Accumulator

Ps. My CCGB hasn't arrived yet, but I'm not chasing . I can only help with photos of pennies from 1797, which I imagine you don't need?

Which reminds me, whatever happened to Bill Pugsley? He arrived like a whirlwind and took a great deal of trouble to write about and defend the actions of CGS on this forum. I enjoyed his input to the debate and hoped he'd stick around. Did we frighten him off, did he secretly decide that the CGS business model was failing and felt too embarrassed to stay, or did he just lose interest in chatting about coins? Last active April 2013.

Hammered / milled makes more sense to me, especially if the decimals were hived off into a softback produced every two or three years (after all, the values of decimals change even less than Roman and Ancients). Hammered / milled would give approximately half a book each, where pre-decimal / decimal would be about 7:1. But perhaps they've already identified that's where the biggest market split is? Actually a more careful reading of Spink 2014 reveals a dichotomy! Page 553 of the decimal section has a Spink colour 'advert', stating 'Coming next year. The Decimal Coins of England. From next year the Decimal Coinage will be published in a separate volume'. On the other hand, Philip Skingley's editorial on page ix states, 'We had previously stated that we would be removing the Decimal section to a separate volume, this again has not happened this year. We had intended to improve the section with more illustrations and greater detail but, since taking the decision, we have received almost no information from the Royal Mint whatsoever in the past two years and it seems that their policy is to disassociate themselves from the general UK coin trade who have supported their products for decades and created the very collectors who buy the coins from them. We still aim to produce a separate volume but will have to wait to gather the information as products appear rather than having official notification from the Royal Mint as they are released'. A very sad reflection of the Royal Mint in my opinion, but probably par for today's attitude from officialdom in many areas! Anyway, certainly no confirmation of a separate volume next year from Mr Skingley.

Welcome to the forum!Santa managed to bring me Spink 2014, so I've had lots to read. A number of changes in presentation this year and the promise of 2 volumes next year. A few day's break before the New Year festivities now I got my copy as well How is the book going to be split...hammered/milled? If CCGB can eventually cover milled it will be interesting. The split will be into pre-decimal and decimal, Peter. Only one volume I'll need to buy!

Welcome to the forum! Santa managed to bring me Spink 2014, so I've had lots to read. A number of changes in presentation this year and the promise of 2 volumes next year. A few day's break before the New Year festivities now

What's that then? Jesus was born in September

Just spoke to my brother in Melbourne who's over there for the ashes tour!

Definitely good old British irony The '4 to tooth' is certainly rarer though.

Can't let you talk to yourself, Peter Family still asleep here so I'm drinking tea reading the forum.... Calm before the storm.... A very busy day ahead. I may well get a copy of Spink , but no coins! Happy Christmas!

thank you,i posted a picture of some of what i inherited,what do u think would be my best option with these if/when i decide to sell,please if you dont mind,after all ye are there to help newcomers Unfortunately the photo is low resolution, so it's difficult to see exactly what you have there. It looks like a lot of proof sets and individual proof coins, possibly some gold, maybe Britannias and certainly commemorative coins. Unfortunately these are modern and not my area of interest, but they do sell. Others here will be able to advise you further, but will still need a higher resolution photo.

Hi Angela, by the sound of it you've inherited two coin collections. Very nice! The possible Scarborough piece and the 1983 pound are at opposite ends of the scale. You inferred before that you have a lot of coins which, I would guess, sit somewhere between these (i.e. the main body of your collections). It would be good to see a few of these coins so that we can get a feel for what you have and advise you accordingly. We do want to help and there's a great deal of expertise here, but we need to get a better understanding to do so.

I just looked thru 10 1904 Pennies, and didn't find any with the 4 over the tooth! I would assume it is the most difficult to find. Yes Bob, they're unbelievably difficult to find and worth $15,995! Or the narrow date 1877 on your website, of course

I do generally agree with you. Apart from the 'normal' (top in my photo) variety, I might just include a 'last 4 points to tooth' in the collection, though, as it's so different. I know several others have indicated the same in previous postings. Interesting about the 60s Coin Monthly info. I have a few ED VII pennies collected during that period with notes like 'short nines', 'plume flaw', 'closed 9', 'plume joined to back of helmet', 'large plume flaw' etc. I can barely (and it could even be my imagination) make out any difference between them. Someone has spent an awful lot of time with a loupe and, very possibly, a Coin Monthly article to come up with these minuscule differences!

I think it depends how you define 'lower price classical bits', 'middle ground coins' and 'big spender coins', Vicky? Taking pennies, I'm not sure there's ever been a market (or ever will be) for common 20thC pennies in average circulated condition (which can mean EF+ for, say, 1967) or the Victorian washers you see on eBay. To me, these aren't 'low end' but 'unsaleable' coins. Given the ample supply, 'low end' should mean coins in considerably better than average condition, i.e. A/UNC for many 20C pennies and VF+ for the less common varieties (in the £5 - £50 range). I've not seen any evidence of prices falling away here. You're certainly right about 'middle ground' (£50 - £500) and top end (£500+). These appear to be gaining with, as always, a sharp focus on the very best or rarest examples.

I see that they've added a 1922 penny F-192A to the auction preview. I wonder if this was the eBay coin from earlier in the year? Their grade is near fine/fine, which I think is conservative for this example. I would say Good Fine, personally.

Ooops… I'm living in the past as usual!

"You can't beat a bit of Bully-on" "You get nothing in this game for two in a bid" I must have missed that show! Sounds very Larry Grayson "shut that door" era?

The fifth coin looks like some of the silver I stored in pvc album pockets for nearly 40 years (not any more, I should add!), with a blue/green deposit caused by 'sweating'. It could just be the photos though. Accum, A quick dip in carbon Tet. will remove the green residue caused by polyvinyl sweating. Wear gloves though, it does not burn, but does absorb in the skin! If you can get hold of any. Wonderful solvent, but a no-no under H&S regs. It's fair to say that it's easier to list what it doesn't do. Carbon Tet was originally used as a parts cleaner here in the Industrial Factories, but is still available as a "coin solvent" here in the U.S., though there are warnings from the EPA about absobtion in the skin. It is risky stuff.... Carbon tet. was the cleaner of choice where I worked many many years ago. I used acetone on my old coins, and it worked fine.

Let me try. 1st and 2nd. Hmm. I think you'll find it's your browser not the forum software. You're not using the dreaded IE by any chance? But that's not a thread title, is it! You're right Nick, it's a peculiarity of the thread title, which is automatically capitalised by the software. Not a problem in posts. I happen to use Safari, but it's not a browser issue. Try starting a thread with the title "This is the 1st time I've tried to not type 1St", Peckris.

The fifth coin looks like some of the silver I stored in pvc album pockets for nearly 40 years (not any more, I should add!), with a blue/green deposit caused by 'sweating'. It could just be the photos though.

As a complete aside, I notice that the forum software automatically capitalises any letter after a number as well as each individual word in the thread title. So "1st & 2nd" becomes "1St & 2Nd" even though it was typed propely! Grrrr….

You can add 1953 to that list.

Surprisingly quiet. Everyone preparing for the days ahead, I guess, but still two working days left! Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to all. Good luck filling those gaps (as long as they're not the same coins I'm chasing )

You're very kind, Danz, though several others on here could put my collection to shame!

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. Totally agree. Spink, and even 'British Coins Market Values', already list all of these varieties, leaving only the very basic 'Coin Yearbook' to exclude them. In my opinion, any 'serious' guide needs to include all of these major die variations and known overdates (albeit that the overdate cited is almost certainly the least obvious of all). 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. Chris already shows the 1905, 1937, etc with just an asterick (*), explaining that both types generally have equal value. That's a pretty good way of dealing with minor variations on some coins, while still listing thay are differant varieties. These, being die varieties, need to be included or mentioned, in my opinion. A simple asterisk/footnote is perfectly acceptable though. I think the key difference between a price guide and a detailed reference work is that the former doesn't need to actually explain the differences, just list and price them. Regarding pricing, I agree with Peckris that the market for many varieties is simply not large enough to be specific. Again, a note about relative rarity is useful, though. Possibly, in extreme circumstances, where one die variation is of the highest rarity, this could be indicated. I'm glad I don't have the headache of setting all this out in a single volume!