed in this year. A mule occurs when 2 dies that were not intended to be used together are in fact utilised eg. the 20p with no date, or the 1711 3rd bust shilling. In the case of the latter, the 4th bust was introduced on Anne's shillings in 1710 and so the use of the preceding obverse die in 1711 would not be expected.

Start off with a type example across the date range you want to collect. It will give diversity even with a small population of coins in the cabinet and will give you food for thought as to where you want to expand.

No question. Always buy the best you can afford. Work harder, earn more money and be able to afford the rarer ones, but don't drop standards as it's false economy. When the time comes to sell, nobody wants a selection of badly worn coins as the auction rooms are full of low grade accumulations. A top grade coin will always find a new home. There are exceptions to collecting low grade material such as if you are conducting a census or doing a die study. Collecting low to middle grade material also leads to the numismatic equivalent of mission creep. Say you have a dozen coins in VF or thereabouts. If you then acquire a coin close to EF for just a fraction more than you have paid for the rest, you compare the nicer coin and decide to upgrade the others. You then have to dispose of the VFs which are not going to be too attractive to a lot of collectors if high grade pieces are readily available and so you have difficulty shifting them and/or you lose money. If you decide to cherry pick nice uncirculated pieces but only make occasional purchases, in all probability you won't feel the need to improve the grades. The down side of doing this is that you get frustrated waiting for the next purchase, or even for a suitable piece to appear. Patience is a definite virtue. A lot of money is spent on ebay overpaying for mid grade coins. Don't fall into that trap. Visit coin fairs, speak to dealers, peruse websites, attend auctions even if you don't buy. Just the act of viewing will stand you in good stead as you will gradually get a feel for what is on offer and how much interest there is in the room for specific items. Ask yourself why two nominally identical items (same denomination, date and listed grade) sell for significantly different prices. Was it eye appeal? Did the lower priced coin have faults such as scratches, nicks etc? Was one cleaned and the other not? All these things will be pertinent the next time the coin is sold, and if you are the next vendor, you owe it to yourself to buy things that others would want too.

The 1548 gold coin is a half sovereign, not a full one. The dated ones (S2436) were struck only at Durham House under the indenture to Sir Martin Bowes some time in the last 3 months or so of the year as the documentary evidence states that the mint wasn't set up until 2nd December.

It is possible there was some sort of trial going on at the mint given that Lavrillier also did a pattern penny in that year. The mint would only make coins depending on demand for the various denominations. This explains the random absences in certain years. I would contest that the 1933 penny wasn't struck simply so the King could place a full set under the foundation stones, because, as you note there is no 1934 florin, yet he will almost certainly have performed opening ceremonies during the year. I don't have an example, but assume he did - correct me if you know anything to the contrary. Moreover, the Royal Mint produced official boxes for the proof sets in this year that were missing the florin, so the decision not to strike any of this denomination was presumably made late in 1933. This should indicate that there was no absolute requirement for a set including each denomination.

Are they on the telly? Second thoughts, don't answer that. My daughter watches crap so she is bound to know.