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

   Rotographic    

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.

Sign in to follow this  
Colin88

Coins of England - 2018 - Spink

Recommended Posts

This now appears to be available ...well I''ve got one anyway !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they buried their stubborness and acknowledged the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny yet?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DaveG38 said:

Have they buried their stubborness and acknowledged the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny yet?

err...dunno....I've had a look at there's no mention of anything like that ....if it's a big problem for you then there used to be a guy there called Phil Skidingly  but I think he's left ...dunno who to talk to there now...the editor in the book is someone called Emma Howard ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveG38 said:

Have they buried their stubborness and acknowledged the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny yet?

I would certainly hope so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the grace of god a new listing LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've pre ordered mine....left a 4 year gap so I hope there are new listings and tweeking of prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually update mine once every 3 years. Still some running left in my 2016 edition yet i think ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine's 2005. Prices now about what I'd like to pay. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

Mine's 2005. Prices now about what I'd like to pay. :)

mines is a 2005 too , still seems a bit steep lol.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mick1271 said:

mines is a 2005 too , still seems a bit steep lol.

 

It will be down to £15 come march or april. Hang fire if anybody is planning on getting it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to go AT LEAST 5 years between Spinks - an annual Kindle edition of CCGB is good enough for me as I'm not interesting in hammered; ancients don't change prices very often; decent early milled is out of my budget mostly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mines 2014 be interesting to see what has been added or omitted in the 2018 

Edited by zookeeperz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got my copy of the 2018 Spink catalogue now - fist since 2015.

I do have my caveats about the copper section. Mainly it's inconsistency. If you compare it to it's founding publication Seaby's "English Copper Coins and their values", a booklet from the 60's that I have, well, Spink's is unfortunately a poor comparison. Firstly, Seaby's listed all the proofs, William and Mary, bun head proofs etc with prices given for many of these, blank if too rare. Spink put in some silly examples like the 1825 farthing in gold (one example known: in the BM, "a trifle worn" according to Peck, so yes, this coin listed in FDC will be "extremely rare"!) - yet there is no listing for the commonest 1st issue proof farthing, the 1821. I could go on....

Seaby's illustrated the 2nd and 3rd issue Wm III halfpennies (with Peck's own example of P687 sold later in Spink auction 14 - beautiful coin) but as always there is no illustration of these major types in the Spink catalogue (and also a proof silver DIL farthing picture unlike the Seaby's currency picture). I think these omissions may date back to the Seaby catalogues of the 70's but they should have been rectified by now. Spink had a beautiful example of the 3rd issue in an auction back in 2015, so even less excuse - they are still the only major types without a photograph.

So chances of getting the 1695 DEI GRATIA 1/2d in there may be slim. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, there has not been a sale of this variety for some time so pricing it may be difficult. However, this has not stopped Spink with many other coins!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have long had inconsistencies. I'm a believer that you either trim it down to the currency plus the proofs issued for the masses, or you include everything. The main problem if you do the latter is one of space because the book would weigh at least 2kg and be too heavy to lug around. Currently they supposedly don't include patterns, yet include the 1848 florins (listed as patterns!) and the 1807 proof halfpennies (only produced by Taylor and never at Soho) for example. An added bonus of trimming out the esoteric and a slight reduction in font size would be a possible reduction in weight to under 1kg for the pre-decimal section which would reduce carriage charges. 

Some of the oddballs included in the past have been the result of pleasing favoured collectors, or a little marketing activity to provide a price for some coins. A third of a page is taken up by the Petition and Reddite pattern crowns which are definitely in the realm of the unobtainable for most and consequently irrelevant, and in the past the 1513 Tournai groat of Henry VIII was listed at the instigation of Patrick Finn who had the coin sat in the trays at Spink for a while. Once listed it sold. It has subsequently been culled, so things do work both ways. The salient point here is that an esoteric variety is difficult or impossible to price for the majority of people, so is ignored. Once a coin is included in a reference volume, people will queue up to buy it, so listing as many things as possible is therefore a positive in expanding the hobby which is in the interest of both dealers and collectors. If you ever needed proof of the power of inclusion, things like the 1897 O'NE and 1946 ONE' pennies are only die flaws and in my opinion not worthy of inclusion, but they are listed and so people chase them. 

I don't have an issue with using a silver proof to illustrate an example if it is identical to the copper currency equivalent, as it is likely to be better struck than a currency coin and so provide clarity of detail, which is the main purpose of illustration. I agree that it remiss of them not to include illustrations of the second and third issue halfpennies, but these are not the only examples, as on the preceding page there is no plumes in angles sixpence. To paraphrase, 'other examples exist'.

It is a situation that will never satisfy everybody because there are many levels of collecting, each of which requires a different degree of cataloguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldcopper said:

I've got my copy of the 2018 Spink catalogue now - fist since 2015.

I do have my caveats about the copper section. Mainly it's inconsistency. If you compare it to it's founding publication Seaby's "English Copper Coins and their values", a booklet from the 60's that I have, well, Spink's is unfortunately a poor comparison. Firstly, Seaby's listed all the proofs, William and Mary, bun head proofs etc with prices given for many of these, blank if too rare. Spink put in some silly examples like the 1825 farthing in gold (one example known: in the BM, "a trifle worn" according to Peck, so yes, this coin listed in FDC will be "extremely rare"!) - yet there is no listing for the commonest 1st issue proof farthing, the 1821. I could go on....

Seaby's illustrated the 2nd and 3rd issue Wm III halfpennies (with Peck's own example of P687 sold later in Spink auction 14 - beautiful coin) but as always there is no illustration of these major types in the Spink catalogue (and also a proof silver DIL farthing picture unlike the Seaby's currency picture). I think these omissions may date back to the Seaby catalogues of the 70's but they should have been rectified by now. Spink had a beautiful example of the 3rd issue in an auction back in 2015, so even less excuse - they are still the only major types without a photograph.

So chances of getting the 1695 DEI GRATIA 1/2d in there may be slim. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, there has not been a sale of this variety for some time so pricing it may be difficult. However, this has not stopped Spink with many other coins!

 

Regarding the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny, its deliberate exclusion by Mr Skingley is completely perverse for several reasons. Firstly, Spink themselves sold one back in 2001(?) ish, so it isn't as if they have never handled one and could disclaim any knowledge of it. From this they ought to be able to come up with a rough price based on what their one sold for and allowing for the intervening period. Secondly, it isn't a minor variety as he claimed, and by implication not worthy of inclusion, along the lines of many of the bun pennies or the 'dot' pennies which they do include. It has a different obverse legend and one which is clearly the first issue of Wiliam III. That's a major variety in anybody's book. It's also not unique - there are 5 known examples, and likely more, so in this respect it is more worthy than the 1825 gold farthing and should be in every catalogue. I guess one of the problems may be that neither the Royal Mint nor the BM have an example (as far as I know) and this may delegitimise the coins as far as Spink are concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, absolutely agree but I think the reason for not listing the DEI GRATIA is, unfortunately, they can't be bothered! I don't think any copper experts have much of an imput into the catalogue and it's easier for Spink to just copy and paste from the last catalogue. Not that I can blame them, they're understaffed and are short of experts these days, but I don't think it would take much to iron out the anomalies and put in, say, W&M - George II proofs, and the 1771 farthing proof (whereas the 1770 1/2d now listed both as copper and silver proofs).

Rob, with respect, I don't think a plumes sixpence, identical to the normal currency sixpence except for plumes presumably, registers as a major "type" coin, whereas the 3rd issue WM III halfpenny - totally unique obverse and reverse and a very common issue, is surely far more important for an image.

Talking of Wm III, I would be impressed if any one knows of any sales data for the 2 listed "flaming hair" proof shillings 1698/1699. Though priced, personally I don't think they exist at present, as I have never come across any evidence of their existence. The BM doesn't have any, needless to say. Both dates are priced in Spink but the 5th bust 1699 proof, of which several examples have come up in auctions and sales lists over the years, is unpriced and listed as "extremely rare".  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plumes I mentioned simply because it is on the same page. Looking further afield, there is no image of an Exeter crown in any form which is unquestionably distinctive, nor a whole host of other Civil War coins including the Bugle halfcrown, the Bristol flat-crown halfcrown, the York types 1-3 halfcrowns, nor the Tower mint group V halfcrown or most shillings from the same period. Some of these are major types, common too and all would benefit from illustration if identification is the reason for doing so. Then you have the regional die variations of the Saxon coins. The list is actually quite extensive because a picture speaks a thousand words. I don't disagree that it should be illustrated, but I suspect the same could be said of any period covered by the book.

The biggest problem has to be one of space versus production costs and selling price. A good number of collectors don't buy CoE because of the cost, preferring to have one of the cheap volumes, but that comes at a price with one listing all (100+) Oxford Civil War halfcrowns under a single heading for example. I note that this year there were fewer dealer adverts than previously which was a result of Phil Skingley leaving and the new editor taking over. These also take up space which could be better employed providing illustrations.

I also think there could be some mileage in splitting the pre-decimal into hammered and milled as well as having the decimal portion, given the number of collectors who restrict their habits to one of the three. It would be cheaper for the collector than the combined volumes which ought to increase sales.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob - I can't speak too much for the hammered coinage as I know very little about that. I can understand more Spink not illustrating some of the types or sub-types you mention as there are literally 100's of civil war issues and that might require a book to itself!

My point is that the only major types of milled coins not illustrated are the two I've mentioned, the more important being the 3rd issue as this has new obv and rev, never replicated. Adding to that, the 3rd issue must be one of the most common copper halfpence issues before the bun head era (Peck says £137k issued 1695-1701 1/2d's and 1/4d's which would be circa 100 million coins if split evenly 1/2s and 1/4s!). Every copper collector surely must own one or more, so, Spink, show us a nice one!

The first place Spink could save space is on the recent gimmick of including the always "extremely rare" gold or even platinum strikings, some of which must surely be unknown outside museums (like that 1825 referred to earlier), or proofs which may be unknown full stop!

It would be interesting to know how much numismatic experience the new editor has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rob said:

The plumes I mentioned simply because it is on the same page. Looking further afield, there is no image of an Exeter crown in any form which is unquestionably distinctive, nor a whole host of other Civil War coins including the Bugle halfcrown, the Bristol flat-crown halfcrown, the York types 1-3 halfcrowns, nor the Tower mint group V halfcrown or most shillings from the same period. Some of these are major types, common too and all would benefit from illustration if identification is the reason for doing so. Then you have the regional die variations of the Saxon coins. The list is actually quite extensive because a picture speaks a thousand words. I don't disagree that it should be illustrated, but I suspect the same could be said of any period covered by the book.

The biggest problem has to be one of space versus production costs and selling price. A good number of collectors don't buy CoE because of the cost, preferring to have one of the cheap volumes, but that comes at a price with one listing all (100+) Oxford Civil War halfcrowns under a single heading for example. I note that this year there were fewer dealer adverts than previously which was a result of Phil Skingley leaving and the new editor taking over. These also take up space which could be better employed providing illustrations.

I also think there could be some mileage in splitting the pre-decimal into hammered and milled as well as having the decimal portion, given the number of collectors who restrict their habits to one of the three. It would be cheaper for the collector than the combined volumes which ought to increase sales.

That's actually such a good suggestion. I would certainly only buy the hammered portion if I had a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity has the Austin of Oxford Short cross under Henry II been added yet? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ukstu said:

Out of curiosity has the Austin of Oxford Short cross under Henry II been added yet? 

No, but work starts on pricing after the September sales and Phil's departure was at the beginning of the time when revisions are made. Given they didn't get out requests for advertising in time as a result of the change in personnel, it isn't surprising that individual inclusions weren't enacted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Descartes said:

That's actually such a good suggestion. I would certainly only buy the hammered portion if I had a choice.

I split them at the table and the numbers of people requiring either one or the other is roughly equal (thankfully) and split packs account for approximately half a box, so based on a not statistically significant sample, it suggests 1/3 for each half and the remaining third is the complete pack of two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they'd be better off hiving the proofs and patterns to another book like they've done with the decimals.  I tend to agree listing coins like the Petition crown is a bit silly, the few collectors who are thinking of spending six-figure sums on a coin are unlikely to be influenced by ESC anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, pokal02 said:

I think they'd be better off hiving the proofs and patterns to another book like they've done with the decimals.  I tend to agree listing coins like the Petition crown is a bit silly, the few collectors who are thinking of spending six-figure sums on a coin are unlikely to be influenced by ESC anyway. 

I think that in a true catalogue (which Spink is, not just a price guide) proofs and patterns should feature.

However, I do think that there are currently two distinct groups of collectors - the more numismatic kind, who tend to prefer the vast scope of predecimal coins, and those who collect decimals and concentrate more on the present realm of currency coins. So the decision to hive decimals off into a separate book makes logical sense. Our hope should be that those who start with decimals may move on to predecimals. A useful precedent is coin collecting pre-war: that was predominantly split into ancient, hammered, and early milled; anything post-1816 was seen as somehow 'modern' and inferior, and it took the complete disappearance of silver to change that.

One thing I believe could usefully be done though : just as all farthings from 1918 to 1925 are grouped into a single entry, they could do the same with all milled coins: give a base set of prices for that type and list all the dates it includes; then list significant variants and varieties as separate entries below that. For example, with George VI brass 3ds - give a base price and include 1937, 1941/2/3/4, and 1952 within that, then separate listings for all other dates. That would save some significant space and also resolve the very trivial price differences we see in modern ranges, which actually bear no relation to rarity and are merely a continuing and now inaccurate throwback to the late 60s, when the comparative scarcity of even modern and common coins was considered worth noting. Since the Great Meltdown, that has never been properly revised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×