Types, Varieties & Micro-Varieties!

[Coinery 1,153]

I've just got to wondering when a variety becomes a micro-variety, and even when a type becomes a variety?

Obviously I had my head in an E1 book last night, and have now confused myself over the following...can anybody type T, V, or MV alongside the below examples? Any explanations would be very much appreciated!

Elizabeth Sixpence -

Elizabeth 1561 Sixpence -

Elizabeth 1561 Sixpence, (Privy Mark BA) -

Elizabeth 1561 Sixpence (BA) Large Flan -

Elizabeth 1561 Sixpence (BA) L'Flan Bust 1F -

And then hypothetically speaking, as I'm out without the book...

E 1561 6D (BA) LF Bust 1F [overdate/overmark, etc] -

E 1561 6D (BA) LF Bust 1F [specific punches, lions etc] -

E 1561 6D (BA) LF Bust 1F [FR/FRA, ELZBETH etc] -

E 1561 etc Individual Dies (legend positionings etc) -

And finally what (hypothetically speaking) would an Elizabeth I inverted 6 1561 Large-Flan, Bust 1F, Rose 79, 6D Broad Arrow over Cross-Crosslet, ELZBETH Sixpence be called?

If a Victoria Penny had all the above features, clear and distinct, would that be classified in the same way?

Any thoughts?

[Rob 3,152]

I've just got to wondering when a variety becomes a micro-variety, and even when a type becomes a variety?

Obviously I had my head in an E1 book last night, and have now confused myself over the following...can anybody type T, V, or MV alongside the below examples? Any explanations would be very much appreciated!

Elizabeth Sixpence -

Elizabeth 1561 Sixpence -

Elizabeth 1561 Sixpence, (Privy Mark BA) -

Elizabeth 1561 Sixpence (BA) Large Flan -

Elizabeth 1561 Sixpence (BA) L'Flan Bust 1F -

And then hypothetically speaking, as I'm out without the book...

E 1561 6D (BA) LF Bust 1F [overdate/overmark, etc] -

E 1561 6D (BA) LF Bust 1F [specific punches, lions etc] -

E 1561 6D (BA) LF Bust 1F [FR/FRA, ELZBETH etc] -

E 1561 etc Individual Dies (legend positionings etc) -

And finally what (hypothetically speaking) would an Elizabeth I inverted 6 1561 Large-Flan, Bust 1F, Rose 79, 6D Broad Arrow over Cross-Crosslet, ELZBETH Sixpence be called?

If a Victoria Penny had all the above features, clear and distinct, would that be classified in the same way?

Any thoughts?

Type if it is a generic issue, e.g. Eliz 6d or an in your face difference such as a large and small bust or flan size with the caveat that it probably needs to be commonly available to be appreciated. Variety if the coin can be readily identified without recourse to magnification or at least only a cursory glance. Legend varieties would fall into this category as would various bust types of similar size and appearance, but detail differences, flan size or marks. Most would come into the variety category in my view because either they are obvious in the hand, or provide differences for a significant reason. So overdates and overmarks are distinct issues attributable to a specific period in time for example. Micro varieties are where you need to refer to a reference, glass in hand, to categorise the coin based on subtle differences in fine detail. Once reference material has been published, the boundary between variety and microvariety becomes blurred. The deeper one gets into a particular subject, the more important the differences become in the eyes of that collector, so one man's variety is another man's anathema.

As a rough guide, I suggest it boils down to the number of dimensions required to define the coin. Type can be summed up in 2 or 3 criteria at most, variety in 3 or 4, microvariety in as many as you want. Obviously some flexibility is required here.

[Peter 615]

A variety in my eyes needs to be published in a respected book/reference/accepted by the coin media.It will then be sought.

I must confess I have been adding unpublished varieties to my farthing collection and will continue.I have drawn a line though and targeted certain varieties.

I do like the challenge.

[Coinery 1,153]

As a rough guide, I suggest it boils down to the number of dimensions required to define the coin. Type can be summed up in 2 or 3 criteria at most, variety in 3 or 4, microvariety in as many as you want. Obviously some flexibility is required here.

Thanks for that Rob! Can I just draw you on the above? Would you say all the BCW classifications were varieties, even though the humble sixpence would run into many 100's when using the LIS, lion, rose, leaf, bust, criteria etc. and the many die-pairings?

I presume from what you are saying, that an ELZBETH or FR/FRA coin would fit the requirement of a variety? However, bearing in mind the clear differences in legend configuration (spacings, letter rotations, sizes etc) of hammered coins, compared to modern milled coinage, would these still be considered varieties, or are we moving into the realms of micro there? The sixpence dies could be heading a 1000 + at that level of classification, though they are clear to see without the aid of a micrometer!

You can see how I've tied myself up in knots with this one!

[Coinery 1,153]

A variety in my eyes needs to be published in a respected book/reference/accepted by the coin media.It will then be sought.

I must confess I have been adding unpublished varieties to my farthing collection and will continue.I have drawn a line though and targeted certain varieties.

I do like the challenge.

Thanks, Peter! I guess though, that a 'clear' variety is a variety, whether it's been published or not! I think it's perfectly reasonable to collect unpublished varieties! Any serious collector would acknowledge them as such, whether it was published or not, wouldn't they?

I suppose on a commercial basis it might be harder to get comparable money for it until it's catalogued, the rarity of it could be a tough one until it's published, giving the collector base an opportunity to discover they've got 50 of them already!

[Peckris 579]

A variety in my eyes needs to be published in a respected book/reference/accepted by the coin media.It will then be sought.

I must confess I have been adding unpublished varieties to my farthing collection and will continue.I have drawn a line though and targeted certain varieties.

I do like the challenge.

Thanks, Peter! I guess though, that a 'clear' variety is a variety, whether it's been published or not! I think it's perfectly reasonable to collect unpublished varieties! Any serious collector would acknowledge them as such, whether it was published or not, wouldn't they?

I suppose on a commercial basis it might be harder to get comparable money for it until it's catalogued, the rarity of it could be a tough one until it's published, giving the collector base an opportunity to discover they've got 50 of them already!

A 'clear' unpublished variety would almost by definition be very rare, as most clear varieties have been seen and noted somewhere. However, I agree that the boundary lines are blurry - two Geo V farthings were only identified after decimalisation; the hard-to-identify 1915 Type 1 obverse, and the very-easy-to-see mint toned 1918. Yet the more obvious variety (1918) is also much more common, so you would have thought it would have been recognised sooner.

And yet, the 1915 - though hard to spot - is a different die design, every bit as much as the 1913 penny, and is identified in Freeman; the 1918 - easy to see - is simply a different finish, and therefore possibly only a micro-variety. So the definition is still all up for grabs, I'd say.

[Peter 615]

Hi Stewart

Get ahead of the pack.

Hammered is a loose cannon but milled is more defined.I'm still after a couple of common varieties like 1874 both G's over,1860 mule.I am doing well on the less common varieties.I've got all copper currency 1/4d's back to 1672 (apart from 1676 & 1718).It keeps me off the streets and a hobby I enjoy.

When I look at the CC collection I realise I have a future addiction.I have my ups and downs in tracking coins I want but overall I enjoy it.

Even my daughters know what I'm after and quickly spot some varieties.My youngest picked up on the 1856 (R/E or E/R) straight away.Serifs will be a problem.

One series I have avoided is William 111 6d's.

I still buy examples of Viking,Celtic,Saxon and other hammered.I also buy top quality milled.However both my daughters have an interest in common coins so I often buy these.They both have their own trays.

[TomGoodheart 402]

I think it partly depends on your interests. Obviously a type doesn't become a variety because the difference between types is a major redesign of bust or reverse or both. But the difference between varieties and micro varieties I think is less distinct.

For me varieties are still fairly major differences such as a different size or position of the monarch's bust. Michael Sharp went on to counting the number of pearls in the King's crown and so I have to accept those as varieties too. But the differences where it's down to, say, whether a legend reads H! HI! or HIB! are micro varieties to me and of much less interest.

However I notice Grant Francis was careful to tablulate legend variations as well as differing numbers of stops around the mint mark and so on. His aim was I believe to attempt to identify dies and so such details were of relevance and maybe if I was made of money, I might start to try to pick up such differing coins. But I'm only really interested in differences if they are mentioned or published already. Trying to see how many styles of Scottish lion there might be doesn't do it for me, though it does for others, and I tend to think of those sorts of things as the 'micro' end of the scale.

[Coinery 1,153]

A 'clear' unpublished variety would almost by definition be very rare, as most clear varieties have been seen and noted somewhere.

Ahh, now you say that, but out of around 20 coins I've bought recently, either because they were unusual or pretty, two of them are not in BCW. One is an un-noted die-pairing, and the other an un-noted legend feature! Small stuff, I know, but with an estimated (mine) 1000+ dies for the sixpences alone, there must be plenty up for grabs!

I don't think many out there would care a toss about it, really, or pay any more for one, on account it would be a Very VERY long time before any collector got close to having only a few holes in their Elizabeth sixpence collection, and anywhere near thinking about paying a premium to fill it!

I might just work backwards and collect the uncollected, now there's a challenge!

[Peckris 579]

A 'clear' unpublished variety would almost by definition be very rare, as most clear varieties have been seen and noted somewhere.

Ahh, now you say that, but out of around 20 coins I've bought recently, either because they were unusual or pretty, two of them are not in BCW. One is an un-noted die-pairing, and the other an un-noted legend feature! Small stuff, I know, but with an estimated (mine) 1000+ dies for the sixpences alone, there must be plenty up for grabs!

I don't think many out there would care a toss about it, really, or pay any more for one, on account it would be a Very VERY long time before any collector got close to having only a few holes in their Elizabeth sixpence collection, and anywhere near thinking about paying a premium to fill it!

I might just work backwards and collect the uncollected, now there's a challenge!

Yes, I wasn't actually including hammered in my definition, as each coin is almost a micro-variety in itself!

[Coinery 1,153]

A 'clear' unpublished variety would almost by definition be very rare, as most clear varieties have been seen and noted somewhere.

Ahh, now you say that, but out of around 20 coins I've bought recently, either because they were unusual or pretty, two of them are not in BCW. One is an un-noted die-pairing, and the other an un-noted legend feature! Small stuff, I know, but with an estimated (mine) 1000+ dies for the sixpences alone, there must be plenty up for grabs!

I don't think many out there would care a toss about it, really, or pay any more for one, on account it would be a Very VERY long time before any collector got close to having only a few holes in their Elizabeth sixpence collection, and anywhere near thinking about paying a premium to fill it!

I might just work backwards and collect the uncollected, now there's a challenge!

Yes, I wasn't actually including hammered in my definition, as each coin is almost a micro-variety in itself!

And that takes it back full-circle to whether they're micro or not? With clearly defined differences, which are so very different from another of the same type, I couldn't decide whether that made it a variety or a micro-variety!

I guess the comparison is, if there was a 20 degree rotated E on a 1918 penny, would that be a 'variety' or a 'micro-variety'?

It's quite a subject, and had me scratching my head for a couple of days now! No wonder I'm all but gone on top!

Edited September 12, 2012 by Coinery

[Accumulator 52]

For me, referring to pennies, (though I haven't thought this through too much), a type would be defined by the denomination, monarch and basic design. E.g bun head penny, veiled head penny etc. A variety would generally be a distinct die pairing listed in Freeman. A micro variety would be minor variations in date width, die damage & repairs etc. as additionally listed by Gouby.

[TomGoodheart 402]

I guess my rule of thumb is how much avarage collectors are bothered about something. A new bust design is something that is clear to see and people can appreciate that. Similarly if a reverse has a cross through it or is just a shield. These are types.

Next step down is varieties where the difference is subtler. The 1926 ME or all the different bows and hair sweeps of early milled. A fair number of people will be interested (although not necessarily go out of their way to aquire) in whether their Charles II shilling is first bust or first bust variety.

After that however you get to whether a letter aligns with certain teeth of the border or not, which is fine with milled and modern, which I think of as micro-varieties. But with the vaguaries of hammered coins (as no two dies are identical) it becomes difficult to say if it's a feature of the coin (which no legend stops at all would be) or of the die (such as milled coins where a blocked die causes a stop to disappear). I also imagine that for most people they aren't of much interest (or not worth paying extra for)

I guess for me the things like inverted As substituted for Vs is sort of in between, in that they mostly don't interest me, but I accept they are valid varieties. But I still think with hammered it's not a clear cut issue. This for example:

The reverse legend error (AVSSPCE) is clearly the result of a single mis-made die. Only the fact that there was an example in the Brooker collection (425) with this error (though from a different obverse die) makes it interesting to me. I wanted an exaple of this type (second bust, second reverse) and the error was a bonus. But if a better example without the error had been available for the same price I paid for this coin, I'd probably have gone for the better grade.

Is the AVSSPCE error a variety or a micro-variety or ... just an error? It's not listed in Spink (although several of the legend variations of say William III of course are). If it was, would I seek it out? Possibly not. As I say, I guess it depends what it is about collecting that 'does it' for you. And for me a decent example of each main design does and how many dots there are to the left of the legend or whether a coin is from die zx2 or die xz2 doesn't.

Which is good really or I might be competing with you for all those BCW variations!

Edited September 12, 2012 by TomGoodheart

[Rob 3,152]

I guess my rule of thumb is how much avarage collectors are bothered about something. A new bust design is something that is clear to see and people can appreciate that. Similarly if a reverse has a cross through it or is just a shield. These are types.

Next step down is varieties where the difference is subtler. The 1926 ME or all the different bows and hair sweeps of early milled. A fair number of people will be interested (although not necessarily go out of their way to aquire) in whether their Charles II shilling is first bust or first bust variety.

After that however you get to whether a letter aligns with certain teeth of the border or not, which is fine with milled and modern, which I think of as micro-varieties. But with the vaguaries of hammered coins (as no two dies are identical) it becomes difficult to say if it's a feature of the coin (which no legend stops at all would be) or of the die (such as milled coins where a blocked die causes a stop to disappear). I also imagine that for most people they aren't of much interest (or not worth paying extra for)

I guess for me the things like inverted As substituted for Vs is sort of in between, in that they mostly don't interest me, but I accept they are valid varieties. But I still think with hammered it's not a clear cut issue. This for example:

The reverse legend error (AVSSPCE) is clearly the result of a single mis-made die. Only the fact that there was an example in the Brooker collection (425) with this error (though from a different obverse die) makes it interesting to me. I wanted an exaple of this type (second bust, second reverse) and the error was a bonus. But if a better example without the error had been available for the same price I paid for this coin, I'd probably have gone for the better grade.

Is the AVSSPCE error a variety or a micro-variety or ... just an error? It's not listed in Spink (although several of the legend variations of say William III of course are). If it was, would I seek it out? Possibly not. As I say, I guess it depends what it is about collecting that 'does it' for you. And for me a decent example of each main design does and how many dots there are to the left of the legend or whether a coin is from die zx2 or die xz2 doesn't.

Which is good really or I might be competing with you for all those BCW variations!

I submit that this post was a deliberate attempt to stir up past grievances. :angry: :angry:

[Peter 615]

I've been going through my 1953 farthings and looking at my 1957 1/2d's I must have them all....dam it. Time for some Sex Pistols and a slug of red.

[Peckris 579]

I've been going through my 1953 farthings and looking at my 1957 1/2d's I must have them all....dam it. Time for some Sex Pistols and a slug of red.

What, BOTH of them?

[Peter 615]

I've been going through my 1953 farthings and looking at my 1957 1/2d's I must have them all....dam it. Time for some Sex Pistols and a slug of red.

What, BOTH of them?

8 of the buggers

[Peckris 579]

I've been going through my 1953 farthings and looking at my 1957 1/2d's I must have them all....dam it. Time for some Sex Pistols and a slug of red.

What, BOTH of them?

8 of the buggers

No Way!!!!

[Coinery 1,153]

I guess my rule of thumb is how much avarage collectors are bothered about something. A new bust design is something that is clear to see and people can appreciate that. Similarly if a reverse has a cross through it or is just a shield. These are types.

Next step down is varieties where the difference is subtler. The 1926 ME or all the different bows and hair sweeps of early milled. A fair number of people will be interested (although not necessarily go out of their way to aquire) in whether their Charles II shilling is first bust or first bust variety.

After that however you get to whether a letter aligns with certain teeth of the border or not, which is fine with milled and modern, which I think of as micro-varieties. But with the vaguaries of hammered coins (as no two dies are identical) it becomes difficult to say if it's a feature of the coin (which no legend stops at all would be) or of the die (such as milled coins where a blocked die causes a stop to disappear). I also imagine that for most people they aren't of much interest (or not worth paying extra for)

I guess for me the things like inverted As substituted for Vs is sort of in between, in that they mostly don't interest me, but I accept they are valid varieties. But I still think with hammered it's not a clear cut issue. This for example:

The reverse legend error (AVSSPCE) is clearly the result of a single mis-made die. Only the fact that there was an example in the Brooker collection (425) with this error (though from a different obverse die) makes it interesting to me. I wanted an exaple of this type (second bust, second reverse) and the error was a bonus. But if a better example without the error had been available for the same price I paid for this coin, I'd probably have gone for the better grade.

Is the AVSSPCE error a variety or a micro-variety or ... just an error? It's not listed in Spink (although several of the legend variations of say William III of course are). If it was, would I seek it out? Possibly not. As I say, I guess it depends what it is about collecting that 'does it' for you. And for me a decent example of each main design does and how many dots there are to the left of the legend or whether a coin is from die zx2 or die xz2 doesn't.

Which is good really or I might be competing with you for all those BCW variations!

I can't not (double neg.) say thank-you for putting that effort in Richard so, truly, many thanks!

Two days ago I would have thought it a simple numismatic formality, drawing the line between varieties and micro-varieties, naively believing the criterion to be extremely well defined! I'm amazed to find out how wide the grey band actually is, and of how much interest it really is to collectors generally!

Another enlightening thread for me! Thanks to all, once again!

[Peter 615]

1953 1/4d freeman 660 to 663 (excluding proofs)

1957 1/2d freeman 477 plus freeman 476 (with 4 varieties of calm sea)

My mistake there are 9 coins there...all currency.

[Peckris 579]

1953 1/4d freeman 660 to 663 (excluding proofs)

1957 1/2d freeman 477 plus freeman 476 (with 4 varieties of calm sea)

My mistake there are 9 coins there...all currency.

Sorry, I thought your 8 were just referring to 1957 halfpennies. What are the 4 calm sea varieties? Freeman only has one.

[Peter 615]

1953 1/4d freeman 660 to 663 (excluding proofs)

1957 1/2d freeman 477 plus freeman 476 (with 4 varieties of calm sea)

My mistake there are 9 coins there...all currency.

Sorry, I thought your 8 were just referring to 1957 halfpennies. What are the 4 calm sea varieties? Freeman only has one.

Calm sea varieties

7 points to bead

7 points to left of bead

7 points to space

blunter 7 points to bead

actually I have just consulted Mr Groom's book and there are 3 more

7 points to right of bead

blunt 7 to left of bead

blunt 7 to right of bead

The initial 4 are mentioned in CCGB.

[Peckris 579]

1953 1/4d freeman 660 to 663 (excluding proofs)

1957 1/2d freeman 477 plus freeman 476 (with 4 varieties of calm sea)

My mistake there are 9 coins there...all currency.

Sorry, I thought your 8 were just referring to 1957 halfpennies. What are the 4 calm sea varieties? Freeman only has one.

Calm sea varieties

7 points to bead

7 points to left of bead

7 points to space

blunter 7 points to bead

actually I have just consulted Mr Groom's book and there are 3 more

7 points to right of bead

blunt 7 to left of bead

blunt 7 to right of bead

The initial 4 are mentioned in CCGB.

So they are - as a footnote. I see they are also in David Sealy's 1970 survey. Not sure anyone who is after a 'calm sea' would be particularly interested in those micro-varieties? You'd have to be a heroic completist to go after those!

[Peter 615]

I think we have a few members who will go for them all.

[DaveG38 405]

Personally, I regard the kind of varieties displayed by the 1957 halfpenny as appropriate to the category of 'minor varieties' as opposed to 'micro'. For what it's worth, I feel that the term 'micro' should be reserved for the genuinely microscopic differences that occur. At the risk of plugging my own book, here's my quote from the 'silver' one, which perfectly illustrates what I mean.

'Whilst researching this book, I came across an extraordinary design issue, which I had never heard of before, but which can be regarded as leading to micro-varieties (as if minor types are not enough!). In the Coin Monthly magazine of December 1977, there is an article by J.C.Rudge entitled ‘The 19 Varieties of the 1949 Shilling’, which talks about the successful prosecution of a Mr. James Steele of Edinburgh. This individual was found guilty of forging excellent quality florins, in part at least, because the Royal Mint were able to show that his coins, whilst superbly forged, had errors in the number of ‘nicks’ in the edge milling. Apparently, the Mint declined to provide information about this means of validating their coins on security grounds, suggesting that the number of nicks could be regarded as a kind of ‘mint mark’ in order to validate the year they were produced. In a feat of truly heroic study, J.C.Rudge set about analysing these nicks for the silver series i.e. the sixpence, shilling, florin and halfcrown (I’m not sure about crowns), publishing his results in the British Numismatic Journal for 1968. The 1977 Coin Monthly article concluded that the 1949 Shilling has at least 19 varieties based on the number of edge nicks. Multiply this typical figure by all the silver coin denominations and dates for the 20th Century and the number of micro-varieties based on the number of ‘nicks’ will be truly staggering.'

In my view, the use of the term 'heroic' is entirely appropriate for the work done to establish these micro types, but as I say, I don't think it likely that anybody would want to try and collect them all. Now I've said this, I guess somebody on here will pop up and say that they've got a complete set of 1949 shillings!