What grade would you say this was?

[DaveG38 405]

This is the problem with being a date collector. In the end a number of gaps remain and no matter how good a grade your other coins are the likelihood is that the gap fillers will have to be in lower grades, unless, of course, you have got unlimited cash and a really good means of sourcing top coins. Doesn't apply to most of us and so we have to put up with lesser coins, but at least the gap is filled! That means my 1849 penny is Fine at best, my 1854 florin probably AF and the shilling and sixpence too. I still don't have a 1839 or 1841 half crown and I know that if I want one to fill the gap then its going to cost a hellova lot of dosh for a pretty indifferent specimen. Even so it won't be as bad as the £22k (was it?) paid for the Victorian penny washer with a die number on it. That's taking date/variety collecting to extremes in my view.

[declanwmagee 122]

Yes. I took a big decision a couple of weeks ago, and stopped my database recognising any grade less than Fine. This means that if any coin less than that creeps in somehow, none of the calculations based on Grade (and there are a lot of them!) will work. So, even for a 1905 halfcrown, it'll have to be Fine at least. So that one may take a while.

For some of the others, shilling for instance, Fine would be OK to start with. I don't mind going through upgrade after upgrade - I have done that with all my coins, because selling the B coins is what finances the purchase of new A coins. So to set a minimum starter grade of Fine suits me, even if it takes me several upgrades to get to VF.

Edward VII florins: it took me 8 upgrades to get to VF for 1907, as an example!

Edited December 13, 2011 by declanwmagee

[azda 979]

This is the problem with being a date collector. In the end a number of gaps remain and no matter how good a grade your other coins are the likelihood is that the gap fillers will have to be in lower grades, unless, of course, you have got unlimited cash and a really good means of sourcing top coins. Doesn't apply to most of us and so we have to put up with lesser coins, but at least the gap is filled! That means my 1849 penny is Fine at best, my 1854 florin probably AF and the shilling and sixpence too. I still don't have a 1839 or 1841 half crown and I know that if I want one to fill the gap then its going to cost a hellova lot of dosh for a pretty indifferent specimen. Even so it won't be as bad as the £22k (was it?) paid for the Victorian penny washer with a die number on it. That's taking date/variety collecting to extremes in my view.

It was a slender 3 that went at 22k

[DaveG38 405]

This is the problem with being a date collector. In the end a number of gaps remain and no matter how good a grade your other coins are the likelihood is that the gap fillers will have to be in lower grades, unless, of course, you have got unlimited cash and a really good means of sourcing top coins. Doesn't apply to most of us and so we have to put up with lesser coins, but at least the gap is filled! That means my 1849 penny is Fine at best, my 1854 florin probably AF and the shilling and sixpence too. I still don't have a 1839 or 1841 half crown and I know that if I want one to fill the gap then its going to cost a hellova lot of dosh for a pretty indifferent specimen. Even so it won't be as bad as the £22k (was it?) paid for the Victorian penny washer with a die number on it. That's taking date/variety collecting to extremes in my view.

It was a slender 3 that went at 22k

So it was. Thanks for that Azda.

[Peter 615]

I was a date collector but have surgically removed this monkey from my back.

Farthings are the only complete series I have regardless of grade.

Everything else is being sacrificed although I have kept examples of every monach/bust/type and even duplicates of the better coins.

I saw no merit in keeping key dates in F when I have the date either side in EF+.

[Peckris 579]

Yes. I took a big decision a couple of weeks ago, and stopped my database recognising any grade less than Fine. This means that if any coin less than that creeps in somehow, none of the calculations based on Grade (and there are a lot of them!) will work. So, even for a 1905 halfcrown, it'll have to be Fine at least. So that one may take a while.

You too? I have some calculations based on "in-between" grades that took me forever to code! That's using scripting in FileMaker - what are you using?

I was a date collector but have surgically removed this monkey from my back.

Farthings are the only complete series I have regardless of grade.

Everything else is being sacrificed although I have kept examples of every monach/bust/type and even duplicates of the better coins.

I saw no merit in keeping key dates in F when I have the date either side in EF+.

I tend to agree. Apart from a few rarities I had to have (the aforementioned 1905 halfcrown!), a worn coin is a worn coin and its rarity doesn't make it look any better or more special to my eyes (usually...)

[Rob 3,152]

I'm still trying to understand how you can calculate which is the better coin based on an algorithm. How do you quantify eye appeal? I can see you can allow for a percentage of smooth/flat surface, but all this is negated surely by your opinion of grade which will be subjective depending on eye appeal. And what's wrong with less than fine? Why should this screw things up?

[unc 0]

I was a date collector but have surgically removed this monkey from my back.

Farthings are the only complete series I have regardless of grade.

Everything else is being sacrificed although I have kept examples of every monach/bust/type and even duplicates of the better coins.

I saw no merit in keeping key dates in F when I have the date either side in EF+.

I now only buy BU coins. I, too, have lost my obsession.

I think it's worth it in the end, not from a greed point of view but from the point of view that your time and efforts might be worth having a really decent coin in the end.

Alex.

[Peckris 579]

I'm still trying to understand how you can calculate which is the better coin based on an algorithm. How do you quantify eye appeal? I can see you can allow for a percentage of smooth/flat surface, but all this is negated surely by your opinion of grade which will be subjective depending on eye appeal. And what's wrong with less than fine? Why should this screw things up?

Ah, but one of my 4 methods of getting a value (based on Spink) involves inputting a manual value for just such contingencies It does depend on having input all Spink values for every coin in my collection, which sadly is a part I would love to automate if only I could.

[Debbie 58]

For some of the others, shilling for instance, Fine would be OK to start with. I don't mind going through upgrade after upgrade - I have done that with all my coins, because selling the B coins is what finances the purchase of new A coins. So to set a minimum starter grade of Fine suits me, even if it takes me several upgrades to get to VF.

I am sure that I have puchased a few of those B coins off you at some point declan!

[Rob 3,152]

I was a date collector but have surgically removed this monkey from my back.

Farthings are the only complete series I have regardless of grade.

Everything else is being sacrificed although I have kept examples of every monach/bust/type and even duplicates of the better coins.

I saw no merit in keeping key dates in F when I have the date either side in EF+.

But herein lies the dilemma for all collectors. Any collection, farthings included, will inevitably result in a range of grades amongst the consitutents. You just have to grin and bear it unless you say I refuse to get an example of xxxx because it doesn't exist in better than fine or whatever. Otherwise you may as well restrict yourself to the packaged rubbish issued by the RM (or equivalent) which is probably as consistent a product as you can get in numismatics.

[Peter 615]

I was a date collector but have surgically removed this monkey from my back.

Farthings are the only complete series I have regardless of grade.

Everything else is being sacrificed although I have kept examples of every monach/bust/type and even duplicates of the better coins.

I saw no merit in keeping key dates in F when I have the date either side in EF+.

But herein lies the dilemma for all collectors. Any collection, farthings included, will inevitably result in a range of grades amongst the consitutents. You just have to grin and bear it unless you say I refuse to get an example of xxxx because it doesn't exist in better than fine or whatever. Otherwise you may as well restrict yourself to the packaged rubbish issued by the RM (or equivalent) which is probably as consistent a product as you can get in numismatics.

I confess William 111 does give me a big problem...you see a beautiful obverse...the heart pounds...your palms sweat only to find the date on the reverse is chopped off or there is a massive flan error.The dealer describes it as VF when it is green and porus and ugly as sin.

Now where have I heard VF for issue.

[Rob 3,152]

I confess William 111 does give me a big problem...you see a beautiful obverse...the heart pounds...your palms sweat only to find the date on the reverse is chopped off or there is a massive flan error.The dealer describes it as VF when it is green and porus and ugly as sin.

Now where have I heard VF for issue.

You mean like this

[declanwmagee 122]

You too? I have some calculations based on "in-between" grades that took me forever to code! That's using scripting in FileMaker - what are you using?

I use a big old bloated Excel workbook, ridiculously overcomplicated and held together with bits of string, rubber bands, and VBA. Keeping it pruned is a constant task, hence the loss of various bits of functionality over the years. One of which was the treatment of grades below Fine. On the grading scale I came up with when I started (years before CGS!), half of the numeric grades were below fine, because most of the coins I had at the time were. By condensing all that into one grade, Fair, that particular prune had the effect of reducing the number crunching by half, and eliminated such nonsense as "what would I pay for a 1967 halfpenny in VG+?". Which was being automatically calculated, along with 1500 other coins in 10 different low grades!

Inbetween grades above Fine took me a while to get right, because I found that each coin has an individual gradient. Big silver, for instance, is nearly linear, as bullion value holds the lower grades artificially high, but bronze tends to follow a classic exponential curve. The solution I came up with involves taking an average of 4 price sources, calculating the gradient of the average, and plotting a trend line between the known points.

As well as all that, I had to come up with a method for dealing with the more esoteric varieties that my 4 price sources don't list. Davies and Freeman both include pricing (albeit out of date) for their varieties, so I use those to factor up the prices given for the common types.

Example: 1929 Halfcrown. None of the 4 price guides I use recognise the 2 Davies varieties, so I have to assume the prices they give are for the commoner D.1704, listed as worth £11 in Mint State by Davies (1982). He gives £14 for D.1705, so I can safely multiply recent book prices by (14/11) for D.1705.

Make sense?

[declanwmagee 122]

I'm still trying to understand how you can calculate which is the better coin based on an algorithm. How do you quantify eye appeal? I can see you can allow for a percentage of smooth/flat surface, but all this is negated surely by your opinion of grade which will be subjective depending on eye appeal. And what's wrong with less than fine? Why should this screw things up?

Now there's a Pandora's Box! I did come up with, and use for a few years, a Magic Number, so I could compare coins from anywhere in the Collection and ask myself the question, "which is the better coin?".

The factors that went into the algorithm were:

Age

Grade

Book Value

Rarity Rating (from the appropriate literature (Peck, ESC, Sealy & Freeman))

Precious metal content

Previous sales history (i.e. the prices I had actually achieved for that coin in the past, independent of Book Value)

Each one of those factors was weighted, because they weren't all of the same proportional importance, to come up with a single integer. Ranking that integer gave me a good indication of the coins I should sell first, and those I should hang on to.

The Magic Number was another victim of another database prune about a year ago. I don't miss it!

[declanwmagee 122]

For some of the others, shilling for instance, Fine would be OK to start with. I don't mind going through upgrade after upgrade - I have done that with all my coins, because selling the B coins is what finances the purchase of new A coins. So to set a minimum starter grade of Fine suits me, even if it takes me several upgrades to get to VF.

I am sure that I have puchased a few of those B coins off you at some point declan!

That's good to hear, Debbie! If I knew your ebay name I could tell you what you bought, when you bought it, how much for, etc etc...and whether I've bought anything from you, and where it is now.

Very sad really.

[Colin G. 147]

That's good to hear, Debbie! If I knew your ebay name I could tell you what you bought, when you bought it, how much for, etc etc...and whether I've bought anything from you, and where it is now.

Very sad really.

And I thought I had obsessive compulsive tendancies

[Debbie 58]

mmmmm.... I have emailed you Declan!

[Peckris 579]

You too? I have some calculations based on "in-between" grades that took me forever to code! That's using scripting in FileMaker - what are you using?

I use a big old bloated Excel workbook, ridiculously overcomplicated and held together with bits of string, rubber bands, and VBA. Keeping it pruned is a constant task, hence the loss of various bits of functionality over the years. One of which was the treatment of grades below Fine. On the grading scale I came up with when I started (years before CGS!), half of the numeric grades were below fine, because most of the coins I had at the time were. By condensing all that into one grade, Fair, that particular prune had the effect of reducing the number crunching by half, and eliminated such nonsense as "what would I pay for a 1967 halfpenny in VG+?". Which was being automatically calculated, along with 1500 other coins in 10 different low grades!

Inbetween grades above Fine took me a while to get right, because I found that each coin has an individual gradient. Big silver, for instance, is nearly linear, as bullion value holds the lower grades artificially high, but bronze tends to follow a classic exponential curve. The solution I came up with involves taking an average of 4 price sources, calculating the gradient of the average, and plotting a trend line between the known points.

As well as all that, I had to come up with a method for dealing with the more esoteric varieties that my 4 price sources don't list. Davies and Freeman both include pricing (albeit out of date) for their varieties, so I use those to factor up the prices given for the common types.

Example: 1929 Halfcrown. None of the 4 price guides I use recognise the 2 Davies varieties, so I have to assume the prices they give are for the commoner D.1704, listed as worth £11 in Mint State by Davies (1982). He gives £14 for D.1705, so I can safely multiply recent book prices by (14/11) for D.1705.

Make sense?

Sort of! Here are my visible notes as seen on one of my database layouts, giving an idea of what's going on in the background (what's going on i.t.b. is the actual calculation as coded by me!):

Make sense?

[declanwmagee 122]

I plug 'em all in manually too, Peck! Except I use 4:

Spink

Coin Yearbook

British Coins market Values

CCGB

I often think while I'm doing it how there must be a market for CSV files of this stuff. I don't suppose Spink would be too happy abou that though...

[Peckris 579]

I plug 'em all in manually too, Peck! Except I use 4:

Spink

Coin Yearbook

British Coins market Values

CCGB

I often think while I'm doing it how there must be a market for CSV files of this stuff. I don't suppose Spink would be too happy abou that though...

You probably get a more realistic valuation declan - between the overhype of Spink and the dismal undervaluation of Market Values. On the other hand, using Spink would pay dividends if having to make an insurance claim

[declanwmagee 122]

mmmmm.... I have emailed you Declan!

ah yes, 5 shillings, last year!

Plenty more where that came from...

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

This is the problem with being a date collector. In the end a number of gaps remain and no matter how good a grade your other coins are the likelihood is that the gap fillers will have to be in lower grades, unless, of course, you have got unlimited cash and a really good means of sourcing top coins. Doesn't apply to most of us and so we have to put up with lesser coins, but at least the gap is filled! That means my 1849 penny is Fine at best, my 1854 florin probably AF and the shilling and sixpence too. I still don't have a 1839 or 1841 half crown and I know that if I want one to fill the gap then its going to cost a hellova lot of dosh for a pretty indifferent specimen. Even so it won't be as bad as the £22k (was it?) paid for the Victorian penny washer with a die number on it. That's taking date/variety collecting to extremes in my view.

It was a slender 3 that went at 22k

So it was. Thanks for that Azda.

Also the Die #5 that I think Dave was referring to in the post.... Same buyer too, I believe

Edited December 17, 2011 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[Debbie 58]

ah yes, 5 shillings, last year!

Plenty more where that came from...

Are you sure? I thought I bought a a couple fairly recently end of Oct. I'm sure one was a "delicious" 1936! Haven't tasted it yet though!

[declanwmagee 122]

ah yes, 5 shillings, last year!

Plenty more where that came from...

Are you sure? I thought I bought a a couple fairly recently end of Oct. I'm sure one was a "delicious" 1936! Haven't tasted it yet though!

Quite right Debbie, 23rd October, and an EF 1949 Scottish at the same time!