Rob

It isn't rocket science though when all's said and done. You are only going to look for something you are aware of; but once you know, a quick check of the date and if 1926 a check on the position of the BM. I haven't got the slightest interest in pennies, but wouldn't have any difficulty recognising one. Whether a date collector or a full-blown variety collector, both would check the date first because it's the most likely gap in the collection. There seems to be a presumption that previous collectors weren't able to recognise the variety, but the information has always been there if they were so minded. The obvious conclusion is that either collectors took no interest in contemporary currency (similar to the attitude of many collectors today regarding current mint output), or that the coins were never that common in the first place. The former is more likely in my view as the great collections in the first half of the 20th century were focussed on hammered coinage of all ages with a smattering of milled thrown in. Lockett sold his milled currency at the end of the 1920's to concentrate on building up the best collection since Montagu and Murdoch. Would he have had a 1926ME penny? I don't know because I don't have a copy of his milled sale, so possibly, but the attraction would have been as great as putting a low denomination 2010 currency piece in your cabinet today. Most collectors of contemporary currency tend to be younger or poorer collectors as this is the cheapest way into the hobby. These are also people who may need to spend their collection on cars or other consumables as they get older or as fate dictates. Several factors mitigated against the hoarding of 1926 pennies such as economic depression, war and significantly, coin collecting became less popular throughout the 1930s compared to the 1920s, possibly as a result of the economic mess. All in all not a happy mix for collecting high grade pennies or indeed for ensuring a good supply of pieces for the future because fully two decades of potential circulation ensued before coin collecting became more popular again.

Spink Numismatic Circular. 1926 p.441 and 1927 p.413 refer. Unfortunately the pages are too big to reduce the file size to less than 150kB if you want image clarity. Another possible reason for their lack of inclusion in contemporary collections is that anybody who collected copper or bronze was considered a bit of an oddball. Even coins such as Soho patterns would be lumped together in bulk lots of dozens whereas today they would be given individual lot status.

Their presence was certainly known within the collecting fraternity from the start. Henry Garside issued a monograph on the subject of British Imperial bronze coins in the Circular. He added to this in the August 1927 circular listing both the old effigy and the new one described as quote " O. - Similar to the obverse of 1, but the King's effigy has been remodelled, His Majesty's hair is treated differently, the eye has a different appearance, the top of the ear is more rounded, the initials BM (Sir Bertram Mackennal, K.C.V.O.), on the truncation of the neck, are more to the right, with less space betwen them, and no stop between and after them. R. - Similar to the reverse of 1, but dated 1926" Garside's list was updated every August. In 1926 this update included only the 1925 halfpenny with the revised reverse. The 1927 update included both types of 1926 penny and the 1927 penny; 1925, 1926 & 1927 ME halfpennies; 1926 & 1927 ME farthings. Therefore we can assume that the ME pennies appeared in circulation after the August 1926 Circular went to press. This would be in keeping with the low mintage for the year irrespective of type and is not unreasonable given there were no pennies dated 1923-5. Rather more surprising is the inclusion of the 1925 ME halfpenny in the 1927 update as this should have been reported in the previous year assuming the update was timely. Whether this means that the 1925 coins were actually issued in 1926 I can not say as I don't know the date the ME dies were first used, but whatever, there is an inconsistency here which needs to be resolved. The Mint Records would be helpful here if anybody has them.

I'm still not convinced about the wisdom of having the provenance information (which is the raison d'etre for the entire exercise) stored in a separate layout away from the main page (or the concordance in yet another). It also begs the question as to what I would put in the main database. It seems more sensible to have everything under one roof rather than in several databases. The only things I store away from this are the images which are systematically named as the standard commonly used detailed classification (eg. Besly or Morrieson die pairings) together with the image sale reference, and stored in clearly identifiable folders giving the mint and denomination. This also allows me to run down the image folders and files in quick time without entering the database if I want to compare an image with one already stored. I don't know if the attached will show up adequately, but it illustrates the 6 columns as used with the individual coin provenance forming the link. As the full sheet displays all the examples I have recorded to date, a quick scan down the list (16 in the case of the Exeter C11 crown) will tell me what to look for. For example, Cumberland Clark 95 I know to be the C11 crown with the 5 legged horse. Click on the box with the provenance and the image pops up. It's simple, but quite effective.

Years is not uncommon on higher end stuff. You need a lot of capital and nerves of steel! Oh and an understanding spouse, bank manager etc Drug dealing would show a quicker return although the results for failure are much worse That is why I try to buy decent coins for selling on that wouldn't look out of place in the collection. If I don't sell them within a reasonable time frame, the temptation to incorporate them in the collection sometimes becomes too great to resist.

Given that nobody knows the exact number produced and all Freeman's (as are every other's) estimates of rarity are numbers based on conjecture to some extent, then maybe the R5 is not a true reflection of reality. Comparing various writers' attributions of rarity values for issues over the past few hundred years, I would say that in general there is a tendency to underestimate the numbers of older coins in existence, but possibly also to overestimate some of the modern rarities. It is quite possible that R5 (50-100K) is in fact an optimistic estimate of the quantity in existence. Given that nobody has a crystal ball or the ability to oversee the entire market, all rarity numbers must be treated with a degree of scepticism. If the market place doesn't bear out the quoted numbers, then it is probably wrong. Freeman based these assessments on his pile mostly accumulated from circulation, but it is equally possible that he was not averse to picking up small batches from markets stalls etc just as we all are today which could bias the numbers somewhat. What I am saying is that there is no guarantee that the sample of approx. 60000 pennies was entirely representative of the numbers in circulation. A parallel conundrum is that of the F465A 1953 proof halfpenny with the 2+B die combination. Mintage of the 1953 proof sets was 40,000. Freeman gives the F465A as R14 (251-500), but apart from my own example I only know of a handful of people with one. I would expect to see a number appearing on ebay, but they don't. You don't see any in auctions, yet they are rare enough to warrant a separate lot. I think you would have to do your own survey and generate your own data to arrive at a rarity with which you feel comfortable. Above all, question anything that is written elsewhere. Whilst there is not likely to be any intention to deceive, the market wants to be given an indication of rarity and the author will attempt to fill the demand. That's human nature. Do your own work and draw your own conclusions.

That's a 'how long is a piece of string?' question. No two coins are the same, some dates are more desirable than others and some denominations are more desirable than others. Coupled with the fact that not all desirable dates for one denomination are the same as those for a different denomination and you can easily see that there is no straightforward answer. The first thing you need to do is acquaint yourself with grades and grading. Get some experience in grading coins and see what they sell for when compared with references such as CCGB or Spink. ebay is not the best indicator of pricing because too many things sell for far more than they should and conversely so. In the case of pennies and farthings, 1849 is a good starting point, though you might take a while to get out of the blocks. Obviously the price to buy for needs to be lower than a selling price, but things starting at an elevated price on ebay frequently don't sell because most buyers are greedy. They want everything for 99p and consequently most will disregard the £100 coin priced at £75 BIN because they live in hope that the seller will give up trying to realise a decent price and offer them the chance of a real steal rather than a bargain.

You are quite right that I don't know all the ins and outs of databases (or spreadsheets for that matter), in fact I find computers incredibly depressing things to use as they frequently don't give me the answer I want - usually because I don't have enough in depth knowledge of a program. All I need is something that I can understand and use easily to provide me with the information I am seeking to collate together with an image of the coin which I can compare with an illustration in another catalogue and so record the new coin within an existing provenance, or I can generate another known example of that type. In the case of the example above I know that its provenance is ex E W Wigan (collection bt by Rollin & Feuardent 1872), H Webb 560, J G Murdoch 194, G Hamilton-Smith (1913) 126, K Vaughan-Morgan 336, V J E Ryan 1307, J R Vincent, J G Brooker 1153, 3 x SNC references, A Morris (from Roddy Richardson) and finally me (from Lloyd Bennett). It is no help to have the details neatly tabulated out of view from my perspective as the list of names immediately tells me which coin it is, just as the auction catalogue will have a list of past owners underneath the description. This is why putting all the names into one box works so well for me. Any system that requires a single field entry for each name dismembers the provenance. Having a link to the image allows me to compare a new catalogue reference with an existing provenance.

Bidders on a limitetd budget wouldn't realistically expect to buy an 1827 1d for a quid or even to be in the running to buy one at all. It's horses for courses. Presumably you wouldn't complain that you had bought a coin too cheaply and if a coin got lost in the post that wasn't insured you would also have to take the loss on the chin. There are two parties to every transaction and both have interests that need to be considered. I send everything out at least signed for. If I didn't then buyers could make a claim on their credit card against me for non shipment of a paid for item and I would end up footing the bill. In the case of Paypal it is even worse because the seller is automatically the guilty party and so there is an even greater incentive to cover your backside.

Why? If you are going to purchase items that are going to cost more than the statutory compensation limit of 100x first class postage, then it is reasonable to insure against loss. OK, in this case it looks like a case of a balls up in the listing because you can't expect the £1 BIN to be intended, but if the price had been listed at a reasonable level, then to cover both seller and buyer against loss or claimed loss would not be outrageous given special delivery is £5.05 up to £500 compensation. It's only excessive if you charge SD postal rates for crap items of minimal value.

I'd go for lower relief which would be easier to block up such that clarity is reduced. Fill a 1mm deep hole to a depth of 0.1mm and you probably won't notice; fill a 0.15mm or 0.1mm deep hole to the same depth and any design will almost or completely disappear.

I've no idea at present as I haven't checked out 1/2 sovs, but will keep an eye open for a reference. They aren't a commonly collected denomination to any depth, so any occurence is likely to be random which is unhelpful when searching catalogues. It's likely to be a Captain Oates moment.

Scott cataloguing these farthings will be an absolute nightmare, I have several that do not fit perfectly into the "varieties listed" but there are that many subtled differences that the page would be about 3 miles long!! I only record those farthings where there is no mistaking the variety, and usually would look for a higher grade example to act as confirmation before adding it to the site. I get numerous submissions daily, and it is a constant battle trying to determine what warrants inclusion and what does not. Spotting the different Obverse on that coin would be impossible. It is determined by the brooch design, and therefore any other subtle differences could not be used as a determining factor without careful comparison against numerous other coins. "so what to do, is this now the offical 9+B? or is this 11+B" I only wish everyone saw my numbering as the official system I understand what you are saying in that it appears to my 9b prior to it having the 3 recut, but because the exact combination could not be determined with certainty from that coin, I would only record it as a potential variety to keep an eye out for, it would not become 11B just yet Herein lies the real difficulty of producing definitive lists of varieties. In the era before reducing machines, every die was punched in by hand and every die will therefore be different. Add in the number of different punches used for what on the face of it is a similar die and you could easily write a 50 page article on just one issue such as the 1771-5 farthings. All of these common early issues would give the same results if accorded the same research. There were a minimum of 50 ship punches used and probably more for the 1799 or 1806-7 Soho halfpennies. All are different varieties as a result. Where do you stop? Probably when you think it is all getting a little silly, but don't worry, there is always someone waiting in the wings to carry the baton to a new level. God - we're a wierd bunch.

I have a bookmarks folder which expands into a column high enough to fill the screen but no more. I therefore tend to add a useful one at the expense of a less used (or useless) one. You remember those that are of use in any case without needing to bookmark.

I can see that if you are only recording a fixed number of data points per item, then Access has to be easier due to its versatility for searching, but in my instance I found it easier with Excel to add in new data due to a variable number of data points for any single coin. Take the example of the unique D23 Worcester 2/6d (Brooker 1153 for those in the dark). I have 14 references to this coin in sales or lists over the past 140 years for which said number may well be increased if I can find the lot bought by the owner who sold it in 1872. Those 14 (or potentially more) individual sales would each require a field if I am to be able to search using the sale date. Many individual coins will only have a single sale reference, but I will still have an image for it in just the same way as I do the coin with the long provenance. Add in the concordance for the various (numismatic) references through the ages which may well number 8 or 10, a brief description of the defining points of the variety, any notes of interest for the coin and you are looking at a Access database that is say 30 fields wide. This is unwieldy compared to what I currently have in place which has only 6 fields - Date, Reference, Variety Identifier, Metal/Mintmark/Moneyer (depends on coin type), Provenance and finally notes of interest such as unique/ so many known/ no of die varieties known for the generic design etc. This isn't searchable, but you would never have to look far as any systematic entry will automatically be in the correct denomination file and listed under the correct monarch or any other chronological attribute even if not dated. So for example, an Exeter C6 will always be cunningly interposed somewhere between the last entry for a C5 and the first C7. It is the guaranteed inconsistency in the number of fields required that made me use Excel and condense them into a single box for multiple data points of the same feature. The only way I can see that this would be improved is if I had some means of sorting the group of coins of an individual die combination into the best known down to the worst, but that isn't a problem until you have a few dozen or more examples imaged.

Nice one. Is it possible to eliminate a forgery? i.e. is there anything to positively link the punches used to known mint output? The fact that you have seen 3 should tell you if they are all from the same die pair. Even if the reverse die is always the same, more than one obverse die used would be highly supportive of an official issue that somehow got used for currency. Forgeries tend to use the same pairs of dies, and if non-standard as in the reverse would be even more likely to be paired with a distinctive obverse die. If the obverse die can be found used elsewhere, this would also help.

If you have a modern computer a 2mb pic on each of the 2000 makes only 2GB in files. Which is only the size of the smallest flash drive you can get these days. Computer hard drives are usually more than 100GB, mine being 240. I think this is supposed to be quicker and more aesthetically pleasing. Also it's more convenient if you are checking all the images of the same year coin for an error you've just read about you can just gently move the mouse down as opposed to opening an unholy amount of windows or tabs. I guess it's horses for courses. All I needed was the ability to compare an image copied off the web or in a book, with those in the database. Having compared images, I either extend an existing provenance and redo the link or create a new entry. Whatever, it would be too much work to modify each entry to a different format.

Before the files got corrupted a month ago, I just converted the text in the box to a link to an image of each coin which I could call up when I wanted. That seemed to be simple enough to operate as it was one box, one coin. The above seems a tad complicated.

Amen

You need an unholy alliance of collectors who record all the varieties they can find within their specified field and individual(s) with a broad knowledge of the overall details and who is/are willing to pull it all together. A specialist will only be able to do a restricted area as a result of self inflicted choice, so it would need a broadly based person to oversee the operation. One problem is that specialists identify new varieties, but don't necessarily communicate that info to the wider collector base as they will usually want to upgrade to a better example before knowledge of it becomes widespread. I think it is fair to say that is something we are all guilty of. e.g Only today I sold a collector a 1748/7 halfpenny. It's the only one I or the new owner have ever seen and apart from the 1742/0 the only other example of a later Geo.II overstruck date halfpenny as far as we are aware. This isn't recorded anywhere, but is a prime example of the sort of information that would have to be dragged into the public arena. Also, some varieties are suspect with no obvious recorded examples in past sales. How to weed these out is problematic. Verification of the previously unrecorded varieties is another important consideration. It's far too easy to claim a new variety, and everybody wants the rarity because they are worth more. You only have to look at the numerous posts on this forum to see that is the case. People see what they want to see, not what they have. Human nature is a bit of a b****r.

Being somewhat flattened, the effigy has been modified - just not in the accepted manner.

Insert the phrase 'it's been in' at the correct point to clarify the description.

Many thanks to all who have taken part in the poll at the beginning of this thread over the past 2 or 3 weeks. As expected, the usual suspects contributed, though a handful of regulars on this forum were notable for their absence. I was hoping for a greater contribution from less experienced collectors, as this would have given an insight into their perception of the hobby, the obstacles they face and the decisions that have to be made when looking for a field or series to collect - all things which long term collectors have mostly forgotten. Serious collectors have obviously got the persistence to look for the information they require, but without sufficient knowledge of where to find the reference material I can see that the easy option is to do nothing, and longer term to lose interest. Clearly the easiest way to get people engrossed in this or any other hobby is to have material at your fingertips which you can refer to or read for pleasure. Perhaps a list of material could be pinned to the top of a forum or two (like a read this first thread) whereby people can know what books to look for. Many visitors are clearly casual ones looking for a single piece of info, but a handful are, or convert to longer term collectors. Looking at the various posts I get the impression that people are on the whole not too dissatisfied with the books that are available. I know we can only use the material at our disposal, but there was no obvious call for a new reference in any one particular field with the best material for the job known to the longer term collector (unsuprisingly). The only revision that has been mentioned in this or other threads is one for farthings. Maybe the farthing collectors would like to give ColinG a nudge in that direction for a future project given Colin Cooke would require a medium and a ouija board to finish his work. If anyone is able to identify a section of the hobby that is inadequately catered for, please speak up, as there might be sufficient enthusiasm to fill that hole.

Good question. I also had one with a fault above the tie knot, which from the discolouration I had put down to someone soldering it to a piece of jewellery or similar. The interesting point is that mine was also 1857, but the mark is in a slightly different place on the two pieces shown being to the left of the bar. The third piece has apparently the same location, but as you say a lamination fault is unlikely. It is possible that there could have been some trapped material which adhered to the die given the identical location from the images. A spanner in the works to this theory is that the dies are different. The clash marks are at different positions on the two reverses and the profile of the 7s appears to be a bit different too.

Those were my thoughts as well Scott. I looked at it and although by no means an expert on shillings it did not look right. The legend is too bulky. I have an 1696 and an 1697 and the lettering seems to be much thinner. I know there are more than one obv types so maybe its just a different obv, like I said no expert! There are so many dies in this recoinage that the thickness of the letters probably isn't an issue. It looks cast because it has pitting, but that could well be because it has been underground. The detail matches ok. The missing ties are not unknown in this period either. The apparent E/A is seen on halfpennies where you frequently see a join between the middle and lower arms of the E. In fact the legend could be made using punches for this denomination. I think it probably is ok, but a weight would be useful. Anything around 5 grams would be dodgy, anything close to 6 ok. An enquiry as to the weight would probably clinch it. A quick comparison of a few pieces suggests the halfpenny punches are maybe 10% bigger in both directions.