The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain (2016)

[Master Jmd 90]

After 8 months of waiting Waterstones have cancelled my order for the 2016 updated version of The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain (cc @Chris Perkins - not sure if you no longer supply these to Waterstones?)

Multiple new copies of the 2006 hardcover version are up on Amazon for £25, but the 2016 version is nowhere to be found.

I'd be happy to pay £30 for a new/close to new copy of the book if anyone here has a copy?

[Zo Arms 312]

My copy has pretty much disintegrated, to the point where the halfpenny section has become an independent volume.

Failing a complete copy being available here, I'm happy to send you the penny and farthing sections, if they are of interest. You can return them when you obtain a complete copy. Not ideal I know, but a stop gap for you perhaps.

Bob.

 

[Paddy 1,861]

7 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

My copy has pretty much disintegrated, to the point where the halfpenny section has become an independent volume.

 

Yes - same problem with mine. The binding at the spine could not cope with heavy use and I now have a bundle of loose pages in the middle. Sadly I can't part with it as it is probably my most used reference work.

 

[Martinminerva 352]

Some time ago (pre-pandemic), I think there was some chat on here (but can't find it) that a full re-write of Freeman was being planned incorporating all the new varieties from the 2016 appendices and further subsequent discoveries along with high res colour illustrations. Wonder if that has been taken forward at all? If so, hope it is done as hardback for the reasons mentioned above.  Also, even longer ago, I seem to recall talk of a similar update to Davies for the silver... Yes please!

[1949threepence 3,368]

You can have mine if I can find it. I did buy one in 2016 or 2017, but to be honest found it very little different in content to my old hardback 1985 edition, so carried on using that. I'll have a look for it in a bit. 

[1949threepence 3,368]

2 hours ago, Paddy said:

Yes - same problem with mine. The binding at the spine could not cope with heavy use and I now have a bundle of loose pages in the middle. Sadly I can't part with it as it is probably my most used reference work.

 

This is why hardback editions of any reference book are so much better. The binding stands up to long term continued use. 

[Rob 3,217]

2 hours ago, Martinminerva said:

Some time ago (pre-pandemic), I think there was some chat on here (but can't find it) that a full re-write of Freeman was being planned incorporating all the new varieties from the 2016 appendices and further subsequent discoveries along with high res colour illustrations. Wonder if that has been taken forward at all? If so, hope it is done as hardback for the reasons mentioned above.  Also, even longer ago, I seem to recall talk of a similar update to Davies for the silver... Yes please!

I thought long and hard about this. The conclusion I came to is that no update to any volume can be complete as new varieties come to light, meaning that whatever numbering system for an existing reference is used, is going to become overly complicated with suffixes to existing numbers that are unlikely to be in any rational order starting with the first few recorded additions to the published list. This led me to a very deep rabbit hole. 

Rationalising what people need, I realised that any reference cannot be logically organised on a 1, 2, 3, 4 etc numbering system, however simple this might be because of the above problem. A better alternative would be a longer reference along the lines of Gouby's numbering, starting with the date as the root, and finding a logical numbering system for an extension to this to account for the various varieties as they come to light. Just considering Davies and ESC, the former doesn't assign a different number to currency, proof, edge or off-metal strikes of a given denomination and date, whilst the latter is now just a mess, given the issues with proof-like being assigned a different number, despite being a regular currency coin and the obvious lack of proof-reading which has now consigned to print a large number of glaring inconsistencies. Both leave no room for later inclusions. A date ordered system would necessarily lead to long reference numbers, hence the need for intuitive extension references, but I do think it would appeal to the completist mentality inherent in most of us. It would not solve the problem of what some consider varieties such as the listing of various dots on pennies whilst others don't for example. Whatever system is adopted, it will have its critics.

Given the complication involved, anything along the lines of the above would probably be best served as a number of publications, each done for a specific denomination. Some would be large, others a single page. The next issue would then be how too deal with undated coins in a systematic way.

A disadvantage of any comprehensive detailed reference is the limited number of people to which it would appeal. Collectors are a diverse bunch, with relatively few interested in any particular sphere, even allowing for the disproportionate number of penny collectors on this forum. Any printed published reference has to have sufficient prospective buyers to justify the costs, though obviously a digital database is infinitely updatable.

Another option that might be worth considering is a concordance of references. Whilst that would not help with unrecorded varieties, it would bring the various references under one roof, including those of relatively obscure specialist studies, but even this would be a considerable volume.

Taken to its logical conclusion, what all this leads to is a register of all identifiable individual dies based on the observations of every contributor.

[secret santa 2,382]

13 hours ago, Martinminerva said:

Some time ago (pre-pandemic), I think there was some chat on here (but can't find it) that a full re-write of Freeman was being planned incorporating all the new varieties from the 2016 appendices and further subsequent discoveries along with high res colour illustrations. Wonder if that has been taken forward at all? If so, hope it is done as hardback for the reasons mentioned above. 

You're right - Chris Perkins did once say that he was considering a total re-write which could involve updating/amending Freeman identifiers (F numbers) but without a "governing body" to adjudicate on such things, I think that the F numbers should be left unchanged.

[Zo Arms 312]

34 minutes ago, secret santa said:

You're right - Chris Perkins did once say that he was considering a total re-write which could involve updating/amending Freeman identifiers (F numbers) but without a "governing body" to adjudicate on such things, I think that the F numbers should be left unchanged.

Totally agree. My 1878, 14+N halfpenny doesn't have a Freeman number. Does it really need one? It is what it is and can be identified as such.

[Rob 3,217]

35 minutes ago, Zo Arms said:

Totally agree. My 1878, 14+N halfpenny doesn't have a Freeman number. Does it really need one? It is what it is and can be identified as such.

The problem is that a majority of collectors like a number to assign to a particular variety. It allows them to tick it off once acquired. Date collectors already have it on their coins and as a result many don't feel the need for a reference at all. That's why I keep being asked for 1947 brass threepences, 1923-5 pennies and 1961 halfpennies. Collecting by type or date whatever the condition can also exclude identification of varieties due to the lack of detail. However, a more specialised collection such as a denomination or reign will almost certainly be based on one or more of the major references with the varieties researched.

I have to say that when I published my article on the Weyl patterns in the BNJ over 10 years ago, the first comment from the referee was 'Pearce numbers?' Like your 1878 1/2d, they were easily identified as being what they were and most types appeared to be unique, so I didn't feel the need for yet another list of arbitrary numbers. Unfortunately, a result of not giving numbers is the near total disregard of the article despite having shown the existence of new metal types, the individual rarities of a particular variety and an assigned provenance to each of the coins extant. I feel that had I given each a number, then the reference would likely be used. Referring to the article would also help curtail the diarrhoeic marketing blurb such as that in the last St. James's Premier sale when an 1860 farthing was described as 3-5 known (show me a duplicate), was struck in 1904 (there were examples in Clarkson 1901 and Cholmley 1902). 

[secret santa 2,382]

John Jerrams did introduce a new set of identifying numbers (Satin number) in his Bun Penny book but they are very rarely referenced.

[Chris Perkins 228]

It's out of print, as you may have gathered. Printing it again worked out so much more expensive than in 2016 so I put it on the back-burner for now.  

[Peckris 2 2,189]

4 hours ago, Chris Perkins said:

It's out of print, as you may have gathered. Printing it again worked out so much more expensive than in 2016 so I put it on the back-burner for now.  

What's of equal concern is that the last edition of CCGB was only available in print, there was no Kindle edition. I find it very difficult to use print books and rely on there being digital versions. Was there any particular reason for that?

[Master Jmd 90]

On 8/9/2023 at 9:59 AM, 1949threepence said:

You can have mine if I can find it. I did buy one in 2016 or 2017, but to be honest found it very little different in content to my old hardback 1985 edition, so carried on using that. I'll have a look for it in a bit. 

Apologies for the delay - did you have any luck finding this?

On 8/10/2023 at 5:05 PM, Chris Perkins said:

It's out of print, as you may have gathered. Printing it again worked out so much more expensive than in 2016 so I put it on the back-burner for now.  

There are a handful of catalogues uploaded in full on Archive.org. It's a long shot but I don't suppose you'd have any interest in uploading this there if it's now out of print? 😊

[1949threepence 3,368]

1 hour ago, Master Jmd said:

Apologies for the delay - did you have any luck finding this?

There are a handful of catalogues uploaded in full on Archive.org. It's a long shot but I don't suppose you'd have any interest in uploading this there if it's now out of print? 😊

Yes I did. It's in pretty much perfect condition as hardly ever used. So you can have it for £30 + postage.

PM me your address, and I'll PM you my bank details. Even though not expensive I would still recommend next day tracked delivery. Let me know what you think.  

[Mr T 189]

On 8/9/2023 at 9:50 PM, Rob said:

Rationalising what people need, I realised that any reference cannot be logically organised on a 1, 2, 3, 4 etc numbering system, however simple this might be because of the above problem. A better alternative would be a longer reference along the lines of Gouby's numbering, starting with the date as the root, and finding a logical numbering system for an extension to this to account for the various varieties as they come to light. Just considering Davies and ESC, the former doesn't assign a different number to currency, proof, edge or off-metal strikes of a given denomination and date, whilst the latter is now just a mess, given the issues with proof-like being assigned a different number, despite being a regular currency coin and the obvious lack of proof-reading which has now consigned to print a large number of glaring inconsistencies. Both leave no room for later inclusions. A date ordered system would necessarily lead to long reference numbers, hence the need for intuitive extension references, but I do think it would appeal to the completist mentality inherent in most of us. It would not solve the problem of what some consider varieties such as the listing of various dots on pennies whilst others don't for example. Whatever system is adopted, it will have its critics.

Given the complication involved, anything along the lines of the above would probably be best served as a number of publications, each done for a specific denomination. Some would be large, others a single page. The next issue would then be how too deal with undated coins in a systematic way.

A disadvantage of any comprehensive detailed reference is the limited number of people to which it would appeal. Collectors are a diverse bunch, with relatively few interested in any particular sphere, even allowing for the disproportionate number of penny collectors on this forum. Any printed published reference has to have sufficient prospective buyers to justify the costs, though obviously a digital database is infinitely updatable.

I don't disagree - the individual numbers are handy but don't offer much room for growth (neither do die numbers but it seems to be less messy there).

With Australian halfpennies and pennies the die numbers/letters has worked reasonably well but there have been no new die discoveries either.

[1949threepence 3,368]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:00 PM, secret santa said:

You're right - Chris Perkins did once say that he was considering a total re-write which could involve updating/amending Freeman identifiers (F numbers) but without a "governing body" to adjudicate on such things, I think that the F numbers should be left unchanged.

I've remembered now - that's why I bought the 2016 edition of Freeman - see if there were any "A's" legitimately added on to the new varieties nereast to original Freeman numbers, which weren't already there.

If you remember, some auction houses were doing this, especially DNW, as if those number/letter combos already officially existed. but I discovered they didn't, so put the new book aside.     .  

[1949threepence 3,368]

On 8/10/2023 at 8:33 AM, secret santa said:

John Jerrams did introduce a new set of identifying numbers (Satin number) in his Bun Penny book but they are very rarely referenced.

Same with Gouby, but people get so used to Freeman numbers, that they just don't bother with anything else. 

[Martinminerva 352]

52 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Same with Gouby, but people get so used to Freeman numbers, that they just don't bother with anything else. 

All the more reason for a fully revamped Freeman (which could cross reference Gouby and Satin) !

[Iannich48 202]

Just now, Martinminerva said:

All the more reason for a fully revamped Freeman (which could cross reference Gouby and Satin) !

Now that would be good.

[Chris Perkins 228]

On 8/17/2023 at 9:26 PM, Master Jmd said:

Apologies for the delay - did you have any luck finding this?

There are a handful of catalogues uploaded in full on Archive.org. It's a long shot but I don't suppose you'd have any interest in uploading this there if it's now out of print? 😊

Out of print, but not out of copyright etc and the work belongs to Michael Freeman so it could not legally be made available for free by anyone but him.

Incidentally, is anyone here in contact with him?

[Peckris 2 2,189]

6 hours ago, Chris Perkins said:

Out of print, but not out of copyright etc and the work belongs to Michael Freeman so it could not legally be made available for free by anyone but him.

Incidentally, is anyone here in contact with him?

@Chris Perkins - can you answer the question about why there isn't a Kindle edition of the latest CCGB? Thx