A magnificent reference book has been compiled by authors Brown, Comber, and Wilkinson, cataloguing hundreds of Elizabeth I varieties. The varieties are determined by the punches used for the busts, roses, lions, lis, shields, leaves, etc., and also the major legend variations (AN instead of ANG etc.). It sounds complicated but, honestly, it's not. Their (BCW) book identifies the punches with line drawing, which I have always found to be overly fussy and difficult to follow(but useable of course). The Elizabeth bust line-drawings in Spink, are actually taken from BCW's work, so you can get a sense of what I mean. Anyway, I am doing nothing more complicated than cutting out the roses, busts, lions, etc. from photographs and displaying them as a supporting resource in the identification of the Elizabeth coins that people have, and presenting them at some point on a website (my avatar is BCW Rose 18 ). I think it would be infinitely more interesting for collectors to document 'Threepence BA-1B:a' on their tickets, rather than just a blanket, and rather uninspiring, S2564. As an example of the scale of things, S2561 for example represents 161 different BCW sixpences (some rare, some common), each of them distinctly different. I'm not suggesting you'd want to collect every one, but it's nice to know which one you have, and you can do this in under a couple of minutes. So, there you have it! My only thought is whether I should re-jig the template and include 3 busts/roses etc. in decreasing grades, to further assist identification, but that's 3 times more work, so maybe not! I guess also, once coins are approaching the lower end of the grading scale, it becomes less and less likely that all the information is present to fully catalogue it anyway, so I'll probably not bother! Having said that, you can sometimes clearly identify a faceless washer, but struggle to pin an EF coin down, on account of something as annoying as an overdate (the 1578/7/6 thread being a case in point).