|
|
The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com |
|
|
Coinpublications.com
Predecimal.com
Rob
-
Content Count
12,602 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
310
Everything posted by Rob
-
1882 H and 1884 Canadian Cents
Rob replied to zookeeperz's topic in Enquiries about Non British coins
You might have to look across the pond for someone similarly obsessed with Canadian coinage. I can only offer what Charlton says which is that 'there are 3 reverses from independently engraved master tools. The provincial leaves 1876-82, Large Leaves 1884-91 and Small Leaves 1891-1901. Four varieties exist for the obverse but their detailed listing is not included in this catalogue'. So methinks you will find something if you dig a bit deeper. -
OK, own up. Which kind soul anonymously posted me an aquatics 50p? Thank you, whoever you are.
-
I think we have two parallel threads here. There is no debate about need for both simple and detailed references, rather the extent to which they should overlap. i.e.These discussions are based around the desired complexity of a simple reference, because the detailed reference can always be expanded to include all information available - that is its raison d'etre. The extent to which varieties are added to a book will be an entirely commercial decision and not based on the whims of individual collectors. It has to be a happy balance of time spent, information conveyed and profitability. Only the last point ensures you have any references at all. There is an argument for dividing the pre-decimal CoE volume into discrete hammered and milled books just as the decimals now have their own volume, but every sub-division increases the cost to return ratio for the publishers as collectors will in many instances only buy one volume instead of the three available. I get copies of CoE to put on the table at fairs and will separate them if someone only wants one volume. Roughly half the book packs I buy for stock are sold as split packs and demand at the tables is such that I never get more than 2 spare copies of either pre-decimal or decimal volumes. i.e. the demand for both sections is roughly equal, notwithstanding the fact that eventually I must sell equal numbers of both parts by default.
-
I think people are getting too exercised over what does and does not get included. There simply isn't the room to include everything to accommodate all interests, and never will be. As it stands, the pre-decimal section of Spink weighs over 1kg. On a practical level I would like to see the weight reduce to below 1kg including packaging for postal reasons, so as far as I am concerned there should be either fewer coins listed, a smaller font size used, or they use less dense materials. In terms of what should be included - this argument will rage indefinitely. If nobody knows of an 1860 6+whatever penny which was removed, then it could have been entered as an unverified opinion. After all, nobody has seen an 1845 crown with star stops yet and that has been in for years, ever since it appeared in ESC. All this huffing about not including a particular variety, which in practical terms is only slight variation from the norm, will if rectified, simply lead to a different form of largely incomplete references. Every denomination really needs a dedicated specialist volume to satisfy the specialist collector, but without a customer base willing to pay for the compilation and publishing costs, it will forever be the preserve of individuals. That is why you need to buy books and then some more. Of all the omissions in CoE, there is only one that I feel really warrants inclusion - the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny. There are many more which I feel could be left out.
-
It has long been a problem. Include one person's variety and you upset someone else who didn't. A big positive from paring it back to the basics would mean there would be far fewer people with Churchill crowns worth £600. It's a circular argument that is intractable - which is something we need to accept. As it stands we have the whole world complaining that the standard references don't have the individual's required info, so let's put the question back to the collector and ask who is going to be the person responsible for making tens of thousands of customised references that conveniently fit in their pockets, and get updated on a regular basis with only the bits they are interested in. I know they won't pay for the service.
-
My gut reaction is to suggest buying a lot of books tailored to your personal interests, as specialist volumes invariably touch on the history as well as the finer detail. As I look at the desk in front of me I see Robin Eaglen's Book on the Abbey & Mint of Bury St. Edmunds, Spink 2018, a privately compiled list of halfcrowns with known examples of each listed with their provenances plus where the owner acquired his own, Challis' History of the Royal Mint, Sotheby's catalogue for the Murdoch sale part III (1903), Pirie's Northumbrian stycas (1995), Krause & Mishler and four books on the history of Chester in the Civil War, all of which make for a fairly eclectic mix of reading material. The big problem is finding a central point for storing all this info. It also goes without saying that not all people agree with an attribution, so who is right? We haven't agreed on what constitutes a variety yet as you will discover if you search the forum.
-
It has grown organically over the past 50+ years. The most obvious ones, or the most popular got included first, but now it is probably down to pressure from an individual whether it gets included given the potential explosion in listings.
-
Because if you listed every variety known to man you would end up with a volume to rival the Encyclopaedia Britannica in size. If you took say the Weyl patterns that I wrote an article on a few years ago, then you have around 100 varieties to add to the book, none of which are currently listed. Withers small change lists the hammered halfpennies in 5 volumes from Edward I to the Comonwealth whereas they currently occupy a few pages in Spink. Maurice Bull's halfcrowns of Charles I also occupy 5 volumes taking up 6 inches of shelf space. See where I'm coming from?
-
I'm not sure the reverse uniface exists - I'm certainly not aware of one. I do know there are at least 2 of these obverse unifaces as Murdoch III lots 417 & 418 both had an example with the first coming from the L C Wyon collection sold in 1901. However, there was wasn't one in Montagu (1890), who had only a full coin dated 1825. That suggests the ESC rating of R4 is way out because it is highly unlikely Montagu wouldn't be able to acquire something with '11-20 known' given he had everything else! This coin was ex-Whetmore 355 and Adams 628 based on the latter's notes from Baldwin, however, following his sale it was entombed and attributed to Lingford on the label. At no point do his notes or any correspondence say Lingford, so I think that was either wrong, or somebody knew something Colin didn't as he had close on a hundred ex Lingford coins and you can't mistake L's tickets. We can say with reasonable certainty that the Barton's Metal patterns were among the last 1824 halfcrowns struck as the die is breaking up.
-
Here's another in case you are bored.
-
Could be an I over a 1, but equally it could be the same punch inverted the second time.
-
I think that is an artefact on a worn coin because the bottom one is higher grade and has a diagonal across the lower E serif, and what would correspond to the tail of the R appears bottom right. Even though we are only looking at one letter, they are both from the same die I think because the repunching looks to be identical.
- 36 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- def
- half crown
- (and 6 more)
-
Colin Adams, Spink 1/12/2005, sale #177
-
There was an nEF example in the Adams sale, 1st Dec 2005, lot 586, also recorded as E over both E & R.
-
I bought the One Centum to tick that denomination box. It was conveniently not in copper, as I already have a 2 Cents in this metal, ex Hopetoun House Collection and a super coin. 'scuse the hair on the scanner
-
The only thing that looks wrong with this one is the price. The letters are usually fish tailed and the obverse is usually slightly convex whereas the reverse is concave, thus protecting the latter's detail. The obverse is usually more worn as a consequence. Mine has similar lettering characteristics. Edited to add, sorry, just realised it is a halfcrown and not a crown, but the principle still applies across multiple denominations.
-
Is that guest mark, or guest marek? I presume you are highlighting your wares? Chris the owner of this forum does albums and accessories - see the top of the page and follow the link.
-
Silver shouldn't go rusty, unless it is deposits from the field
-
I'd be more inclined to think the first. They were making decimal patterns from 1961 to 1963, so a thicker coin relative to diameter than usual as we now see with the pound coin could have been mooted. Though why in silver is a big question mark.
-
Well done. I won the Marrian & Gausby centum pattern. I wanted a few more but got blown out the water. The superb Ormonde crown I had pencilled in at 3500ish, but a hammer of five and a half was a bit much for me. Lot 1203 was a P1205 1798 farthing which I had 1000 on but made 1300. Not too surprised with that as the last one to come around sold for almost £1K hammer 5 or 6 years ago at W&W. It's seriously rare as a variety. Someone had a very nice Moore pattern P2130 which I came second on.
-
I'm still looking for an aquatics to make the full set. Must get off my backside as they can hardly be described as rare.
-
The fair moved from the Cumberland Hotel to the Holiday Inn at Bloomsbury a good few years ago now. Someone will know the dates the fairs are on.
-
1795 Pattern Halfpenny images required
Rob posted a topic in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
I'm looking for any quality images people might have of Peck type R42, i.e. P1052-1056. Any metal will do, but preferably the commonest type which are the bronzed finish. I'm satisfied that the earliest types are the gilt P1052 and brass P1055. Less certain is what subsequently happened to the obverse die as I have 2 bronzed examples with traces of curls below the truncation and one without where this area is devoid of traces of curls. The basic type is as pictured.