Rob

I'm looking for a single example of a token in mint state with the denomination noted and payable at a specific location. i.e. one that was actually issued for use by a business rather than the endless mules issued for collectors. This issue would fit the bill perfectly. If you have a mint state one and want to sell, that would only leave 206 to go.

I collect both hammered and milled and appreciate what you are saying and understand the price will be determined in all instances by supply and demand. The problem is the over-generous use of rarity. 1934 crowns are probably the classic example. Always described as rare, 934 struck, most still in existence and peddled through sales on a regular basis. In terms of absolute rarity, they aren't rare at all as many larger sales have one, so even if you don't get one today you should be able to get one in a couple of months at most if you are willing to pay the price which is determined solely by the larger number of collectors compared to pieces available. 1936's appear less often despite numbering nearly 3 times that for 1934. You pay less because there were more struck, but disproportionately less when compared in absolute numbers. We also have to get away from the assumption that rare equals not available within a 5 minute search on the net. If everything was available in an instant, all collections could be formed immediately.

There will be some pieces stashed away that only resurface every 50-100 years, but most collectable pieces are in a situation whereby they tend to be recycled on a more regular basis as collectors die. Most coins with previous references tend to be identifiable within the next 20-30 years at most, so it is possible to get a feel for absolute rarity. It is easier for hammered simply due to the irregularity of flans which aids identification. The point I'm making is that rarity attributions are usually off the cuff statements without reference to any evidence. A quick perusal of the first 10 pages currently going off on ebay gave 24 lots with an indication of rarity - 2 were very scarce (4 x brass 3d scarce dates & a 2008 £2 Olympics); 3 were very rare (1934 & 1936 farthings plus a lot of 15 x £2 coins) and the other 19 were rare, comprising 4 lots of 2011 50ps, 2 small lots of Elizabeth II 1/-s, 1884 farthing, 1806 1/2d, 1934 2/6d, 9x 1988 £1, 1988 £1, 1854 1d, Darwin £2, 1985 50p, 10 x 50p, 2010 50p, 1929 farthing, 1938S 1/- and an 1853/2 1/2d. The latter was based on the fact that there were no dots on the shield and so was rev. A which is noted for 1852 and not 1853, though the image begged to differ. Even though the seller is wrong, this was the only example that showed any attempt at rationalising the claim. None of these could be described as rare, with the least common probably being the 1934 2/6d. Most claims of rarity are spurious and without foundation. You have to do your homework, whether buyer or seller. Rare, particularly in the case of ebay usually means rare for one hour only as another similar rarity will be along in a short while. Genuine rarity or scarcity can only be ascertained after a period of monitoring or research and in most instances will only ever give relative rarity.

At this point it is probably worth putting some flesh on the bones of a real example. Recently I compiled a list of illustrated Exeter & Truro crowns in order to identify which dies were common or not and which examples were worth acquiring. There is a large variation in the numbers of particular die combinations. The Besly numbers are used for each die combination. There are 4 obverse dies and 31 reverses. Quick pointers are that A1 is the Truro, B2 is the 12 scroll reverse Exeter, C3-7 the undated Exeters, C8 the 1644 date divided by mark, C9-15 the 1644 left of mark, C16&17 Rose/Ex, D16&17 Tower/Ex, D18 Tower/Rose 1645, D19-31 1645 Tower mark. The numbers are for identifiably different examples. Not included are those in museums or specific references which identify the variety but without illustration or corroborative provenance. In the case of readily identifiable varieties the numbers below have considerable but unquantifiable scope for upwards revision. A1 102 B2 10 C3-21, C4-11, C5-7, C6-14, C7-8, C7a-4 (not recorded by Besly). Total 65 C8-12 C9-15, C10-2, C11-16, C12-5, C13-11, C14-18, C15-7. Total 76 C16-12, C17-4. Total 16 D16-8, D17-14. Total 22 D18-7. D19-7, D20-18, D21-16, D22-16, D23-7, D24-8, D25-5, D26-7, D27-7, D28 doesn't exist, D29-10, D30-9, D31-6. Total 116. As you can see, some die combinations are out and out rare, whilst some are in reality very common. It goes without saying that all would be described on ebay as rare, but with over 100 Truros and 1645 tower mark Exeters available to collectors this is clearly not the case. At the individual die combination level and at the other end of the scale is the C10. Cooper had a fairly dire example and was the only one recorded by Besly. The other is virtually as struck and was in the Rowley Butters collection sold at St. James's a couple of years ago - that's rare. The problem is that rare, scarce, common or whatever are used indiscriminately by buyers and sellers as a negotiating feature rather than being based on evidence. I would be interested to know who would have considered which types to be rare and which ones common based simply on the readily available info in references and from personal obvservation. What guesses would have been hazarded based on intuition? As most rarity attributions seem to be based on perception - honest answers only please.

If you are numerate it doesn't matter what base you count in.

Looks like 10+J to me. Te only differences I can see are a slight variation in the size and extent of the gap between shield & drapery and possibly on the drapery detail above the 74. The berries aren't the clearest on the top image, but appear to agree. Different thickness numerals isn't important. Presumably the Heaton dies were made at the Tower mint, in which case this would be either one they forgot to add the H or maybe they had made sufficient dies to serve Heaton and this stayed at the Tower for future deployment. Maybe it's the only no H reverse die, but can't answer that.

I agree entirely. The question in the original post asks for reasons why it should not be post mint work, which is a much more difficult theory to support.

That's a hard one. The weight is too much for a normal penny blank. The only thing that might suggest it is genuine would be an exact fit for the alloy composition when compared to a known mint product. 1879 isn't the same as 1965 when various mules, off metal strikes and mistrikes were produced, so there should probably be a good correlation with known alloys. I don't know how much non-British output for the empire or coins for foreign governments was done by the RM in 1879, but I would expect at least some empire coinage to be struck there. Therefore, does the weight match any known empire piece for the date?

The only issue I have with it is why there isn't a '0' on the end of the sentences. And if we did it every time, we might clear these kinds of people away permanently, leaving the country a whole lot nicer place to live. The physical (extended) article arrived through the letter box today. Now I'm in receipt of a few more facts (assuming the reporting is true) I'm inclined to agree with you. The person assualted has brain damage and can't write or perform tasks safely with his hands such as making a cup of tea. The two offenders had 14 and 3 convictions respectively since 2002. 2 years is ridiculous, and why you can't take previous behaviour into consideration beggars belief. If I pick up a speeding ticket or tickets, they take those previous convictions into consideration and if enough points have accumulated I get banned. I'm clearly more dangerous to society than someone who is liable to assault you without warning or due reason.

You missed the word 'under' out.

All that's missing is a pair of suitable adjectives for forenames... link Damning endictment of our dysfunctional society though.

I'm glad to say that my computer doesn't know how to find or use facebook. Thankfully there is minimal photographic evidence available of me doing things that I would later regret.

If you are coming to the UK in July there is also the York fair at the Racecourse on the 3rd Friday & Saturday of the month.

Yes - so we can count in twelves. The thumbs aren't irrelevant.

There are some where I have paid well over. Picking one up at York this Friday.

Hammered 1819 over 8 halfcrowns? Make an offer for the coin in the opening post on this thread - fits the criteria at 7 & 12 o'clock. ... Or should this be in a different thread?

The Adams coin was ex BDW 8 lot 388 where described as thought the only known example - a statement that usually brings out a few more. The coin sold for £900 hammer and was graded EF. I don't know if that was the same coin referred to by Gary as VF, but if so Adams 602 is certainly better than that and looks EF in the catalogue. Another example in EF passed through Spink in a private sale (Nov. 2001) for considerably more, but the Adams coin is probably a fairer assessment of value as it was an open competitive sale which the other wasn't. I've a vague recollection of seeing another lower grade coin, but don't have any records as I don't follow them, having no great interest. Mintage you've no chance with as yearly figures are the closest you will get, if available at all. Individual die mintages are only ever going to be available for trials, patterns or proofs and even then you will be struggling.

And lets not forget Chris' book, CCGB has some more realistic prices and comes in pocket size I mentioned CCGB in the first line of the list. As to pricing, nobody can give anything more than a ballpark figure. Many coins are available at a range of prices at any one time, usually dependant on the price paid by the seller - i.e. marked up by a certain margin unless acquired on the cheap in which case whatever you think you can get for it. Realistic prices are a personal preserve and will vary from one person to the next in line with their willingness or lack thereof to part with their money, or whether they have specific pieces in mind. The latter are more likely to have a grasp of pricing in their chosen area having missed out in the past.

Don't buy it, get it free from the stables. Speaking of which, reminds me of the time when I carted a wheelbarrow full of free pigs**t home from the other side of town when I was young. The looks of disdain were a wonder to behold as I slopped my way through the town centre.

That's probably because dealers would offer a more realistic price.

The last one was in 2000. There are no plans to do another according to what I've heard. It's a reasonably decent reference, but like all such publications has its limitations and obviously all pricing is irrelevant.

My son's school library was recently sent a copy of "the Phoenix" which is Coincraft's sales paper. I can't believe the prices or for that matter the content. Front page news is the announcement that they have purchased about 380,000 predecimal coins and are selling pouches of 65 coins for just £28.50 including a Churchill crown, silver 3d, and 1 each of a Victoria, Edward VII and George V penny. Inside the paper you can get a scratched grotty John penny for £145, or a WWII set of brass threepences in average circulated condition for £7.95, or a very good 1797 2d for £50. Anyone for 1968 date sets at £9.95 when you can't give them away? Who buys these things? On the only occasion I've been into the shop, I saw a 1942 Ag 3d for £125 and walked out again. Tourists must get stung, badly.

Probably, please explain more. Because it's only a VF commonwealth penny of which there are invariably examples for sale on ebay at any one time. Latest Spink price on these is £80 in VF which is about right. £207 is somewhat OTT even if it is a reasonable example. I'm still in the dark as to why so many people pay twice what they would if they got it from a dealer, be it a website, off a list or at a fair. It doesn't make sense. If I listed one in that grade at 3 figures it would stay unsold. An Aberystwyth penny in comparable grade sold in the last online CNG sale for less and there's probably only been one other example for sale in the last 12 months - I know what is the better buy.

Has everyone taken leave of their senses? link

The rename utility program makes no difference as it appears that the new pathway is that set in the autorecover mode within excel. The original paths can still be set if new data is entered. Is there any way to change the autorecovered path links other than doing it individually? I've tried replicating the error by entering a new bit of data into an excel page with only one other entry and shutting down without saving, but it still keeps the correct location for the previously entered data