Coinery

Can I pay u with my winnings, ok!

Great close-up shot!

Do link us to the thread on your forum when you put it up! There are some collectors of French coins on here who'd be delighted with your link.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NGC-VF-25-ENGLAND-SILVER-PENNY-1279-1307-EDWARD-I-/391682080045?hash=item5b32123d2d%3Ag%3Ao8QAAOSwUKxYgSwA&nma=true&si=C4E%252Fla%252Bgd88kDexFgH47QmdyYfo%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 Identified by NGC as an Edward I (S1383) Class 1 Penny, rather than the Edward II Class 11 penny that it is - so, only 10 classes, a reign, and over 70 spink numbers out!

I guess we are all completionists, as much as it's possible to be, depending mostly on the extent of our collecting parameters. When coming to the end of a 'basic' run of Freeman pennies, I'm guessing there'd likely be a temptation to expand it further into the more recently published micro-varieties? Equally, one might opt for the pleasure of closing a lid on something, and beginning instead a new Davies run of shillings? It's human nature, particular the nature of males, to want orderly boxes, for everything, so a micro-varietal penny collector is no less diseased (well, maybe, lol) than the collector who 'closes the lid' on a simpler Type Set, only to immediately open the lid on a new box. We just keep going on, for as long as we can suffer the tension that an open-lid box delivers upon our delicate little male brains (and the delicate little brains of some very strange females too, of course ).

Very much so, Colin, I think it's the defining marker for all research, I just failed to make the link for a Monarch Type Set. As soon as you start adding varieties, you move into an all inclusive Monarch Set, simply because you can't add an open 1903 penny, without adding a normal date 1903, and then IF a 1903, a standard 1904 would be no less a variety. ALSO, for the record, it really p****s me off when I read back over things and notice my phone has not only changed words, but even removed, on occasion, extensions like 's from the ends of words! I'm not always inebriated, honest!

'Distinct design change,' that the one! I couldn't see the wood for the trees, that's why a 1903 wouldn't be included! Got it!

I screenshot the pictures on my phone, but need to get them on photobucket and link them across.

Just to keep the world informed...another mis-attributed coin. Not a surprise to many on here, I know. This coin is bearing a crown that clearly puts it in the reign of Edward II, not the early part of Edward I (NGC are saying Class 1d) 391682080045 (sorry, no ebay link)

I feel I'd definitely confine myself to a 'book' run, meaning, for me, Davies and Freeman, possibly Spink for a basic gold set (and you couldn't of course miss out the few extra 20thC coins of Groom), if I was going for a full monarch or date run, but that doesn't clear up where I'd draw the line in a Monarch Type Set. I think the best position is to either avoid varieties altogether, or accept you're going to have a serious problem with any underlying tendencies towards OCD. Many thanks for your insights, gents!

When it comes to extending some of the denominations to include the varieties, does that mean a 1902, 1902LT, 1903, 1903OPEN penny etc.? I have a feeling it would be difficult to draw the line between the above scenario and a Full monarch set? Just diggin' around for insights into how people might approach the addition of varieties to a Type Set?

Inspired by @coinkat's post and some of the answers given, how would you define what makes up (for example) an Edward VII type set, to include known/documented varieties...how would you go about creating a wish list? For example (and I haven't the books to hand) how would you set out the pennies for Edward VII? Would you just go for 1 example of a penny, say 1902...oh, and maybe a Low Tide? But is that it, or do you have to ask the question about an open 3? Do you then include some of the Groom findings for a given date? Do you then have to have a normal 3? What do you do? I confess that date runs interest me, for the same reason any other collection appeals. But equally Type Sets and full monarch collections appeal. I even once thought I would collect every die example of an Elizabeth I Martlet shilling, and then move to another PM...it's essentially a completionist, probably Aspergers thing. So, just so I don't miss out on the Monarch Type Sets, how would you define one in the context of Ed7?

This is Laker bust D with PM Rose (Spink 2337E). The rose looks ambiguous on your coin, so I can see why you may have initially considered it a pansy, I would've done too. However I've found a die-match for your coin on a dealer site called Hammered Coins (picture below), which shows better detail, and confirms the PM as a definite rose. The website owner has marked this bust as Laker B (which is a typing error, but has entered the correct Spink reference in the description, identifying it as a Laker D). Roses tend to present themselves much rounder than pansies, even on worn coins...I've also included an image of a pansy for your reference. Value? I think £35ish.

Anyone attending? Did you finally decide in the end, Rob?

I do love the Davies book, I have to say!

Nice quality! Like it!

Well, I have to eat humble pie here! I had an email from Semra today, saying she'd responded to my email yesterday, but reiterated a position that was grateful and appreciative in the meantime. I checked my 'junk' folder and sure enough there was an email dated yesterday lunchtime. Sincere apologies Semra...thank-you for your extremely civil email!

I do think a standard 'many thanks for your interest in our auction. We take all emails of this nature seriously, and will be looking into the matter shortly,' would've been nice! ? I even dug out some old photographic evidence, and included their own image alongside for their easy reference! Even though I've probably saved LCA some postage and embarrassment, I will console myself instead with the knowledge that some poor buyer will not be disappointed when taking receipt of a shockingly obvious copy!

It's now been withdrawn! A brief email would've been nice, Semra? At the very least it will have saved the cataloguer, photographer, and general LC machine, from a mildly embarrassing return, surely?

Well, a very big welcome, then! ? I've only just popped my head into the forum, quite recently, after being away for some time. I guess we're both newbies in that respect! You obviously have the bug, from looking at your collection list...I think you'll have a lot of fun on here! ?

Well, hopefully this was useful? ?

Photographed by LCGS, and probably the only post of mine you will ever find here!

Yes, I know, I should let them know, really! The cut is a casting flaw that's present on all of them to a greater or lesser degree.

They still haven't spotted the error that's the hammered fake groat, lot 1709! ?

Are you sure they say 'new pence' and not 'two pence' on the back? the 'new pence' ones can be worth a few hundred quid in top condition. Of course, this also depends on what you mean by a few? Show us a lot and the market will very quickly collapse.