Peckris

Aardhawk, A bit of a cheek, I know, but any chance that you could scan the articles and email them to me? I'm trying to definitively work out the series of 10ps through the 60s and 70s and am finding it a nightmare given that there is Davies, Wiles and Mackenzie and Ron Stafford's attempts, all of which are different, and sometimes changed as new discoveries were made!! Sealy's view would be another layer of information, but might help clarify what I have done already. Alternatively, can you identify which issues of Coin and Medals have these articles in them, as this could allow me either to find them on the web for sale, or I could approach the publisher to see if they have them in an archive and if so whether I can consult them? Somewhere, I have a Ron Stafford survey from circa 1980, where he reviews the numbers of each obverse and reverse, by date, found in a fairly large sample. Unfortunately, as far as I remember, it doesn't detail the actual differences, presumably because he must have thought that any reader who cared would have kept the original article? (I never actually had the original sadly). If this is any use I could scan and upload it for you.

Mine is a series of related database files, each file consisting of a number of layouts and scripts - and it's all in FileMaker Pro. I'm assuming this would not be any use?

Yes Dave - thanks for that. I'd not realised that the difference was between London and Llantrisant. It means much more work must have been done at London, and for longer, than I'd thought?

No, I believe the 1972 set is lower mintage than 1971? The Mint generally reacted to demand, and while demand was very high for 1970 and 1971, it dropped later. But clearly it was still high enough to produce more year sets. Somewhere, I do know there are mintage figures - in fact, possibly in CCGB from before Chris took it over? They didn't - they were only produced for the 1984 sets.

Here is the coin. Hope it comes out OK. Beautiful! The reverse is almost as good as my 1919H - and the obverse is WAY better (On my 19H the obverse die was clearly still only in use with the help of a zimmer, Churchill stairlift, and Viagra)

Very good question! As my 45-year coin comparative values reference is based entirely on Seaby/Spink, that's the source I use. It's just that these days I take them with a hefty pinch of salt Also bear in mind that insurance companies use Spink too. I take an average of 4 to value the coins in my own collection: Tony Clayton British Coins Market Values Spink CCGB I update each one that's a physical book every other year, and Mr Clayton does his own updates. For coins I'm selling, I use my own historical records, corrected for grade, so a coins value is what I reckon I could get for it, based on what I've got for that particular date/variety in the past. Huge databases are half the fun of being a coinie! I agree with you apart from Coins Market Values - I've usually found them to be a bit "under" for values?

Aadhawk, Thank you for this. I think this now explains my confusion very nicely. Davies, in his book, only describes a single obverse type (obverse 3) for the 1969 10p yet my own example is clearly obverse 2 i.e. it has no incuse lines in the eyebrow or hair. I assumed, therefore, that Davies' explanatory notes must be the wrong way round. However, now that you confirm that there are two types of 1969 10p, it becomes clear that Davies' was describing the obverse 3 version in his book and, therefore, his descriptions are correct as far as they go. Equally clearly, he must not have been aware of the obverse 2 type, or he would presumably have included it in his catalogue system. Once again, thanks for helping clear this up. One other thing I'm interested in (really geeky this, probably no-one else will be!) is the difference in finish that was used - I think starting from 1969? All 1968 cupro-nickel - if I remember correct - has what you would call a 'silk' or 'semi matte' finish, which to my mind was gorgeous. Many 1969 coins, including possibly ALL the 50 pences?, have this too but some 1969s brought in an uglier mirrored finish. The mirrored look gradually took over until by the early 80s all cupro-nickel had it. Certainly by the mid-70s all 10p's were mirrored, but I'm sure I remember seeing 5p's dated 1978 - 1980 that may have still had a silkier finish? I've never been quite sure what the Mint's thinking was on this.

Very good question! As my 45-year coin comparative values reference is based entirely on Seaby/Spink, that's the source I use. It's just that these days I take them with a hefty pinch of salt Also bear in mind that insurance companies use Spink too.

My understanding is that banks will change them.

Rob's reply shows just how subjective this issue is. Though one thing we'd all agree on at the outset : you can forget what sellers on eBay say (I think you already have those sussed out!) I would personally say that a coin that numbers in the hundreds, is very rare. So might the average collector, trying to chase down a 1934 Crown (hundreds minted). There are so many imponderables, it isn't true: 1. Popularity : a 1919KN penny is scarce only really, but is highly popular, so could be advertised as "rare" 2. Comparative mintages : a 1940 "single exergue line" penny is common, but accounts for only 1 in 20 of the usual, and even scarcer in BU; it is therefore comparatively rare only; similarly with 1957 "calm sea" halfpennies. 3. Condition : some common coins become genuinely scarce in BU (1954 halfcrowns) or rare (most Edward VII halfcrowns). Some scarce coins (1926ME pennies) are unimaginably rare in BU, likewise Cartwheel twopences. 4. Varieties : range from barely scarce (1902LT pennies) to incredibly rare (1862 pennies with die numbers) - popularity generally determines how the rarity level will be described That's only scratching the surface. As far as challenging dealers is concerned, you'd be hard put to find valid grounds, for the reason that "rarity" is subjective and you couldn't build a legal case on it. Only if the rarity description implied it was a variety which it turned out not to be (for example "rare variety of 1926 penny", when it wasn't an ME), might you have a case. I'd judge a coin sale on precise identification, condition, appearance, and price. General description wouldn't move me one jot.

Supposedly there are some scarce varieties of the thing - but really, compared to some of the early large 10p's, they just aren't, not really. (But to be fair, I'm also simply not interested in them - I think they are ugly little things compared to the large ones!)

1. Most of my better coins are in three cabinets : one fairly large, one small, and one tiny. The proof sets and modern RM issues are stored loosely (the packaging keeps them away from the atmosphere). Coin albums are a decent alternative, so are 2" coin flips, just make sure they aren't PVC. General principles : keep coins in a dry, salt-free environment - if any hint of dampness, use packets of silica gel near the coins and reheat them fairly regularly. 2. For general identification and valuing of British coins : Spink's "Standard Catalogue" published annually, but Chris Perkins' "Coin Collectors GB" series is great value for coins from 1797 on. Reference : Peck (copper and bronze), Freeman (Bronze), Gouby (bronze pennies), ESC (silver milled), Davies (silver varieties from 1816). If you need those names expanding, just shout. 3. Since 1994 I've developed my own bespoke series of related database files in FileMaker Pro - this has evolved into a pretty awesome set of applications if I say so myself! Scanned coins appear in the master records; I have a comparative set of coin prices from 1966; I can interrogate auction lots to see when sales plus purchases for me go into an overall profit; I can see coins bought by year, by supplier, by location, by value, by reign, etc etc; I can input prices annually and perform a set of calculations for all coins including mid-grade items, to update the values; I can print out tables in many many ways; that's just for starters. However, you can get by with any database manager to get you started. The fields you should start with : Date, Denomination, Reign, (Metal), Condition, Variety, Price paid, Where bought, Date bought, Current value, Quantity, Location (storage), Date sold/disposed, Price realised, To whom.. You will also need a general Comments field (or more than one), and maybe you might wish to record the legend? You don't actually need a Database Manager tool to start with - you could start a simple coin organiser using e.g. Excel spreadsheet. These can be imported later into a DM with the column headers > Fields, and the rows > records. There are probably off-the-shelf coin applications - I bought one back in my PC days, and I will just say this : however well-written they are, there WILL come the day when it can't do what you want, and then you're stuck.

I could have sworn I'd replied to this. I'm sorry Peckris, but I'm afraid my 'any offers' was purely rhetorical, this is actually the best KN I've got! Nonetheless, I did re-tone it as above. My logic was that as the most plausible explanation for carbon spots is that somebody sneezed in the coins vicinity, then if I could control the process I should be able to make nature work for me, and amazingly it did. I even left a little bit of untoned metal in the obverse legend. The reverse is absolutely spot on, but there are one or two small patches on the obverse. I suspect I should have rubbed over the entire coin with solvent before I started. When I get time I will post a photo. Sure! My best KN is a 1919KN in really strong Fine - the kind of coin that would have fetched a fiver a few years ago, but would probably go for £25 on the 'Bay nowadays ...

Sadly, this kind of accumulation tends to clog up the mid-range auction houses, and dealers who sift through them to bid on estimated weight, or estimated silver content, or both, rather than any numismatic consideration. But if you want some local advice - arm yourself with a copy of Coin News which should be available from any larger branch of W H Smith. They have adverts and classifieds from most active dealers, plus news of any events countrywide, plus contact details for coin clubs.

Yes, but not for badly worn coins. I did greatly improve a 1918KN in GVF which somehow had lost its tone, by spitting on it and leaving it on the window sill for a summer. Any offers? Sure - would you mind having a blood test first please? Seriously, if you're open to offers ... if you DM me pictures of it, maybe we could talk?

I know that I have some 10p's with the incuse line above the eye, but whether 1969 or not, I have no idea as it would mean going through a whole stack of early 10p's which I simply haven't sorted by different obverses and reverses. Sigh. I suspect it's a job for another day. Though I have lot more time for those big 10p's than I do for those seriously yawn-making small ones, 1992's included.

Cotton wool would leave tiny almost invisible hairline marks on a mirrored proof field - you really do have to treat those with the proverbial kid gloves. The more mirrored the surface, the more it's likely to show any contact. Think of a camera lens, then think of an ordinary bottle - the former shows marks much more easily.

Technically they are not rare - but I suppose a vendor could argue that ANY early bun penny in that grade is rare. I'm not convinced myself - though I'm sure the penny is a reasonable buy at the price.

Hmm, the catalogue lists a Penny issued in 1813, but no Farthing (closest date is 1839) and the image used to illustrate the halfpenny is identical to my coin. It's likely to be the Halfpenny then? Yes, quite probably. I'm afraid I'm not an expert on IOM coins but I do have a worn 1798 somewhere, and I THOUGHT it was a farthing, but indeed it could be a halfpenny. Though I'm still puzzled why it's only the same size as a bronze 1/2d

Yes, my vote would be for a flaw too.

It says in the sellers text that its EF/Unc, i'd go along with that, i'm just not a copper buyer, but for something rareish i'd make the exception, he also has a 1 penny 1863 UNC and he also says it's rare but i'm wondering why, i'll upload the pix and hopefully someone could tell me 1860 halfpennies are the only 'beaded border' bronze denomination where the beaded variety is notably less scarce than the toothed variety. Toothed 1860s are even more scarce than the price guides indicate, and actually rare in top grade. The 1863 penny is a nice looking coin, but it is one of the commonest early dates for bronze bun pennies - in fact, unless rare varieties, 1860 - 63 are as common as you get until the 1880s. ALL buns are collectible in that grade though, so it's worth a punt if the price is right. (There are a couple of immensely rare 1863 varieties, but that isn't one). The penny is €160 and the half is €65 That's .. . what ...? £120 the penny and £45-£50 the halfpenny? I'd say that's a fair price for the penny (it looks AU lustre?), or very fair if you believe the prices in eBay at the moment. The halfpenny is a weak strike obverse, and has what looks like a disfiguring fingerprint on the reverse, so I'm less sure about that. I wouldn't want to pay more than EF for it, which CCGB gives as £35. Your call though.

It says in the sellers text that its EF/Unc, i'd go along with that, i'm just not a copper buyer, but for something rareish i'd make the exception, he also has a 1 penny 1863 UNC and he also says it's rare but i'm wondering why, i'll upload the pix and hopefully someone could tell me 1860 halfpennies are the only 'beaded border' bronze denomination where the beaded variety is notably less scarce than the toothed variety. Toothed 1860s are even more scarce than the price guides indicate, and actually rare in top grade. The 1863 penny is a nice looking coin, but it is one of the commonest early dates for bronze bun pennies - in fact, unless rare varieties, 1860 - 63 are as common as you get until the 1880s. ALL buns are collectible in that grade though, so it's worth a punt if the price is right. (There are a couple of immensely rare 1863 varieties, but that isn't one).

It depresses me immensely that you have come back to this forum without apparently reading any of the above reply I gave you, over which I spent quite some time and care. I've nothing more to say. Goodbye.

I'm assuming that these coins are all "scrap"? I.e. not in any condition that would raise their status to "collectible"? (You could scan the 1904 shilling anyway, and upload it for us to see but I suspect it is probably F or less). The 1904 is scarce-ish in lower grades, but all the other coins are pretty common, assuming you don't have rare varieties of 1921 shilling. Even so, the silver value of those coins is considerably in excess of £5 so it WAS a good investment! Chris Perkins may pop in to advise what the current buying in price is for 50% silver (which most of those are)?

Mat, your argument is unsound. You cannot apply Trading Standards law to antique price guides. House prices (which by the way, themselves do not form any kind of 'standard' compared to a tin of beans, a gallon of petrol, or a unit of electricity) cannot be compared to coin values. There is an 'intrinsic' value to a house, which as any surveyor and insurance company will tell you equates to the "cost of rebuilding". Yes, as you point out, advertising and the process of buying and selling may well fall under regulations, but price guides do not, and never will, for the simple reason that they are not "offers to sell", they are simply guide prices. I'm not sure why you have a bee in your bonnet about Spink? That guide is NOT a Spink creation, but was authored and devised by BA Seaby who ceased coin trading long before they sold the title to Spink. The format and content of the "Standard Catalogue" is much as it was under Seaby, though with more additions, e.g. modern varieties. It is used by insurance firms, by dealers, by collectors, or as a general public reference. Yet at bottom, its prices cannot ever be guaranteed. Coins are intrinsically worth only their metal content. Above that, they are worth only what collectors are prepared to pay, and if that is over or under "book price" then so be it. Different sales, different parts of the country, different dealers, different days, different buyers, different competition, even different times of the year or traffic conditions en route to auctions or even the weather, will all conspire to form a huge variety of prices for any given coin. What hope for any price guide compiler to cope with that? What MIGHT be useful is if guides like Spinks gave a RANGE of values for a given coin condition, but that would be unwieldy and would result in a book twice its present size. And since Spink are the oldest existing coin dealers and one of the biggest and founder members of the BNTA (the industry body of which you speak), isn't it better that they, rather than some fly-by-night, produced the Standard Catalogue?