"Rare" and "Scarce"

[Peter 615]

There maybe many in bank vaults or in deceased collectors collections(bit of a mouthfull).

Surely the market dictates on what is available.

Hammered is a different kettle of fish as only us coin nerds could differentiate.(or want to)

I think when you specialise you become the expert.

There are a few 1/4d's that I always look out for.

[Rob 3,185]

There maybe many in bank vaults or in deceased collectors collections(bit of a mouthfull).

Surely the market dictates on what is available.

Hammered is a different kettle of fish as only us coin nerds could differentiate.(or want to)

I think when you specialise you become the expert.

There are a few 1/4d's that I always look out for.

There will be some pieces stashed away that only resurface every 50-100 years, but most collectable pieces are in a situation whereby they tend to be recycled on a more regular basis as collectors die. Most coins with previous references tend to be identifiable within the next 20-30 years at most, so it is possible to get a feel for absolute rarity. It is easier for hammered simply due to the irregularity of flans which aids identification.

The point I'm making is that rarity attributions are usually off the cuff statements without reference to any evidence. A quick perusal of the first 10 pages currently going off on ebay gave 24 lots with an indication of rarity - 2 were very scarce (4 x brass 3d scarce dates & a 2008 £2 Olympics); 3 were very rare (1934 & 1936 farthings plus a lot of 15 x £2 coins) and the other 19 were rare, comprising 4 lots of 2011 50ps, 2 small lots of Elizabeth II 1/-s, 1884 farthing, 1806 1/2d, 1934 2/6d, 9x 1988 £1, 1988 £1, 1854 1d, Darwin £2, 1985 50p, 10 x 50p, 2010 50p, 1929 farthing, 1938S 1/- and an 1853/2 1/2d. The latter was based on the fact that there were no dots on the shield and so was rev. A which is noted for 1852 and not 1853, though the image begged to differ. Even though the seller is wrong, this was the only example that showed any attempt at rationalising the claim. None of these could be described as rare, with the least common probably being the 1934 2/6d.

Most claims of rarity are spurious and without foundation. You have to do your homework, whether buyer or seller. Rare, particularly in the case of ebay usually means rare for one hour only as another similar rarity will be along in a short while. Genuine rarity or scarcity can only be ascertained after a period of monitoring or research and in most instances will only ever give relative rarity.

[argentumandcoins 70]

Oh, and as a diversion (but sort of related) with late hammered my guestimate is that if there was one single die for a coin you are unlikely to find many more than a dozen examples. Two dies, 24. Anything where less than 10 examples are known is rare to my mind. Less than 20, very scarce. Less than 30, scarce. None to precise I accept, but this is simply a personal rule of thumb I use (as part of my deliberations) when considering whether to part with the hard earned pennies!

At this point it is probably worth putting some flesh on the bones of a real example. Recently I compiled a list of illustrated Exeter & Truro crowns in order to identify which dies were common or not and which examples were worth acquiring. There is a large variation in the numbers of particular die combinations. The Besly numbers are used for each die combination. There are 4 obverse dies and 31 reverses. Quick pointers are that A1 is the Truro, B2 is the 12 scroll reverse Exeter, C3-7 the undated Exeters, C8 the 1644 date divided by mark, C9-15 the 1644 left of mark, C16&17 Rose/Ex, D16&17 Tower/Ex, D18 Tower/Rose 1645, D19-31 1645 Tower mark.

The numbers are for identifiably different examples. Not included are those in museums or specific references which identify the variety but without illustration or corroborative provenance. In the case of readily identifiable varieties the numbers below have considerable but unquantifiable scope for upwards revision.

A1 102

B2 10

C3-21, C4-11, C5-7, C6-14, C7-8, C7a-4 (not recorded by Besly). Total 65

C8-12

C9-15, C10-2, C11-16, C12-5, C13-11, C14-18, C15-7. Total 76

C16-12, C17-4. Total 16

D16-8, D17-14. Total 22

D18-7.

D19-7, D20-18, D21-16, D22-16, D23-7, D24-8, D25-5, D26-7, D27-7, D28 doesn't exist, D29-10, D30-9, D31-6. Total 116.

As you can see, some die combinations are out and out rare, whilst some are in reality very common. It goes without saying that all would be described on ebay as rare, but with over 100 Truros and 1645 tower mark Exeters available to collectors this is clearly not the case. At the individual die combination level and at the other end of the scale is the C10. Cooper had a fairly dire example and was the only one recorded by Besly. The other is virtually as struck and was in the Rowley Butters collection sold at St. James's a couple of years ago - that's rare. The problem is that rare, scarce, common or whatever are used indiscriminately by buyers and sellers as a negotiating feature rather than being based on evidence.

I would be interested to know who would have considered which types to be rare and which ones common based simply on the readily available info in references and from personal obvservation. What guesses would have been hazarded based on intuition? As most rarity attributions seem to be based on perception - honest answers only please.

Not all Rob, there are 1 or 2 honest men left!

Interesting report though.

As you know, I specialise in and collect milled issues, where the existence of only 100 of a type would make it scarce/rare due to the fact that there would be a thousand or more collectors of that type.

I suppose you hammered boys (no reference to drunkeness intended!!) focus more on one area of the range and stick to it i.e die varieties of C I shillings etc.

[TomGoodheart 406]

I only wish I got a penny each time someone lists one of those rare Charles Darwin £2 coins on ebay ... Have you noticed how when most (?) ebayers find something they can't identify they immediately pick the rarest coins in Spink for it to be? The number of times I've had to .. advise .. someone that their coin is not what they claim. And on a number of occasions, despite the fact that there is no illustration in Spink for them to compare theirs to and despite my experience they are unwilling to believe me. Ah, well. Wishful thinking in action I guess.

An example I keep in mind when considering rarity is the 'Northumberland' (1763) shilling. Now, these are not rare, in that there are still hundreds out there. But how often do you see one on ebay? Very seldom (though I have heard rumours there's a batch .. recently discovered .. in China!). But generally, if you see half a dozen examples of a coin over a year or two I'd suggest they are just not that rare.

Of course, as Peter and Rob say, you have to do your homework. The coin I posted recently in 'aquisition of the week' is new to me. But I have since discovered after talking to a few contacts that there are a few more out there. At least three others anyway. But if nobody is looking for them they tend to stay under the radar. Then they become accepted as something different and most likely as more people keep their eyes open more will come to light.

I suspect in time my coin will be considered a curiosity. Scarce perhaps. But rare ... well, I can hope but I'm not holding my breath on that one because it's really not that likely!

[Rob 3,185]

As you know, I specialise in and collect milled issues, where the existence of only 100 of a type would make it scarce/rare due to the fact that there would be a thousand or more collectors of that type.

I suppose you hammered boys (no reference to drunkeness intended!!) focus more on one area of the range and stick to it i.e die varieties of C I shillings etc.

I collect both hammered and milled and appreciate what you are saying and understand the price will be determined in all instances by supply and demand. The problem is the over-generous use of rarity. 1934 crowns are probably the classic example. Always described as rare, 934 struck, most still in existence and peddled through sales on a regular basis. In terms of absolute rarity, they aren't rare at all as many larger sales have one, so even if you don't get one today you should be able to get one in a couple of months at most if you are willing to pay the price which is determined solely by the larger number of collectors compared to pieces available. 1936's appear less often despite numbering nearly 3 times that for 1934. You pay less because there were more struck, but disproportionately less when compared in absolute numbers.

We also have to get away from the assumption that rare equals not available within a 5 minute search on the net. If everything was available in an instant, all collections could be formed immediately.

[TomGoodheart 406]

Yes, people seem to forget that there's not a direct relationship between 'rare' and 'desirable'. There are rare coins that are not much in demand. And there are commoner coins which have enough notoriety to always find a buyer.

The internet has good and bad aspects in that it's possible to inspect coins from a dozen dealers' trays in an hour whereas before you'd have had to spend weeks booking appointments and travelling, even if you knew who to approach. But it also distorts our perception of things I think making anyone a potential 'coin dealer'. It also can make it difficult to distinguish between the experts and those who just seem to know their stuff. Or in the case of ebay, who know nothing.

[argentumandcoins 70]

Rare is a term that should be quoted in terms of knowledge (ie speciallist knowledge in the field) or in reference to the accepted rarity in a published work, Freeman, Rayner et al.

I totally agree that Rare, Very Rare, Unique etc etc are terms that usually mean nothing at all in terms of ebay sellers.

I read an article in the antiques trade gazette some years ago. It was a tongue in cheek look at ebay and went something like;

Scarce = 1st one I've seen this week

Very Scarce = 1st one I've seen this month

Rare = 1st one Ive seen for quite a few months

Very Rare = I've never seen one before

Extremely Rare = Neither has my wife

[RobJ 0]

I read an article in the antiques trade gazette some years ago. It was a tongue in cheek look at ebay and went something like;

Scarce = 1st one I've seen this week

Very Scarce = 1st one I've seen this month

Rare = 1st one Ive seen for quite a few months

Very Rare = I've never seen one before

Extremely Rare = Neither has my wife

That just about sums up the 'Rarity Scale' on E-Bay. lol

[Peckris 579]

Mintage figures were never taken as a given on any date pre Elizabeth II as they only reflect the number of coins issued in that year. The issue number could include coins dated a year either side of the actual date.

As for the silver price I wouldn't worry about it. During the last silver hyper inflation of the 70's there were some dealers who were apparently shipping container loads of coins and antique silver to the smelters. I have heard tales of any and everything going in (gothic florins, Ed VII halfcrowns etc). There is such a massive amount remaining that I don't think availability levels will be hit. I visited a caller last week who was disposing of her deceased husbands estate and he had hoarded 2Kgs of lower grade silver (yes I'm selling in bulk) as well as 25 1986 and 1989 £2 coins, £'s of current decimal coinage, some Georgian Copper, the odd bit of Viccy silver, copper and bronze and heaps of mid-late 20th century stuff. This will no doubt be repeated tens thousands of times over across the country, meaning that there will still be oceans of lower grade in existence.

Pre Elizabeth II? I understood it was some point in the 19th Century that they changed this practice?

The silver hyper-inflation was 1980-81 when the Bunker Hunt family in the States tried to corner the silver market (and failed). I vividly remember that (in Coin Monthly) the values listed for BU George VI florins went from £2 in one issue, to £12 the next time they featured florins. Of course, it didn't last.

There maybe many in bank vaults or in deceased collectors collections(bit of a mouthfull).

Surely the market dictates on what is available.

Hammered is a different kettle of fish as only us coin nerds could differentiate.(or want to)

I think when you specialise you become the expert.

There are a few 1/4d's that I always look out for.

And then there's the discovery of large quantities of certain coins well after the issue : one issue of Anne shillings, 1697 late issue sixpences, Maxentius follis (dug up!), 1912H BU pennies ...

[argentumandcoins 70]

Mintage figures were never taken as a given on any date pre Elizabeth II as they only reflect the number of coins issued in that year. The issue number could include coins dated a year either side of the actual date.

As for the silver price I wouldn't worry about it. During the last silver hyper inflation of the 70's there were some dealers who were apparently shipping container loads of coins and antique silver to the smelters. I have heard tales of any and everything going in (gothic florins, Ed VII halfcrowns etc). There is such a massive amount remaining that I don't think availability levels will be hit. I visited a caller last week who was disposing of her deceased husbands estate and he had hoarded 2Kgs of lower grade silver (yes I'm selling in bulk) as well as 25 1986 and 1989 £2 coins, £'s of current decimal coinage, some Georgian Copper, the odd bit of Viccy silver, copper and bronze and heaps of mid-late 20th century stuff. This will no doubt be repeated tens thousands of times over across the country, meaning that there will still be oceans of lower grade in existence.

Pre Elizabeth II? I understood it was some point in the 19th Century that they changed this practice?

The silver hyper-inflation was 1980-81 when the Bunker Hunt family in the States tried to corner the silver market (and failed). I vividly remember that (in Coin Monthly) the values listed for BU George VI florins went from £2 in one issue, to £12 the next time they featured florins. Of course, it didn't last.

There maybe many in bank vaults or in deceased collectors collections(bit of a mouthfull).

Surely the market dictates on what is available.

Hammered is a different kettle of fish as only us coin nerds could differentiate.(or want to)

I think when you specialise you become the expert.

There are a few 1/4d's that I always look out for.

And then there's the discovery of large quantities of certain coins well after the issue : one issue of Anne shillings, 1697 late issue sixpences, Maxentius follis (dug up!), 1912H BU pennies ...

Never having contacted the Mint I relied on information provided by Rayner and he states the practice altered in 1950, hence only EII mintages can be quoted with accuracy. Rayner may of course have been misinformed.

[Rob 3,185]

The mint records for 1949 p.3 state that 1949 saw the production of threepences, but some were from dies of other years, so 1950 seems a good cut-off date. cf.Peck p.517

[1949threepence 3,368]

Mintage figures were never taken as a given on any date pre Elizabeth II as they only reflect the number of coins issued in that year. The issue number could include coins dated a year either side of the actual date.

As for the silver price I wouldn't worry about it. During the last silver hyper inflation of the 70's there were some dealers who were apparently shipping container loads of coins and antique silver to the smelters. I have heard tales of any and everything going in (gothic florins, Ed VII halfcrowns etc). There is such a massive amount remaining that I don't think availability levels will be hit. I visited a caller last week who was disposing of her deceased husbands estate and he had hoarded 2Kgs of lower grade silver (yes I'm selling in bulk) as well as 25 1986 and 1989 £2 coins, £'s of current decimal coinage, some Georgian Copper, the odd bit of Viccy silver, copper and bronze and heaps of mid-late 20th century stuff. This will no doubt be repeated tens thousands of times over across the country, meaning that there will still be oceans of lower grade in existence.

As good an argument as any for always getting the highest grade possible of any coin.

[Cerbera100 0]

I have my many little brown envelopes delivered to work. Mrs D is still suspicious

I tried that one on a recent purchase... Unfortunately, the auction house decided that the invoice/receipt needed to be sent to my home address, and given that Mrs Cerbera and I share the same first initial and the aforementioned auction house hadnt thought to prefix 'J Cerbera' with Mr or Mrs, she opened it

Was I for the high jump that evening when I got home from work!

[Red Riley 2]

I have my many little brown envelopes delivered to work. Mrs D is still suspicious

I tried that one on a recent purchase... Unfortunately, the auction house decided that the invoice/receipt needed to be sent to my home address, and given that Mrs Cerbera and I share the same first initial and the aforementioned auction house hadnt thought to prefix 'J Cerbera' with Mr or Mrs, she opened it

Was I for the high jump that evening when I got home from work!

Hmmm... the answer out of that one is to say that you bought it at a good price and intend to make a profit on it, that usually placates them. If she investigates further, just open an enquiry entitled 'cosmetics - cost of' that should work.

Having been in wedded bliss for 35 years, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject.

[Cerbera100 0]

I tried that one - but now I'm getting an almost daily ear-bending over 'have you sold that b****y set yet?!

Also didn't help that it was two 1927 Proof Sets at a shade over £500 a pop... wasn't planning on winning both! I guess that's the hazard of postal bidding!

[Rob 3,185]

I tried that one - but now I'm getting an almost daily ear-bending over 'have you sold that b****y set yet?!

Also didn't help that it was two 1927 Proof Sets at a shade over £500 a pop... wasn't planning on winning both! I guess that's the hazard of postal bidding!

They just don't understand, do they?

Having indicated how much a specific lot was likely to go for, I was told to go out and get it. Having duly bought it for 25% less than I expected to pay, I was told I was spending too much on coins. I guess the first sentence being on Tuesday and the second on the Thursday after the sale - I hadn't been around during that day to get in the **** until then.

[Peter 615]

I tried that one - but now I'm getting an almost daily ear-bending over 'have you sold that b****y set yet?!

Also didn't help that it was two 1927 Proof Sets at a shade over £500 a pop... wasn't planning on winning both! I guess that's the hazard of postal bidding!

They just don't understand, do they?

Having indicated how much a specific lot was likely to go for, I was told to go out and get it. Having duly bought it for 25% less than I expected to pay, I was told I was spending too much on coins. I guess the first sentence being on Tuesday and the second on the Thursday after the sale - I hadn't been around during that day to get in the **** until then.

Wimmin...they wouldn't know a Queen Anne if they farted one...although my daughters are taking an interest in Dads coins.

[Peter 615]

Apologies for that...I was eating my sarnie and the wife often sees what I write(yes you babe