Can anyone explain

[azda 979]

An 1895 Shilling, Large rose on the REV is R3 Rated by Raynor, can anyone explain why? I thought this would be a common coin, yet a 1708E* Shilling is only rated R2

After reading again, it's the 1896 Small Rose type.........Stand easy men.....

Edited August 15, 2012 by azda

[scott 144]

no idea tbh, not many people know about the differant rose sizes

[azda 979]

1895 i think the Rose size changed, so an 1896 to have a small rose instead of the larger type would have to be the wrong die used?

[Peckris 579]

An 1895 Shilling, Large rose on the REV is R3 Rated by Raynor, can anyone explain why? I thought this would be a common coin, yet a 1708E* Shilling is only rated R2

After reading again, it's the 1896 Small Rose type.........Stand easy men.....

This isn't listed in my Rayner at all - in fact the only variety listed for that series is the 1893 small legend which is rated R. In fact, awesome though the Cope and Rayner work is, they don't do much in modern varieties at all.

[scott 144]

they are listed in a book we all know of though

small rose is listed as more valuable for both years

the differance is minute though. from i gather is the large rose nearly touches the shields

i believe this is a small shield, the gap is larger but not by much

http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/ones2.html

differance is in here

[Peckris 579]

they are listed in a book we all know of though

small rose is listed as more valuable for both years

the differance is minute though. from i gather is the large rose nearly touches the shields

i believe this is a small shield, the gap is larger but not by much

http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/ones2.html

differance is in here

Do you mean ESC? Yes, they are but Dave talked about Rayner unless that was a typo.

[azda 979]

Twas a typo, i did mean the ESC rayner

[Peckris 579]

Twas a typo, i did mean the ESC rayner

Which edition do you have, |Dave? It's not in my 1974 edition.

[azda 979]

Twas a typo, i did mean the ESC rayner

Which edition do you have, |Dave? It's not in my 1974 edition.

I'll report back tomorrow Peck, but its definately later than 74

[ski 1]

hi peck.......its in my copy of the book which is a 1992 5th edition.

ski

Edited August 15, 2012 by ski

[azda 979]

Looks like an upgrade is on the cards Peck?

[Peckris 579]

hi peck.......its in my copy of the book which is a 1992 5th edition.

ski

Wow, hadn't realised there was near 20 years between the 4th and 5th editions.

[ski 1]

yes and the fifth edition is now 20 years old ( out of date)

[Rob 3,152]

yes and the fifth edition is now 20 years old ( out of date)

And the last given Rayner is no more.

[Peckris 579]

yes and the fifth edition is now 20 years old ( out of date)

And the last given Rayner is no more.

Are we talking book here, or perambulating sack of squidgy organs?

[ski 1]

Are we talking book here, or perambulating sack of squidgy organs?

yuk......please please lets talk about the book

[Peter 615]

Robs book is awaited