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.

Aitch1964

Alexander III halfpenny

Recommended Posts

Hi i'm hoping somebody can give me a positive id on the coin pictured. It is a round half penny and i think Alexander III of scotland, ive attached pics of obv and rev with an image against a modern 5p for scale. Any information about this coin would be great, scarcity, estimated value etc. I found it in a lincolnshire field.

Im struggling to post the pics, they are here if the link works https://en.numista.com/forum/topic75710.html

Aitch

Edited by Aitch1964
Images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - appears to be an Alexander III Halfpenny. Obverse reads "Alexander Dei Gra", reverse "Rex Scotorum". Three varieties are listed in the Coincraft book - yours appears to be the one with six pointed stars on the reverse and only one star pierced, which is marginally scarcer than the other two. Their reference is SA3HD-015.

Their comment on scarcity is: "Whilst scarce, these issues are obtainable but coins in better than Fine condition are rare."

Values (from 1999) are VG = £60, F = £150, VF = £400. Those were probably well over the top in 1999 (Coincraft being consistently ambitious on their pricing!) but may be about right by now. (If there is a piercing in the second star the prices drop to £45/£90/£275 respectively and the reference is SA3HD-010.)

I leave others to decide on the grading of your coin - my gut says around the VG +/-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would grade well above fine, perhaps near VF but slightly impaired by the areas of weak strike. Nice coin.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, very much appreciated. I dont intend to sell but its nice to have an idea of value, thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi would certainly agree with paddy the grade is quite low VG to near F ( old style grading not current M-D 'assesments') Re the 'coincraft toilet paper' book suggest getting a more up to date (and realistic) guide such as Spinks ( the 2003 copy places the value in F at £85 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, davetmoneyer said:

Hi would certainly agree with paddy the grade is quite low VG to near F ( old style grading not current M-D 'assesments') Re the 'coincraft toilet paper' book suggest getting a more up to date (and realistic) guide such as Spinks ( the 2003 copy places the value in F at £85 )

Thanks for the endorsement Dave.

I will stick with the coincraft book for now - I don't collect Non-English coins so it serves it's purpose in giving me some help with identification. Also it makes a great stand for my camera when photographing coins, thanks to the ridge along the spine - and it only cost me £1 from a coin auction!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its Spink listing in the 2015 edition of coins of Scotland , Ireland and the islands is 5062. Value in fine is £150 going upto £525 in VF. 

Nice find by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, davetmoneyer said:

Hi would certainly agree with paddy the grade is quite low VG to near F ( old style grading not current M-D 'assesments') Re the 'coincraft toilet paper' book suggest getting a more up to date (and realistic) guide such as Spinks ( the 2003 copy places the value in F at £85 )

Obviously I have to bow to superior knowledge here, but I remain puzzled. I had thought that the strike of a coin was in essence an additional factor in overall desirability of a coin to the grading, and that grade was a reflection of the 'wear and tear' the struck coin had received in circulation, and on that basis I consider it relatively unworn. To illustrate this I have prepared a fantasy coin from the well struck section of the reverse of this one. I would grade this compilation as at least good fine for wear, anticipating it might even be a little better in the hand. Where did I go wrong?

Jerry

fantasy alex half.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 2:03 PM, jelida said:

Obviously I have to bow to superior knowledge here, but I remain puzzled. I had thought that the strike of a coin was in essence an additional factor in overall desirability of a coin to the grading, and that grade was a reflection of the 'wear and tear' the struck coin had received in circulation, and on that basis I consider it relatively unworn. To illustrate this I have prepared a fantasy coin from the well struck section of the reverse of this one. I would grade this compilation as at least good fine for wear, anticipating it might even be a little better in the hand. Where did I go wrong?

Jerry

fantasy alex half.jpg

Jerry, I’d give your fantasy coin NVF, maybe more,  but agree with the others that the donor coin is near fine at best. It’s tricky isn’t it with hammereds, you have to take them as a whole. A great many can have one or two as-struck devices, yet are worn everywhere else. This can be due to a slight curvature in the flan that protects a small part of the design, or a heavy strike to one edge of the  coin that fills up the die, creating a nice  chunky cross to protect the surrounding devices, whilst the weaker, less-filled, areas quickly wear away. The reasons are as many as the coins.

The winner for hammered is eye-appeal every time! As you know, an ugly VF coin will not be worth more than a pretty, nicely struck, GF or NVF. So for me grade has never been a big factor in judging hammered coins, you’ve either got an eye for a quality coin or you haven’t. I do recall you having an eye! :) 👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Stu, I’m glad someone was prepared to follow-up my post and I certainly agree regarding eye appeal. Not known to many on this forum, but I do also collect some hammered (over a hundred Henry III and fifty odd Lizzie I pennies, and probably into 3 figs of other issues and denominations including a few gold as well as detector finds in the hundreds) and am used to seeing “VF for issue” and “weak areas as struck” type comments in the catalogues. My point being that particularly for certain issues  (for example from say William II until Henry II post Tealby) wear is often considered seperately from strike, which is how it should be. This does not mean that the desirability is not adversely affected by poor strike especially where cleanly struck coins are freely available, but that features such as poor strike, splits and cracks, perforations and plugs etc merit separate comment to wear, a bit like the ‘details’ comments on slabbed coins. I have yet to see a grading system where points are deducted for percentage of  poor strike, filled or worn die,  poorly centred flan etc though that is not to say one does not exist. It seems logical to me (though I accept I may be in isolation) that if the cleanly struck parts of the op’s coin grade NVF, then so must the coin as a whole - the coin appears flat, limiting differential wear- in that the poorly struck parts are also almost certainly unworn,  and this is where the other descriptors that determine desirability come in. 

I stick by my original comment, that this coin is better than fine, but with non wear related issues.

Jerry

50 minutes ago, Coinery said:

Jerry, I’d give your fantasy coin NVF, maybe more,  but agree with the others that the donor coin is near fine at best. It’s tricky isn’t it with hammereds, you have to take them as a whole. A great many can have one or two as-struck devices, yet are worn everywhere else. This can be due to a slight curvature in the flan that protects a small part of the design, or a heavy strike to one edge of the  coin that fills up the die, creating a nice  chunky cross to protect the surrounding devices, whilst the weaker, less-filled, areas quickly wear away. The reasons are as many as the coins.

The winner for hammered is eye-appeal every time! As you know, an ugly VF coin will not be worth more than a pretty, nicely struck, GF or NVF. So for me grade has never been a big factor in judging hammered coins, you’ve either got an eye for a quality coin or you haven’t. I do recall you having an eye! :) 👍

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jelida said:

Thanks Stu, I’m glad someone was prepared to follow-up my post and I certainly agree regarding eye appeal. Not known to many on this forum, but I do also collect some hammered (over a hundred Henry III and fifty odd Lizzie I pennies, and probably into 3 figs of other issues and denominations including a few gold as well as detector finds in the hundreds) and am used to seeing “VF for issue” and “weak areas as struck” type comments in the catalogues. My point being that particularly for certain issues  (for example from say William II until Henry II post Tealby) wear is often considered seperately from strike, which is how it should be. This does not mean that the desirability is not adversely affected by poor strike especially where cleanly struck coins are freely available, but that features such as poor strike, splits and cracks, perforations and plugs etc merit separate comment to wear, a bit like the ‘details’ comments on slabbed coins. I have yet to see a grading system where points are deducted for percentage of  poor strike, filled or worn die,  poorly centred flan etc though that is not to say one does not exist. It seems logical to me (though I accept I may be in isolation) that if the cleanly struck parts of the op’s coin grade NVF, then so must the coin as a whole - the coin appears flat, limiting differential wear- in that the poorly struck parts are also almost certainly unworn,  and this is where the other descriptors that determine desirability come in. 

I stick by my original comment, that this coin is better than fine, but with non wear related issues.

Jerry

 

Thanks for taking the time gents, very interesting and informative, this coin is in the as found condition, its had a run under the tap to have loose stuff removed. I suppose the grading, like value, is subjective and for me is largely irrelevant as im not minded to sell the coin, i still get a buzz out of holing something the best part of a thousand years old.

  • Like 1

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

×