Bust 6F...Thanks, Clive!

[Coinery 1,157]

[Mongo 1]

Nice photo, and very clever the way you have cropped the actual portrait to enlarge it. Are you working on a reference website/book, Coinery? or is this just for your own pleasure

[Coinery 1,157]

Nice photo, and very clever the way you have cropped the actual portrait to enlarge it. Are you working on a reference website/book, Coinery? or is this just for your own pleasure

A magnificent reference book has been compiled by authors Brown, Comber, and Wilkinson, cataloguing hundreds of Elizabeth I varieties. The varieties are determined by the punches used for the busts, roses, lions, lis, shields, leaves, etc., and also the major legend variations (AN instead of ANG etc.). It sounds complicated but, honestly, it's not.

Their (BCW) book identifies the punches with line drawing, which I have always found to be overly fussy and difficult to follow(but useable of course). The Elizabeth bust line-drawings in Spink, are actually taken from BCW's work, so you can get a sense of what I mean.

Anyway, I am doing nothing more complicated than cutting out the roses, busts, lions, etc. from photographs and displaying them as a supporting resource in the identification of the Elizabeth coins that people have, and presenting them at some point on a website (my avatar is BCW Rose 18 ). I think it would be infinitely more interesting for collectors to document 'Threepence BA-1B:a' on their tickets, rather than just a blanket, and rather uninspiring, S2564. As an example of the scale of things, S2561 for example represents 161 different BCW sixpences (some rare, some common), each of them distinctly different. I'm not suggesting you'd want to collect every one, but it's nice to know which one you have, and you can do this in under a couple of minutes.

So, there you have it! My only thought is whether I should re-jig the template and include 3 busts/roses etc. in decreasing grades, to further assist identification, but that's 3 times more work, so maybe not! I guess also, once coins are approaching the lower end of the grading scale, it becomes less and less likely that all the information is present to fully catalogue it anyway, so I'll probably not bother! Having said that, you can sometimes clearly identify a faceless washer, but struggle to pin an EF coin down, on account of something as annoying as an overdate (the 1578/7/6 thread being a case in point).

[Coinery 1,157]

Nice photo, and very clever the way you have cropped the actual portrait to enlarge it. Are you working on a reference website/book, Coinery? or is this just for your own pleasure

A magnificent reference book has been compiled by authors Brown, Comber, and Wilkinson, cataloguing hundreds of Elizabeth I varieties. The varieties are determined by the punches used for the busts, roses, lions, lis, shields, leaves, etc., and also the major legend variations (AN instead of ANG etc.). It sounds complicated but, honestly, it's not.

Their (BCW) book identifies the punches with line drawing, which I have always found to be overly fussy and difficult to follow(but useable of course). The Elizabeth bust line-drawings in Spink, are actually taken from BCW's work, so you can get a sense of what I mean.

Anyway, I am doing nothing more complicated than cutting out the roses, busts, lions, etc. from photographs and displaying them as a supporting resource in the identification of the Elizabeth coins that people have, and presenting them at some point on a website (my avatar is BCW Rose 18 ). I think it would be infinitely more interesting for collectors to document 'Threepence BA-1B:a' on their tickets, rather than just a blanket, and rather uninspiring, S2564. As an example of the scale of things, S2561 for example represents 161 different BCW sixpences (some rare, some common), each of them distinctly different. I'm not suggesting you'd want to collect every one, but it's nice to know which one you have, and you can do this in under a couple of minutes.

So, there you have it! My only thought is whether I should re-jig the template and include 3 busts/roses etc. in decreasing grades, to further assist identification, but that's 3 times more work, so maybe not! I guess also, once coins are approaching the lower end of the grading scale, it becomes less and less likely that all the information is present to fully catalogue it anyway, so I'll probably not bother! Having said that, you can sometimes clearly identify a faceless washer, but struggle to pin an EF coin down, on account of something as annoying as an overdate (the 1578/7/6 thread being a case in point).

[Peckris 579]

Dose lions are leopards! Hence the lack of mane and long body hair. (Sorry, just a personal bugbear - nearly everyone gets this wrong).

[Coinery 1,157]

Dose lions are leopards! Hence the lack of mane and long body hair. (Sorry, just a personal bugbear - nearly everyone gets this wrong).

Including the England sporting teams! "3 leopards on my shirt..."

[Peckris 579]

Dose lions are leopards! Hence the lack of mane and long body hair. (Sorry, just a personal bugbear - nearly everyone gets this wrong).

Including the England sporting teams! "3 leopards on my shirt..."

Yes - them too

[pies 33]

How many engravers do u think saw a lion in 16th century?

[HistoricCoinage 147]

How many engravers do u think saw a lion in 16th century?

I imagine it would have been possible as lions had been kept at the Tower of London from the 13th century onwards. The fact that the barbican was renamed as the Lion Tower also suggests the presence of lions. With the mint at this time being the Tower mint I wouldn't be all that surprised.