Peckris

There's a better one here (I think, anyway - you have to dance between the focus ), currently at £3:71 with a day to go : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/George-III-Cartwheel-Penny-1797/171197744640?rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222002%26algo%3DSIC.FIT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D286%26meid%3D3598341417194591879%26pid%3D100005%26prg%3D1048%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D5%26sd%3D281226504828%26

Interesting. I think some graders would say 'Fine' (the obverse not quite, the reverse a bit over). But we know how our dear friends at London/CGS grade über conservatively!

I think it's also due to the fact they kept on minting them (and shillings) for years, the same is probably true for 1754 copper.

Oh yes - of course! In fact, a plastic set plus a crown could be got for between £15 - £20 the lot.

It's even easier if you're not a gold collector (I'm not). FWIW, there are years much easier than others for beginners to collect non-gold sets for, namely : 1967 (but no shillings) or 1966 1948 1937 1936 1926 Modified, silver 1918 1916 1902 1901 1893 (silver) 1887 Jubilee Head silver, plus 1887 bronze Before then, you're better off looking for easy years for particular denominations rather than trying to put a complete set together.

The trouble is, the market for some of the most obscure and trivial varieties is so small that how could you get a realistic value? Especially if one of the collectors has much more money than sense like the person who bought that 1863 'narrow 3' penny. Others - such as the two kinds of 1905 penny, 1937 penny, 1928 halfcrown, and several others - where the two varieties occur in roughly equal quantities, aren't worth listing as each variety would have the same value. It's a minefield.

There's a problem with that! Countering with my own experiences as a schoolboy collector : the date spacings for e.g. the two types of 1875 penny were striking and obvious to me. On the other hand I never ever found an 1865/3 overdate, and even when I later saw pictures of them, I still couldn't make out the overdate. So it's not really as straightforward as you suggest.

Bah, humbug! Enjoy your Christmas - have it with sprouts

Well yes - but if it was presented (as were the Crowns between 1818 and 1820) as a "special issue", the recipients would have surely felt they were in possession of something to be treasured rather than be spent? After all, there would be more than a century of worn silver to spend in transactions; no need to spend ssomething so new the like of which they would never have seen.

They weren't issued for general circulation - they were issued by the Bank to its customers most of whom would have kept them which is why they are so readily available in high grade. Other silver in circulation was either very old (early milled) or as you say, token and counterstamped issues. Had the 1787 issue been for circulation, it would have been followed rapidly by other years, as there would have been much interest in them. The actual contemporary quote : "In the year 1787 the Bank coined £55,280 in New Silver, not with any intention of issuing it in general to the Publick, but only in small quantities to their Customers at Christmastime." It's also worth pointing out that advanced minting techniques were used to produce the 1787 silver. This, from a good article on the whole subject in the BNJ (The 1787 Shilling - A Transition in Minting Technique by H.E. MANVILLE and P.P. GASPAR): "These coins reflect an intermediate stage in the modernization of coinage techniques. The inscriptions on the obverse dies were made with individual letter punches, a centuries-old prac- tice, but the reverse dies were sunk from fully-lettered punches, a major advance. Even on the reverse dies, however, fine features such as stops, the Westphalian horse, the semee of hearts in the Hanoverian arms, and the strings of the Irish harp were added individually, suggesting that truly complete punches (except for the last two date digits) remained difficult to manufacture or impractical to use. "

1901 for bronze; 1893 for most denominations including crowns, or 1901 for smaller silver.

Good to see you again Josie - have a happy Christmas.

You're right - the last circulation crowns were those of Victoria OH type, following the Jubilee Head run. In fact, that itself was a brief restoration, as for most of the 19th Century, crowns weren't produced for currency circulation. You could almost say that 1887-1901 was not typical; it can only be surmised that the crown was a suitable denomination when decimalisation came around, especially after the double florin died an early death. The 20th Century crowns probably didn't circulate, the main problem being that your average tradesman wouldn't be familiar with them and wouldn't have been over-willling to take them. Much more likely is that they were 'pocket pieces' as Copper says - kept by one individual in pocket purse or wallet for long enough, and it would see as much circulation wear as if it had changed hands. Not to mention enthusiastic rubbing as it was showed off to friends.

Welcome to the forum Random Word. What? Can someone run this past Bletchley Park for me please. Ta. Chris must have already purged this 'member' because his original comment has gone! All I can say is, the bots are getting more sophisticated .. they can almost string an incomprehensible sentence together

My dad was a keen amateur genealogist, so we've got his side of the family fairly well sewn up back to the 18th Century. My mum's side is more difficult, more obscure, yet more interesting too - she's done some research but has hit quite a few bottlenecks. The trouble is, her mum died when she was a small child, so the person we called Granny was Grandad's second wife. We know more about that branch than our blood relatives!

Cheers, Paulus...there's a fair bit in there you'd like I reckon!Just looking through it now! Me too. For example he has a simply gorgeous 1806 penny : priced as a Proof; looks like a Proof; but strangely not described as a Proof. Certainly their prices are reasonable

I'm glad you didn't say beaver! Obviously I made a typo and meant to say something completely different, but it's too late to edit now you've quoted me! I believe you - millions wouldn't!

Again I emphasise that I agree with drawing a line...but it is very difficult to do once you start looking into the subject in depth. I find this topic of discussion very interesting, because as a variety collector, and also with my website I find I am constantly reviewing my understanding of micro varieties and parameters for what I consider worthy of inclusion or exclusion. With the above quote from Rob I find it fascinating that most will accept all four digits being cut individually (such as the narrow date pennies) but challenge a variety that is based on the position of a last digit. Why is it acceptable when all four digits are in a different position, but not when the last one has been cut in a different position. There are several examples through the bronze series where the last two digits were positioned, and I could probably dig out examples where three of the four digits may have differing positions....(1879 farthings come to mind)...is that worthy of inclusion? Please don't think I am being pedantic, but it is important for me to get an understanding of where other collectors think the line should be drawn, and I appreciate such a wide range of views...it makes interesting reading In the case of pennies, the so called 'narrow date versions' of 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1879 are from totally different dies to their normal or wide date counterparts, with other design changes being incorporated too. I don't think these can be considered in the same way as otherwise identical dies, where just the date position is altered. The former are separately listed in Spink and, I believe, should be included in any reasonably detailed price guide. The latter are for specialist publications like Gouby. Edit: I think Rob has just said the same. Yes, that's crucial : the different date spacings in the 1870s pennies are simply the most recognisable feature of what is actually a different design. That's what I meant to say before. The problem with 'small' date is you then get a confusion with the 'penny using halfpenny date punches' realm, which is genuinely small in all dimensions. The 'narrow' date at least has the virtue of being what it says on the tin - 'close spaced' rather than 'wide spaced'.

I'm glad you didn't say beaver!

As numerous as penny collectors are, they still only represent a small fraction of the collecting fraternity - certainly no greater than single figures, and I would hazard a guess in saying that there are probably more decimal collectors than penny ones given the low entry price and the ability to collect from change. It is therefore unreasonable to treat the penny any different to other denominations or periods? Every popular denomination is far outweighed by the numbers of those who don't have an interest in the same, with some alternatives particularly popular. Charles I shillings and halfcrowns spring to mind with most collectors of this type of material aiming to get an example of each Sharp variety shilling, with others aiming for the various initial marks within the group for example along with the halfcrown equivalents. Saxon coinage would be very popular if listed by type and mint rather than the current type listing for the cheapest mint. Given the order of magnitude or greater difference in price for certain rare mints compared to the common ones, this would be instantly comparable to the penny variety listings. The Saxon moneyer/mint combination would be the equivalent 'nerd' detail to those who collect by missing serif for example. Ultimately it is something that is impossible to resolve without making a paper tome that would be impractical in size and weight. That is why I think the basic references should be kept as simple as possible with the minor varieties covered by a denomination specialist reference. What, no more than 9 penny collectors? I think you make some good general points Rob. However, surely varieties in the machine age (post-1797) are more 'significant' to collectors, in that 1) they are more modern and therefore represent more collectors, but 2) any deviation from the 'norm' stands out much more, unlike the numerous punching errors of early milled and the massive unpredictability of individually produced coins of the hammered era? I do think - possibly in vain - that a line SHOULD be drawn however. I think I'm probably among the majority here who would rate the wide/narrow date spacings of bun pennies as significant, and the variations in final digit spacing of OH pennies as not, to give one fairly obvious example.

That's not a moustache, silly. He's trying to eat an armadillo.

...& the appalling Olivier piece of overblown ham!!

"...goodie goodie yum yum". Watch out for giant kittens and black puddings!

Sheep or not, I think the market dictates what is, and what is not, a collectable 'variety'. And this can change with time, as with the 1961 halfcrown "Designer initials partly or completely missing on reverse" which no longer features anywhere. Now, the 1899 O'NE penny, and the 1946 ONE' penny were both featured on a beginners page in a 60s edition of Coin Monthly, along with a similar raised dot on a Vicky copper penny (I cannot now remember the date). So to me, as a schoolboy, they were well worth looking out for and I pulled a few 1946 ONE's from change. I would now be prepared to pay the right money for an EF example which I've never seen. What is the 'right money'? Well, you find one Rob, and then contact me and I will tell you There may be no 'accepted standard' of what constitutes a variety, but does that matter? The Coin Year Book includes very few. Spink has included more and more over the years. CCGB includes even more. Who's right? The collector and his wallet, to a great extent.