ESC 6th EDITION

[jaggy 528]

Received my copy today. First impressions are positive although I have not started working through on a coin by coin basis.

I'm not quite sure what the purpose of the Provenances section is. If a coin is unique then fair enough. But I looked at it with regard to a couple of my 'R4' coins and I could not see how it was relevant to me.

[jaggy 528]

Has anyone started going through their collection and reconciling 5th edition and 6th edition?

I just started and I am concerned. For example:

5th Edition - 1844 sixpence ESC 1690 - S;

ESC 1690A - 1844 sixpence, large 44 in date - R2

6th Edition - 1844 sixpence ESC 3178 - R2 - x-ref 1690A;

ESC 3177 - 1844 sixpence, large 44 with serifs - S - x-ref 1690.

Am I missing something or has the 6th edition managed to get this the wrong way around?

Edited October 9, 2015 by jaggy

[mavmd 0]

Online I only see it at Spinks. For those who have bought elsewhere, is it a standard £40?

[Rob 3,152]

I'm not aware of it cheaper elsewhere. Given it's a new book without a dated revision in the near future, it is a bit early for discounts.

[Matteo95 120]

I have bought the Spink's book and it arrived last week ... Photos look good but I think the part on anglo-gallic coins could be better ....for example they say this coin has been struck in Cities 1 , 2 , 3 etc but they don't say how can understand if my coin is minted by city 1 or 2 etc

[VickySilver 830]

I finally popped for this one and feel it overall an admirable effort and a good book. The provenance section is especially a good bit. There still are of course some minor errors (i.e. a 1929 proof florin would NOT be "N" in scarcity as I have NEVER seen one, or the matte 1943 and 1944 bits that are really specimen). Also, some coins are put in on speculation of their existence - such as the 1920 satin specimen 6d given a catalogue number based on the similar florin and half crowns being known. Actually he got it right that there is a shilling of said date that was unknown to him and given a number.

When they state "BM" as provenance, does that mean the author's specimen (Maurice Bull)?

[Rob 3,152]

BM usually means British Museum. Maurice Bull (or any other individual) would usually be referenced as Bull (other).

[VickySilver 830]

Yikes, not much imagination on my part there....Older than I thought.

[ozjohn 647]

Excuse my ignorance but can somebody tell me what ESC is?

[Paulus 1,975]

Excuse my ignorance but can somebody tell me what ESC is?

Sorry about the acronyms and abbreviations. ESC is the abbreviation for English Silver Coinage, an important reference book listing varieties and relative rarities of English silver coins since 1649. Recently updated and re-issued by Spink

link

You may of course find it cheaper elsewhere ...

Edited November 9, 2015 by Paulus

[VickySilver 830]

Might not yet though. Really good book, though have found a couple of faults and even some unlisted bits if mainly patterns and proofs.

[Rob 3,152]

I just find the rationale for including things a bit odd. For example, page 4 has a 1652 altered to a 1660 and the mark changed to an anchor by persons unknown. Does it need its own entry when the first line reads there are many forgeries of this series? This really only merits a footnote, or alternatively there should be a list of the known copies, including the modern stuff.

Another is new ref 50, described as a prooflike appearance of 49. Is it a proof or not? Any coin whether it is hammered or milled struck from a fresh die can be prooflike, so unless it is struck from a specially prepared flan and dies, surely this is normal?

Given the reuse of diestock, it is probably better to do a lot more research before listing traces of stops in the wrong place as errors?

There are too many variables with hammered coins to say what is a mistake and what is coincidental giving the appearance of an error.

In the case of milled, a coin struck without a collar when it should have been is surely just a mint error of a normal coin?

I know this all boils down to individual preference, but the key is consistency. In the case of the latter, there will be examples struck on a spread flan of a majority of ESC numbers, so the inclusion of a few types is misleading.

[ozjohn 647]

Thhanks Paulus.

[Sword 1,473]

I have read on p285 (on George III crowns) that there is a "W (Wyon) on buckle". I confess I didn't know about this before. After checking out my crown and a bit googling, surely it must be letters WWP ( on three sides of the buckle) referring to William Wellesley Pole and not Wyon?

[Rob 3,152]

It is WWP, a fact noted by Davies on p.31. The angle imaged showing the first W, the second one is on the next side of the buckle clockwise, and the P is on the opposite side. The reverse was done by Pistrucci, not Wyon, a fact reinforced by the rather obvious signature.

[mavmd 0]

This edition doesn't seem to define the rarity references, e.g. R2 etc (unless I'm being blind).  Is there a link that defines these as I don't have any previous editions?

[Rob 3,152]

The only relevant ones are R7 (1 or 2), R6 (3 or 4), R5 (5-10), R4 (11-20), numbers that should be taken with a pinch of salt. Once you get more common than that it is increasingly a case of guesstimation, with some a fair way off the mark. In any case, the original ESC never assigned numbers for R3 and commoner. A bit of research around your chosen field and you will likely have a better feel for rarity than suggested by ESC.

Milled coinage of England by Cope and Rayner published in 1972 attempted to assign a rarity for a given grade - far more useful. Although not perfect, it was considerably better than ESC, though more limited in scope.

 

[mavmd 0]

2 hours ago, Rob said:

The only relevant ones are R7 (1 or 2), R6 (3 or 4), R5 (5-10), R4 (11-20), numbers that should be taken with a pinch of salt. Once you get more common than that it is increasingly a case of guesstimation, with some a fair way off the mark. In any case, the original ESC never assigned numbers for R3 and commoner. A bit of research around your chosen field and you will likely have a better feel for rarity than suggested by ESC.

Milled coinage of England by Cope and Rayner published in 1972 attempted to assign a rarity for a given grade - far more useful. Although not perfect, it was considerably better than ESC, though more limited in scope.

 

Thanks very much, that has bugged me since I got the book

[Sword 1,473]

For the sake of completeness, the rest of the rarity grades are R3 (extremely rare), R2 (very rare), R (rare), S (scarce), N (normal), C (common), C2 (Very common) and C3 (extremely common)

[Rob 3,152]

4 hours ago, Sword said:

For the sake of completeness, the rest of the rarity grades are R3 (extremely rare), R2 (very rare), R (rare), S (scarce), N (normal), C (common), C2 (Very common) and C3 (extremely common)

rarity attributions which are in the mind of the seller (usually).