Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook


The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.


Expert Grader
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Peckris

  1. 12 hours ago, DrLarry said:

    I find that reference books seem to choose arbitrarily which varieties they want to list and which they do not want to list.  there appears to be no reason for the source of this discrepancy other than whether one person who has a variety want to push the books like SPINK to include it. 

    Not so. Spink is a general catalogue so they will be rather picky, though they have included many more varieties over the past 20 years.

    However, there are exhaustive tomes which have attempted to list all known varieties in a particular field : English Silver Coinage started the ball rolling, then Peck did the same for milled copper, bronze, brass and tin. He was supplemented by Freeman for bronze (who did his own exhaustive studies), then by Jerraims and Gouby. Our own Dave Groom did the same for 20th Century coinage, and Davies covered silver from 1816.

    The point is, all these studies were pretty much comprehensive at the time of publication. However, new varieties get discovered all the time, so no book will be comprehensive for all time. Even so, Peck, Davies, Freeman etc are still very valuable references, and we still use them all the time.

  2. 13 hours ago, DrLarry said:

    yes I can but why then list any variety or error.... that was the underlying question really rather than the fact that there are hundreds of varieties of all number of coins in a series.  So perhaps my question would be best ask as follows: why do some get in the list and others don't? to say that they only list the more common would also seem not to fit because they list the E over R in DEI as extremely rare, some they list as Possibly Unique .  I am trying to understand the logic in the choice what to publish and what not to list.  But perhaps there are volumes and volumes of books picking up dust someplace.  Again I ask so that as a novice I should not bother the room with the many overprints I would like to ask you about which I have the R over B in the 61 halfpenny along with 10 other varieties  but not 62 R over B.  I am just trying to understand as I say 


    9 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:
    11 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

    I have said it many times it seems like unless your names XXXXXXXXXX good luck getting a variety published. You can even send the info to XXXXXXXXX and it still won't get published because they didn't find it. Or worse still they will tell you what you are seeing is an illusion yet the pictures and descriptions I have seen from themselves are borderline nonsense. The only way to have this information and has been said to me before is to do it yourself. I know for a fact the guy behind the spink book doesn't even want varieties in the book and if proof is the eating of the pudding 2018 book now omits 1860 6+H Penny variety. Which seems very strange as there was a price structure against the coin so it must exist somewhere. About time the guard was changed and the stuffy well to do's removed. :)


    (Ignore the "PWA quote" - sometimes the quote posts feature goes absolutely barmy and you can't get out of it.)

    Spink operate on the 'public demand' for inclusion. I tried for a few years to get the second George V silver obverse (1920-1926) and the 1946 ONE' flaw penny included. In the end, I quoted Gouby for the penny and attached a photocopy, and for the silver obverse, I did a mock-up of how the catalogue might look with it, which they more or less adopted in its entirety.

    I would agree with Rob that there is a limit as to just how far you can go with varieties (the Roman section in Spink is only a 'type' catalogue, for example), but if you think there is something in the modern section that warrants inclusion, then just be persistent and who knows - it could get included. Just to underline my point, dig out their predecessor Seaby's catalogue from the 1970s or early 80s - you will find quite a slim volume with only the most well known varieties included.

  3. 6 hours ago, Rob said:

    I think that is an artefact on a worn coin because the bottom one is higher grade and has a diagonal across the lower E serif, and what would correspond to the tail of the R appears bottom right. Even though we are only looking at one letter, they are both from the same die I think because the repunching looks to be identical.

    I agree. It only takes a stray bit of metal in the right place to give the false illusion of curving back. My money's on an R too.

  4. 20 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

    It makes logical sense that there would have been very few high grade copper coins extant after demonetisation, for the early years, such as George IV's reign - the readily available high grade copper specimens gradually increasing for subsequent years up to 1859, which would have had only 10 years circulation at the end of 1869.This is based on an assumption that they weren't too high up on the average coin collector's priorities at that time, and hence not too many early high grade examples hanging around in collections. I could be wrong, but more probable than not, I would have thought.    

    Not coin collectors certainly - but wouldn't it have been like the pre-1920 silver, i.e. put aside in the view it was more intrinsically valuable? The premium paid by the Mint for them, would encourage that view (the Mint certainly wouldn't have paid more than they were worth, and probably less.) Shrewd 'investors' might have sensed a future profit. 

  5. 12 minutes ago, Unwilling Numismatist said:

    I heard Nobby has got Big Ears.

    Maybe you could work something out there too?


    Certainly the last footballer I can ever remember wearing glasses while playing!

  6. 9 hours ago, UPINSMOKE said:

    Yes, I sure am. Although I don't collect pennies I do have a few in coin sets. I would imagine it's far easier to spot variations on a much larger coin though. My problem is I am collecting the smaller coins sixpences, threepences, and farthings so identification is a lot harder I think. I also have the problem of what do I buy next having gaps in all the collections. I am finding it hard to choose sometimes when I find coins I need in each of the collections and only have funds for maybe 1 or 2 coins which to add too first. 

    I wish I could stick to say one collection but as yet haven't been able to let go of the others and concentrate just say sixpences. It's really hard to choose what to drop if any.

    It's worth pointing out that there are far fewer varieties on small coins, probably because any slight flaws were very hard to see in a casual glance, so the Mint would not have bothered correcting them. Having said that, there are so many more varieties in pennies than - say - halfcrowns or florins. One reason may be that the introduction of bronze was so challenging and that the problems showed up more on pennies. But do note that there are still many early bronze varieties on halfpennies too, but because they're less popular, they're less collected and analysed. There are probably many yet waiting to be studied and catalogued, a fascinating project for someone.

    I think the humble sixpence is my favourite small coin.

    • Like 2

  7. 2 hours ago, El Cobrador said:

    The overall mintage of the 1831 penny supposedly totals 806,400. Does anybody have a notion to how that breaks down with regard to the various types?

    No - you'd have to go on their current ratios. Whatever the original mintage, the Mint began withdrawing them quite soon after bronze was introduced. As their were virtually no students or collectors of contemporary base metal coins, the numbers of each type put aside would be largely a matter of chance.

    To put it in context, if bronze was replaced in 1911, the number of 1902 coins surviving a melt would depend on how many had been  put aside. As the Low Tides were the first issue, you might have ended up with a situation where more LTs survived than ordinary.

  8. The 1953 plastic sets were astonishingly overhyped and overvalued in the late 60s*. They were often on sale for well over what you can pick one up for now - which in real terms is something like 20 or 30 times more. Yet with the gradual erosion of them by splitting (intentionally or simply from the crap plastic used), complete sets are now actually rarer than they were back then.

    *probably because the mintage was around 1m, which was pretty scarce when predecimal circulated, but as we know from the fate of the 1965S shilling, means diddley-squat now.