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  
Mr T

different editions of freeman's books

Recommended Posts

I've got some questions about the books written by Michael Freeman:

I only just found out that his original book (The Victorian Bronze Penny) had two editions - one in 1964 and one in 1966. I had a quick look at my copy and I don't see an edition or year so I'm not sure which one I have. Are there any major differences?

Is the only change between the 1985 and 2006 the prices? I can see in the 2006 various things have been revised (there's no 1* farthing obverse, various proofs and other coins are noted as non-existent) so were these revisions actually between the 1970 and 1985 editions?

Thanks for any help - just trying to hunt down any gaps in information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If my memory serves me correctly, on the earlier version of the Victorian Bronze penny, the picture of a reverse F penny was added at the back page of the book. The picture of the reverse F penny was on page 14 of the second edition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that DNW have re-named the F10 N over sideways N (Z) as a F10A, in their auctions. It isn’t noted as such in the latest Freeman (2016). So they've seemingly done that off their own bat. 

Unless they know something we don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've done similar things before in terms of creating additional Freeman numbers, I believe. They also regularly quote Bamford numbers which are actually just the lot numbers from his sale rather than definitive variety identifiers, although Rob has said that this approach (using lot nos from major sales) has been used several times in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using lot numbers from past sales is quite a sensible thing because the specialist collectors will tend to have the reference material from specialist collections to hand. If the reference means nothing to someone who is into that specialised area, then they haven't done their homework properly. It is also the only practical way to reference new and unrecorded material when another example turns up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it could conceivably be confusing if something is described as, say, Freeman 28 which, based on the earlier logic, could mean a particular 1861 penny or Lot 28 from his Christie's sale.

But, as you say, anyone interested in this information will probably know what the difference is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 1:54 AM, Bernie said:

If my memory serves me correctly, on the earlier version of the Victorian Bronze penny, the picture of a reverse F penny was added at the back page of the book. The picture of the reverse F penny was on page 14 of the second edition.

Thanks - I'll see what I've got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, secret santa said:

They've done similar things before in terms of creating additional Freeman numbers, I believe. They also regularly quote Bamford numbers which are actually just the lot numbers from his sale rather than definitive variety identifiers, although Rob has said that this approach (using lot nos from major sales) has been used several times in the past.

Well it's certainly creative, but it's also highly misleading as it's not the author's decision, and therefore factually incorrect. 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 1:54 AM, Bernie said:

If my memory serves me correctly, on the earlier version of the Victorian Bronze penny, the picture of a reverse F penny was added at the back page of the book. The picture of the reverse F penny was on page 14 of the second edition.

Many thanks Bernie - reverse F is there on page 14.

Not sure why the year isn't anyway in the book at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking of ascribing imaginary numbers.....

Baldwins of St James have done the same thing in their Edward VII collection catalogue 30 (on sixbid). They've ascribed "F168A" to the dot in ONE 1909 penny variant, whereas Freeman never listed this variety, certainly not in the 1985 update.

While I'm at it I notice the next item is a 1902 matt proof halfpenny. They have a letter from the Royal Mint stating that he (Graham Dyer) was inclined to think it a proof and also a 1977 letter from Michael Freeman stating that he thought it was a proof as well. I find it odd then that Freeman didn't include it in his 1985 revised edition of his book. Perhaps he changed his mind!?

Share this post


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

sorry, not next item: 1909 penny lot 118, 1902 proof halfpenny lot 109.

A direct link would be useful.

Share this post


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

A direct link would be useful.

There you go, Chris

ETA: How are you meant to meaningfully view the item, with those tichy little photos? Also, with lot 116 how do they know it's from 1902 if it's a blank piece of metal? Not sure this is a completely convincing explanation:-

Quote

The coin blank was found amongst a bag of pennies acquired from their bank in 1902 by Messrs. A. H. Baldwin & Sons. The bag was not opened till 2002

A bag of pennies from 1902, doesn't necessarily mean they were all minted in 1902. Not specified that it was a mint bag.  

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

There you go, Chris

ETA: How are you meant to meaningfully view the item, with those tichy little photos? Also, with lot 116 how do they know it's from 1902 if it's a blank piece of metal? Not sure this is a completely convincing explanation:-

A bag of pennies from 1902, doesn't necessarily mean they were all minted in 1902. Not specified that it was a mint bag.  

Thanks Mike. Lots 109 and 112 have large pictures on the pdf I'm looking at .. which makes me ask, How on earth do they certify the halfpenny as a definite proof (£5000-£8000), while the penny (112) is described as 'prooflike' (£200-£250) only? I defer to the experts of course, but I do wonder how they made that distinction. Could all be just a matter of opinion.

Share this post


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

Thanks Mike. Lots 109 and 112 have large pictures on the pdf I'm looking at .. which makes me ask, How on earth do they certify the halfpenny as a definite proof (£5000-£8000), while the penny (112) is described as 'prooflike' (£200-£250) only? I defer to the experts of course, but I do wonder how they made that distinction. Could all be just a matter of opinion.

Well as far as lot 109 is concerned, they say this:-

Quote

The Royal Mint’s then recent tradition of including no bronze coins in the Proof Sets continued with the Coronation proofs of 1902. Specimens of the new bronze coinage of 1902 such as this matt proof halfpenny should therefore be considered to be ‘Proofs of Record’, made for preservation in museums such as the Royal Mint Museum. This is a coin that was never intended for private collectors. The coin is considered one of the rarest coins of Edward VII. Accompanying this lot is a copy of a letter dated 1 July 1985 from Graham Dyer, Librarian and Curator of the Royal Mint collection together with a copy of an earlier letter, 6 May 1977, from the specialist Michael J. Freeman, both attesting to the proof status of this coin. Dyer writes, “… we are inclined to agree with Mr. Freeman that it is a matt proof. In quality of striking it matches the two matt proofs in the Mint collection, and we find the rim on the obverse particularly persuasive.”

Obviously that will carry considerable weight in terms of provenance. Although neither lot 109, nor 112 look anything other than currency strikes to me. Maybe in hand they might look more convincing.

As you say Chris, we must defer to the experts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I missing something? Lot 46 (1902 florin) has an estimate £1000-£2000. Is there a rare variety I'm not aware of? :o

Share this post


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

Talking of ascribing imaginary numbers.....

Baldwins of St James have done the same thing in their Edward VII collection catalogue 30 (on sixbid). They've ascribed "F168A" to the dot in ONE 1909 penny variant, whereas Freeman never listed this variety, certainly not in the 1985 update.

While I'm at it I notice the next item is a 1902 matt proof halfpenny. They have a letter from the Royal Mint stating that he (Graham Dyer) was inclined to think it a proof and also a 1977 letter from Michael Freeman stating that he thought it was a proof as well. I find it odd then that Freeman didn't include it in his 1985 revised edition of his book. Perhaps he changed his mind!?

I wonder if anyone has ever asked Michael Freeman what he thinks about these "A's" being conveniently added to different types by different auction houses?

12 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Am I missing something? Lot 46 (1902 florin) has an estimate £1000-£2000. Is there a rare variety I'm not aware of? :o

Maybe it's the toning.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

I wonder if anyone has ever asked Michael Freeman what he thinks about these "A's" being conveniently added to different types by different auction houses?

Maybe it's the toning.......

Perhaps they mean £100-£200 for the 1902 florin? But maybe not - you should see the crown estimates! They're estimating a possible £3K plus for a 1902 crown (proof or currency: upper estimate + extras). Some anonymous American plonks a high number on a nice but common coin and kerboom...the price is supposed to go stratospheric. What a racket!

I remember pointing out to Stephen Fenton a crazy estimate for a bog standard 1787 shilling (unslabbed, £700-800 from memory) a few years back. He just chuckled and walked on - he didn't explain or say it was a typo. Anyway, it didn't sell in the auction - fortunately no-one was that stupid!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Maybe it's the toning.......

 

1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

Perhaps they mean £100-£200 for the 1902 florin? But maybe not - you should see the crown estimates! They're estimating a possible £3K plus for a 1902 crown (proof or currency: upper estimate + extras). Some anonymous American plonks a high number on a nice but common coin and kerboom...the price is supposed to go stratospheric. What a racket!

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so much of yellow/green toning, ESPECIALLY when it largely hides the standing figure of Britannia. I'll be absolutely gobsmacked if it reaches estimate, on this side of the Atlantic at least.

Share this post


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

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think so much of yellow/green toning, ESPECIALLY when it largely hides the standing figure of Britannia. I'll be absolutely gobsmacked if it reaches estimate, on this side of the Atlantic at least.

Seriously though, I think somebody's just added one too many 0's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Seriously though, I think somebody's just added one too many 0's.

One flaw in that theory : there's both large and small pictures of that coin, and there's only large pictures of the coins with high estimates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 10:11 AM, Mr T said:

I only just found out that his original book (The Victorian Bronze Penny) had two editions - one in 1964 and one in 1966. I had a quick look at my copy and I don't see an edition or year so I'm not sure which one I have. Are there any major differences?

I'll correct myself - in my attempts to not do any further damage to my somewhat tattered copy I overlooked a couple of thin first pages that do state the year and edition.

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  

×