Coin Collection Layout

[Accumulator 52]

As all the regulars will know, I have my penny collection displayed on-line. This is mainly for my benefit as it allows me to browse and check coins (in much magnified form) at will, wherever I am. It particularly helps with viewing coins that are stored off-site.

When I created the website, I followed the layout of Freeman with all currency issues and their corresponding proofs displayed together and all patterns and other oddities in separate 'trays' at the end. However, I recently acquired the catalogue for Spink's sale of the Colin Adams collection in 2003 (from Rob) and noted a different layout, which I quite like. Here, all the patterns, trials, mis-strikes and other oddities are included chronologically with the currency and proof coins. I presume that this was how Colin viewed his collection? The effect is to provide more of an in-context history of the penny, through all its developments.

Before possibly moving things around, I wondered how others tackle this in their own collections? Do you entirely separate patterns or do you go for a more cohesive approach?

[Rob 3,152]

I divide mine into various categories, trying to get an example of each criteria within the sub-sections as below. Each section forms a mini-collection in its own right.

Person in whose name a coin was struck. Chronologically, but keeping the Celtic, Roman, Dark Ages & Kings of All England (incl. Ecclesiastical issues) sections separate

Denomination. Ascending in value, again keeping the early issues from different regimes separate. Decimal is also separate at the end.

Metal type. Alphabetically

Metal provenance. Alphabetically

Minting processes, features and errors. Alphabetically

Attributed designers. Alphabetically

Initial or privey mark. Alphabetically

Mint. Alphabetically

Type examples and too nice to sell. Chronologically, but usually by denomination.

All in all a bit of a mess, but that is mostly down to the insistence on diversity.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Rob

[Coinery 1,156]

If I had a single-denomination collection, I'd probably be inclined to take the Adams approach, as I'd like the chronological and developmental context, as you mentioned.

[Rob 3,152]

It really depends on what you collect. A focussed collection such as the OP lends itself to either approach. To compare Steve's with Colin's is not currently practical. The Adams collection had a large number of Moore patterns for example which occupied a full tray in their own right, so would fit into either layout. Having just a few patterns would look better if arranged chronologically.

In my case, I have a number of decimal patterns, again lending them to placement in their own tray despite the variation in sizes, or my G3 pattern halfpennies where I am trying to get an example of each Peck type - again 2 or 3 trays.

All this goes out the window if they are in the bank where space is at a premium, so is really only applicable to collections physically in a cabinet or virtually on a computer.

[Peckris 579]

As all the regulars will know, I have my penny collection displayed on-line. This is mainly for my benefit as it allows me to browse and check coins (in much magnified form) at will, wherever I am. It particularly helps with viewing coins that are stored off-site.

When I created the website, I followed the layout of Freeman with all currency issues and their corresponding proofs displayed together and all patterns and other oddities in separate 'trays' at the end. However, I recently acquired the catalogue for Spink's sale of the Colin Adams collection in 2003 (from Rob) and noted a different layout, which I quite like. Here, all the patterns, trials, mis-strikes and other oddities are included chronologically with the currency and proof coins. I presume that this was how Colin viewed his collection? The effect is to provide more of an in-context history of the penny, through all its developments.

Before possibly moving things around, I wondered how others tackle this in their own collections? Do you entirely separate patterns or do you go for a more cohesive approach?

I can't afford to collect patterns, but if they are recognisably different from the currency design, they would occupy a separate tray in my collection. As would trials, but not necessarily misstrikes (which I don't actually collect either).

I actually have a separate tray for particular rarities too (mainly for inclusion of explanatory tickets, and to ensure my inheritors can dispose of them for what they are); they include pennies such as 1903 open 3, 1911 Gouby X, 1915 'recessed ear', 1966 'tidal wave', 1915 'TT' farthing, among others - all things which even experienced dealers can miss. It would be tragic if whoever inherits the collection misses out on a portion of its value through simple ignorance of both seller and buyer.

[TomGoodheart 403]

Interesting question. I don't have any Fine Work coins (which I have seen referred to in some older catalogues as 'proofs') But I have a couple of oddities, a Briot hammered coin and a Sharp G3. The former seem to fit best in with the other 'Briot' bust Tower issue coins, aesthetically and historically. The second, although it really most resembles the bust design of early Group H, I have followed Sharp and put it at the end of the Parliamentary issue Group G tray.

I suspect if I had any Fine Work coins, for me it would come down to numbers. If I had one or two, then fitting them in with coins struck at the same time would seem neatest. But if I had 8 or 9 of the things I might well put them in their own tray.

I see merits to both systems. .. which I guess is no help to you at all Steve!

[Peter 615]

Mine just go in the coin room/dining room I've got a few bits of nasty sharp pointie bits also.I'm also 6ft and 15 stone and my dog loves a leg.

[Colin G. 147]

I have always taken the chronological approach within separate denominations

[just.me 23]

I like the way Gouby arranged his book, having the currency pieces and publicly available proofs in one section and all the rare proofs, patterns, off metal strikes, trials, anomalies etc in a separate section.

I've been on your site a few times and have never thought 'I would have this here and that there', your current layout works for me.

[Colin G. 147]

I've been on your site a few times and have never thought 'I would have this here and that there', your current layout works for me.

That is a very good point

[Accumulator 52]

Thanks guys, though, I'm no more sure which way to go than I was before.

Actually, if I had the time (which I might do one day), I could provide both options. This isn't as daft as it seems. If the webpages were populated 'on the fly' by selecting from a database of all the coins, rather than hard-coded as at present, it would be just a matter of decided dynamically which coins would appear when any page was accessed. This system would also make it easy to, for example, view only the proofs, only the patterns, or even only the 'rare' coins etc.

Anyway, for the moment I'll probably keep things simple and just play around with layouts when time allows.

[Peckris 579]

Thanks guys, though, I'm no more sure which way to go than I was before.

Actually, if I had the time (which I might do one day), I could provide both options. This isn't as daft as it seems. If the webpages were populated 'on the fly' by selecting from a database of all the coins, rather than hard-coded as at present, it would be just a matter of decided dynamically which coins would appear when any page was accessed. This system would also make it easy to, for example, view only the proofs, only the patterns, or even only the 'rare' coins etc.

Anyway, for the moment I'll probably keep things simple and just play around with layouts when time allows.

Interestingly, FileMaker Pro (a database manager) makes such a thing possible, though I have never ever explored how to do it.

[VickySilver 830]

As an inherently illogical person with scientific training that somewhat reversed that trait, I am rather a fan of the obvious as has been stated above: organise by hammered then milled and then by denomination, then date. Patterns and proofs to fit in by date accordingly.

I try to do this as easier to keep track of, although I must admit that I occasionally forget about a certain pattern or other rarity as it is lost in the mix...

[Rob 3,152]

As an inherently illogical person with scientific training that somewhat reversed that trait, I am rather a fan of the obvious as has been stated above: organise by hammered then milled and then by denomination, then date. Patterns and proofs to fit in by date accordingly.

I try to do this as easier to keep track of, although I must admit that I occasionally forget about a certain pattern or other rarity as it is lost in the mix...

Undated patterns also cause a bit of grief in their placement, not to mention unconventional denominations such as the Victorian RM pieces where you have 1, 2, 5 & 10 centimes, cents, 1 centum, 5 farthings, 100 mils, one decade, 1/20th shilling, ducat, undated, undenominated etc pieces. The same also goes for the rather unhelpful 4 pence halfpenny and two pence farthing Ed. VI countermarked pieces and what about the revalued silver and gold? Do you keep angels at 6s8d, 7s6d or 8s etc.? These cause havoc to any systematic layout.

[VickySilver 830]

Good point if one is fortunate enough to have such. I guess there might be room for a miscellaneous box.

Lucky me just has later milled bits with no private mint patterns.

[Accumulator 52]

Thanks guys, though, I'm no more sure which way to go than I was before.

Actually, if I had the time (which I might do one day), I could provide both options. This isn't as daft as it seems. If the webpages were populated 'on the fly' by selecting from a database of all the coins, rather than hard-coded as at present, it would be just a matter of decided dynamically which coins would appear when any page was accessed. This system would also make it easy to, for example, view only the proofs, only the patterns, or even only the 'rare' coins etc.

Anyway, for the moment I'll probably keep things simple and just play around with layouts when time allows.

Interestingly, FileMaker Pro (a database manager) makes such a thing possible, though I have never ever explored how to do it.

Some (many) years ago I did produce something along the lines suggested, for another project. As I recall I used MYSQL (a free SQL database provide by most hosting services) and cgi scripts to produce webpages on the fly. Like so many things, if you don't use them for a long time you do forget, but a few spare evenings spent messing about usually brings it back. Anyway, it's something which will need to wait for a less hectic time!

Edited January 21, 2014 by Accumulator

[Accumulator 52]

As an inherently illogical person with scientific training that somewhat reversed that trait, I am rather a fan of the obvious as has been stated above: organise by hammered then milled and then by denomination, then date. Patterns and proofs to fit in by date accordingly.

I try to do this as easier to keep track of, although I must admit that I occasionally forget about a certain pattern or other rarity as it is lost in the mix...

Undated patterns also cause a bit of grief in their placement, not to mention unconventional denominations such as the Victorian RM pieces where you have 1, 2, 5 & 10 centimes, cents, 1 centum, 5 farthings, 100 mils, one decade, 1/20th shilling, ducat, undated, undenominated etc pieces. The same also goes for the rather unhelpful 4 pence halfpenny and two pence farthing Ed. VI countermarked pieces and what about the revalued silver and gold? Do you keep angels at 6s8d, 7s6d or 8s etc.? These cause havoc to any systematic layout.

I've decided not to include any other denominations (cents etc.), so this won't be a problem. There is, however, an issue with undated coins. The Joseph Moore pennies were included at the end of the Adams sale, possibly because he didn't own an example of the rare 1844 dated coin. Since the undated varieties are often listed as from 1844, I could chronologically include all of them under this date, though it might be better to have them between the copper and bronze coins of 1860. I'm honestly not sure yet!

[VickySilver 830]

Horror of horrors, Moore patterns in with the Royal Mint bits!

Geoffrey Hearn(e) next? LOL..

Edited January 21, 2014 by VickySilver

[Rob 3,152]

Horror of horrors, Moore patterns in with the Royal Mint bits!

Geoffrey Hearn(e) next? LOL..

I've got worse.