coin watch

Perhaps this thread should be removed before our spouses have a read..... After I explained the insignificance of savings, banks and pensions to my spouse she eventually came around to my way of thinking!!!

I spend far too much what ever way I look at it ....In all honesty I made a collection firstly with a budget of disposable savings to gain a collection with an interest, then as time went by when I realised I got the main run of my collection in place I then just added coins with a much smaller budget and more in line with my income. But lately I only buy with what I can afford, which is not a great deal!!!

Sounds interesting Rob, is it for a new publication? I would have thought you are after high res images of the already known coins? as I would have thought these issues can't have many unknown pieces. There is the rough looking SA halfcrown with RR at the moment, but I guess you have seen that. Plus I know someone with a 'connon-ball' halfcrown which as far as I know is unpublished, might be worth trying to gain a picture of this one. I'm trying to resolve the W, SA, Chester and Hereford problem plus all the minor issues which must impinge on the commission area. I need as many hi-res images as possible to try and sort out the punch movements and chronology. I think I have a solution for over 90% of it based on a radical rethink, but now need to prove my theory wrong. As always, the concept comes in a flash, the basic skeleton takes a day to write down and order, but getting all the corroborative data for, or contradictory evidence against will take ages (a couple years in all probability).ANY images are potentially useful, but the bigger the better. One I missed off the list above is the 1644 dated C H below the horse. The BM's is crap, but does show the date. The one illustrated in Besly's Coins and Medals of the Civil War has good centres but virtually no legend. I want to know the initial mark employed if anyone can help. Another thing that might be useful is to extend the Oxford dates through to the end in 1646. Thanks. I see what you mean with the Besly C H coin, also the BM's one with both very light in legend, though the C H half crown apparently in the Fitzwilliam (seems to be same dies as Besly!?) show a clear date on the reverse (1644) with supposedly 2 pellets (stated as mm) to the obverse legend above kings head which can be seen (just!)

Sounds interesting Rob, is it for a new publication? I would have thought you are after high res images of the already known coins? as I would have thought these issues can't have many unknown pieces. There is the rough looking SA halfcrown with RR at the moment, but I guess you have seen that. Plus I know someone with a 'connon-ball' halfcrown which as far as I know is unpublished, might be worth trying to gain a picture of this one.

Hi all, Fake coins....well I know it's not a new thing, but it's something I have been thinking on quite a bit of late. I have an interest in English late hammered, it's a series that has contemporary copies which are in the most part easy to detect (even with an untrained eye) with later and modern copies becoming more accurate but still with a bit of knowledge detectable. What I often think of is how far can fakes/forgeries/copies (call it what you will) go? With the ever ongoing advances in accessible abilities available to the average man in the street will a 'dodgy' coin get to the point were it is virtually impossible to see if it's real. It kind of worries me a bit especially with a coin that has cost a considerable amount but with no provenance to prove. Should we only buy coins with the best provenance with maybe an old illustration to prove it's worth? Would like your thoughts please.

I think it is false economy to think small in terms of reference material. Unless you are determined to only collect within a fixed range in perpetuity, having books which only cover the existing collecting criteria means any expansion will result in you having to buy literature which in all probability will also duplicate your current books. An added advantage of having literature outside your current field is that you can do a bit of reading and maybe find that it gives you inspiration to broaden your collection. Very few collections can ever be completed. Currency issues over a narrow range possibly, but beyond that you will in all likelihood struggle to find a few rarities. I can almost guarantee that you will see things outside your current range of 1816-1936 which you find atttractive and wouldn't mind collecting. Post 1816 there are a few killer dates for whichever denomination you choose. For halfcrowns it is the 1839 currency issue, though a decent 1828 will be problematic too. Shillings come unstuck with an 1850, florins with 1854, sixpences you are stuck with the solitary 1847 - so which lucky person is going to be the one that completes the series? For the moment it appears to be quite easy to say that only 1816-1936 are collected, but in time, as it becomes more difficult to fill the gaps, the temptation to diversify gains momentum. View having reference material for both current and potential future collecting periods as a means of problem solving. Yes, I see what you mean - perhaps I should get ESC then, as I can borrow Davies easily enough from the library (for now, anyway), and it might be interesting to find out something about the early milled coinage. The rarity ratings sound useful too. ESC is ok but I think a little dated now. The rarity scale is a fair reflection, though milled is not my thing now, but like the Spink price guide the ESC is only a guide too with regard to rarity, for example a few years back I owned a 1825 shillig with the roman I in date which is classed as an R7 in ESC...hmm R7 states one or two examples but I have seen probably at least a dozen the amount of these in the last decade...so worth thinking on!!

A Wikipedia of coins, great stuff....But what a task!! Anyone got the time or will!?

Okay, I've ordered a new Spink from Amazon, also an old (1997) copy of "Coincraft's Standard Catalogue of English and UK Coins, 1066 to Date 1997" for a fiver, including postage, as this seems better for background information from some reviews I've read. I will probably buy Davies too, but have a library copy out at the moment, so will wait until that has to go back, at least. Thanks for all your help! BTW I only recently found on predecimal (here: http://www.predecimal.com/p10great_recoinage.htm) the "12 part history of British Coinage", written by Ken Elks and am working my way through this, is an interesting read! The old Coincraft catalogues (I think it was only issued for a few years) I have found to be a very good reference with plenty of photos and references (I have the 1998 edition) But obviously ignore the prices now (mind you I ignored them in 1998!)

You'd better add me to your cuckoo land list then as I don't use Spink to price my stock. A selling price for a dealer has to be a percentage above purchase/part exchange price with a margin built in for discounts/fees/taxes and enough to leave a profit as that is how we make our living. Once I have priced an item it sits in stock until sold so if I was happy with £xxx profit 5 years ago my philosophy is that the same amount will do now. Any dealer using Spink would have to totally overhaul all of their prices individually year on year. Another problem is that Spink is already almost a year out of date as soon as it is published due to the time taken to compile it. It therefore follows that the market may already have overtaken Spinks prices pre-publication (or fallen away in some areas). As a dealer the most infuriating comment I hear is "well Spinks only want blah blah but you're asking more than that" Spink is a guide price NOT A RETAIL PRICE LIST True Spink is only a guide, I think you misunderstood me (or I should have put it another way) I meant 'some' dealers should maybe use Spink as a guide as there prices are in "cloud cuckoo land".....hope that covers me!!

For a price guide and a start I would go for Spink standard catalogue purely because it seems most coin dealers (apart from a couple I know of who live in cloud cuckoo land!!) use this to price to the given grade of thier stock, and I would agree it's also worth purchasing a couple of older issues from say 5 and 10 years back to give you a good guide how the market has gone in that time. But if it's a specific coin type or group or demonination which could eventually lead to forming a specialist collection then I would say the best advise would be to start reading up and finding out as much as you can along the way, In my experience I have found this to be a continuation of building as good a knowledge as you can with study whilst also collecting. There is plenty of study material out there (it's not all about the regular guides and catalogues!) and if along the way you may find that you get so far into it your knowledge just might start to be recognised. All good fun

I reckon he got a bum deal at £450!

It still is. However, how many people on this forum don't sell on their surplus coins or buy an obvious bargain with a view to selling it on to fund another coin? Very few I suspect. I totally agree when it comes to buying and selling within the coins you collect, upgardes or coins not up to expectations its to be expected, but to buy something in the hope of a better return is something one should be careful of if you know little about it, or a new offering like the udated 20p.

It's also worth paying money for if you like the coin and more importantly your hobby. Forget the investment side of things unless you are a coin dealer. I remember when this was a hobby!!!

What on earth is the RM doing issuing utter rubbish on all these Olympic coins! Just wished they would keep to the conventional design and stop the cheap gimmicks and 'errors' Sorry to be -ve but anything to do with the olympics gripes me.

Where did you get this reference from? I cant find it on his current webpage? Rascoins website Thanks Rob, for some reason I was still getting his old list via bookmarked page

Where did you get this reference from? I cant find it on his current webpage?

So true. For me it's been the traditional journey of firstly collecting English coins in general then after several transitions finally settling with the Tower mint of Charles 1st. I suppose because of my interest in that period with the civil war coupled with the evident influence of the times in the coin quality production, which for me makes some of those poorly produced coins acceptable to me were others would struggle to accept. But now for a number of reasons my collecting area is so narrow now which is ok as it makes research easier but I have noticed sometimes my enthusiasm being tested without regular additions. I tend to find now that knowing as much as I can about my chosen area rather than just collecting is what keeps me interested. But then whatever 'wets your whistle' I suppose! Happy new year coin people

Of course there's a better one. The coin used to illustrate the type in Spink and petitioncrown's current avatar for a start. Mind you, you might not be granted the opportunity to get it. The Spink and Petitoncrown's coins are both G2's with eye mark, I think Tom is highlighting the G1 with this mark which can prove to be tough to find, I don't know of any in near decent grade? I always think it's well worth picking up a coin with a bit of rarity especially if it's going cheep!! But I agree the general run of the mill coins are better of waiting for from a good collection, so same resolution for me!!

Merry Christmas to all you forum coin people. I hope Santa has brought you the coin you've always wanted and just maybe one without chocolate in the middle Keep up the good work in 2012, this is a great forum! Best wishes from coin watch

With the imminent release of the Spink standard catalogue for 2012 I thought maybe anyone who manages to get a copy early might like to list any noted revisions or updates here.

I did a quick visit to Spink while in central London today, the new 2012 was on the shelves so I would have thought in should be on it's way to the orders by post. Had a look through it (though did not buy one!) but only at the Charles I Tower series and noticed a steady small % increase on a few of the types with one in particular having a greater increase than most, this being S.2772 with the VF price increasing to £4250 from £3500 last year. With such an increase does anyone know of one being sold lataly? Didn't look at any other pages as time was limited but I would imagine there to be a number of increases on rarities in this years 'guide'...well going by this type anyway!

OK it's probably a silly comparison - comics and coins, but when I see that 1st edition 1938 Superman comic sell this week for £1.4 million My first thought was madness especially as there is supposedly well over 1,000 original copies still in existance. But then I'm not at all into comics so I guess it must be worth every penny So my further thought was to compare these two hobbies and then wondered are coins still well below in value terms when considering some rarities? and maybe is it a case that coin collecting is still stuck in that old fashioned rut and not attracting new interest?! Be interested to see some thoughts on this comparison if not with comics but other collectibles too. BTW - coins over comics for me any day

£100...£1200 I dunno just going by this...http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2011/12/02/first-ever-superman-comic-book-sold-at-auction-for-1-4million-by-hollywood-star-nicolas-cage-115875-23603903/ Ooops...meant 100...1200 copies not£.

£100...£1200 I dunno just going by this...http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2011/12/02/first-ever-superman-comic-book-sold-at-auction-for-1-4million-by-hollywood-star-nicolas-cage-115875-23603903/

Part of the problem here is that Spink can never be more than a general guide. It states quite clearly that the indicated price is for the commoonest type. If you get a rarity though, the price may exceed that listed many fold. If you are into anything even vaguely esoteric, the only solution is to do your homework. So true regarding Spink base pricing, a prime example of this that I know of is Spink 2766, the 1a3 type Charles I half crown is found with the cross calvary mint mark on (for what I have seen) 95% of the coins (about 20% lightweights) available, so while still a scarce coin the 'book' price is a good guide for this coin, but the negro head mark also listed under 2766 is known on only 3 coins held in private hands whilst the castle on only 2 known privately, compare this to the same mark on the type 1b (with plume- S.2767) it becomes very clear how rare these coins are but only recognized with further study. So while the Spink guide is well regarded it's worth remembering it is just that 'a guide' The same principle applies to most Spink numbers where it covers a range of marks because one mark is invariably more or less common than the next. You and Tom will probably remember the E2/3 I picked up about 5 years ago with the tun mark, over crown on the obverse. We are still on 5 straight tuns and 2 over crowns in total despite much catalogue searching and racking of brains. Compared with the number of bells and crowns available with the plume over shield reverse, a single figure number is peanuts. I do indeed remember your E2/3 tun over crown, extremely rare. Another example of this is also S.2794 the F1/1, this coin is noted by Spink as being available with the large XII value mark but to date only 6 (known) coins have the large mark, 3 each of the tun and anchor mark, this probably represents about 1% of the F1/1 coins available, again not very well known.