Coinery

'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.

100% feedback, though!

Never noticed that before!

Just cast an eye over that neck mark and eyebrow to make sure there's nothing untoward. It'll have been cleaned before, but it's starting up a new tone already.

The thickness makes me think 2d, but I haven't access to a book to confirm by portrait. Regardless, you would have to walk a long mile to find an example, especially of a 2d, with rims like that! A bargain in my opinion! Clean the other coin up and chuck it on eBay to offset some of your costs! ?

Seeing your profile picture @1949threepence reminds me that, IF I had the money, I'd be buying the two aUnc '46 and '49 brass 3ds that are on sale. As it is, I will settle for my 3rd desire, which will be quite a bit cheaper I hope?

Thanks, Rob, I got thrown by this Red Herring... https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/london-coins Let me know if you plan to go! Anyone else planning to attend?