sound

"I picked up UNC 1954 and 1959 halfcrowns for a fiver each from Format Coins in the 1990s (sold as AUNC but these days they would pass as UNC, no sweat)." Peck can you get any more for a fiver. I paid considerably more. Mark

Do bear in mind that some 1950s cupro-nickel (especially florins, a few halfcrown dates, and an even lower number of shillings) are very tricky in UNC and quite pricey. If you get there and find this is so, you might want to put a 'finger in the place' for now and start on George VI - many of his coins are easier to find in UNC. Peck, As he so often is, wisdom of years I suspect is giving good advice. However do persevere with the 1950's silver in BU. Not to expensive yet. I have chosen the rarest dates in (not bothered with a date run) 2/6 & 2/- and am pleased I have them. They won't get any cheaper than they are now IMO. As with GV silver get it in BU if you can, you won't regret it. Mark

Thanks guys. Will check these out and any others added. Regards Mark

True to a point. But I suspect that an investor in general terms won't have a collecting mentality. He will be more inclined to think counter intuitively and think shortage of supply = desirability, higher prices. After all typically that's the way markets work. Mark

So where áre we with this? In absolute terms a rarity is defined in terms of how many actually exist. In practice and from a collectors point of view it's how often a coin comes to market. That's my take on the collective wisdom expressed here. But what if your an investor as opposed to a collector? (Smile I'm on my iPad) I suspect an investor will go with the absolute definition. I think that's worth considering because since the Great Recession a lot of investors have come into the market with a different emphasis to the status quo. Of course coins/stamps have always attracted investors, I'm just suggesting more so. Regards Mark

Peckris, Yes I do see the point, and yes like for like. I think my musing was just suggesting there is no logic to it. Mark

Yes - I understand this point. I think Rob is conflating 'rarity' and 'availability', which is of course a perfectly justified and meaningful position. But then there is 'absolute rarity' which - as you say - includes all specimens held by collectors whether or not they appear on the market from time to time. Coming as we all do from a collector's viewpoint, I take rare to be a term used with regard to the number of pieces potentially available to collectors. This would include all those privately held whether long term or not, but not those in museums which are unlikely ever to be in the market again. So, something where there is only a very small number available would have to be considered rare - take an arbitrary figure of up to a dozen for example. What I do not consider rare is something like the 1934 crown. Sure they only made 932 of them, but virtually every other sale has at least one in it. They are available even if not in the quantity the market could fully absorb and can't in my view be classed as rare. There must be a couple dozen going through UK auction houses every year with more being sold privately to dealers.Conditional rarity is a different matter as exemplified by the more than 4000 1925 halfcrowns sold at Noble a few years ago. Of 11 lots, only one coin warranted a lot to itself reflecting the difficulty in obtaining a high grade example, but it isn't that they aren't available. So if I had a rare Saxon coin (I don't) with only twenty known should I be able to sell it for more than a 1934 Wreath with a price tag of about £ 4,500? Logic would suggest yes. But things don't always work out that way. Don't most dealers label a 1934 Wreath rare, I take Robs point though. Mark

Another marketing opportunity for the Royal Mint? Mark

Peck, As per my earlier posts I'm inclined to agree with that. The post that started this thread and A. Rayner tried to quantify what a rarity is and to what degree. Of course we haven't muddied the waters with "rare in this high grade" that's a whole new subject. Regards Mark

"Just taking milled pieces and leaving aside the unrecorded varieties which once announced appear from every nook and cranny, none of the circulation crowns would fit that description." So if rarities are your thing, I suspect we all like the idea of something special, the true rarity hunter probably needs to go back further. I suspect rarity can be an elastic term. Mark

Subjective then. But I see both your point of views Mark

Clive, Thanks for that. Just the help I was looking for. Interesting that 471 of N 483 listed on the SCBI & EMC certainly this is a lot rarer. Regards Mark

Recently acquired this. I know it to be extremely rare. Only seven listed by the Fitwilliam Museam showing St Edmunds name both sides. With checking on the net I can't find one that has been sold anywhere. MSC search had one in an auction but it was misidentified IMO. Question has anyone seen one on sale anywhere? Was it this good. I have this at EF? If so can you remember the value sold at? Really would like to get a handle on this. Kind regards Mark

Rob & Tom, Thanks for your thoughts. Here are A. Rayner's definitions from ESC. R7 Only one or two examples known R6 Three or four examples known. R5 Five to ten examples known R4 Eleven to twenty examples known R3 Extremely rare R2 Very rare R. Rare S. Scarce I think this is quite a sensible approach. Of course criticisms could made but this is not an exact science. I wonder whether Tom under five for excessively rare is a little low. Perhaps under twenty bearing in mind they would rarely if ever come to market. In practice "rare" is used by dealers and auctions for things like 1930 or 1925 2/6's and on balance we understand them. You could say they are talking there own book but I think most get it right. For me it is the higher rarity factor that is interesting. It certainly needs more definition. Actually the scale used at the beginning and Rayner's that I have quoted try to come to terms with it. Perhaps we should use a scale like this in the same way we use a scale for grading. One could argue it has a similar impact on price although I appreciate that's not everything. By the way thank you both for the examples you have used, most interesting. Regards Mark

Just talking about this with a collector this morning. We use terms such as scare, rare etc freely thinking that others will understand what we mean. Of course their scarce, rare is likely something different to them. Must say I would be miffed if I bought what I was told was a "rare" coin and found four or five in auction during the year and one or two in dealers stock lists. Have noticed the term " excessively rare" used. Anyone like to have a go at what that means? Genuinely interested in feedback on this. Also Tom's point is very good one to make. Why do some things considered rare seem to have more attraction than other rare items. Is it the smart thing to buy up all of the less fashionable rarities in the hope that "every dog has its day". Regards Mark

Well Peter it would be a small cartel I can only find seven listed at the Museum and a further two online using Google and MC search. What have you got from the Bury Mint, I'd be interested to know. Regards Mark

Hi Peter, Thanks I knew it was something a bit special. Just want to try and get a feel for how rare it is. Mark

Rob, That was a nice coin, looked even better in the hand. I was hoping to get away with a sneaky cheap bid on that one, but is was sought after. Picked up several bits and underpaid with all of them. Regards Mark

Didn't think you would miss it. There were two others of the basic type. Wished I had picked up one of those as well. Were you there? Regards Mark

Should be N 483/1 in the header

Hi Britcoinz, Declan's assesment is about right IMO. Do bear in mind that grading is a opinion and you would do well to err on the conservative side. Most of us start a little optimistically and tone down in time. Truth be told we are all probably a work in progress. Of course as to describing coins we are free to use what ever terms we choose. Might be best to use "choice" for special coins that exceed normal expectations for a grade. Perhaps using it for high grade coins exhibiting particularly attractive features. However that's just an opinion others will differ. Kind regards Mark

Chris, What a star you are for highlighting this. Should we really be surprised? No. For some time now it has been apparent that the RM are really just a marketing company. I think it's just a salutary lesson in why in recent times, things we are told are collectable are not. Skepticism is a very reliable quality in this context. Mark

http://www.jncoins.co.uk/JNC/modules/blockblog/blockblog-post.php?post_id=2 Wonder what this will throw up? Done well to keep it secret that long. Mark

https://twitter.com/archaeologymag/status/443791541388050432 The above is a twitter link to some of the coins found. Mark

Found it. Thought I had become computer illiterate. But I had not. Its just that thingy don't show on an Ipad. Mark