Predecimal Denomination.

[Peckris 579]

The 80s sets were certainly better presented, though by then collectors were getting to be somewhat "ho hum" about the fact of a new set every year.

I do agree with you.

I do think that Proof Issues are very nice, but I also think that they should be reserved for 'Special Occasions' such as a Coronation or a new Coinage Issue.

Although it is nice to have the coins contained in them at the highest Grade, I think that it takes something away from them when they are produced each and every year.

Yes, I agree. I suppose the excuse from 1983 was a new 'type' £1 coin each year, but what was the excuse from 1974 to 1981? And anyway, from 1982 they've had BU specimen sets struck to the highest standards, so really the proofs should have been saved for 1) a new portrait (the whole set) and 2) new denominations (just that item in various formats). It's just RM greed for profit.

[RobJ 0]

Yes, I agree. I suppose the excuse from 1983 was a new 'type' £1 coin each year, but what was the excuse from 1974 to 1981? And anyway, from 1982 they've had BU specimen sets struck to the highest standards, so really the proofs should have been saved for 1) a new portrait (the whole set) and 2) new denominations (just that item in various formats). It's just RM greed for profit.

Indeed. Perhaps a better idea would have been to produce special Proof Issues for the £1 Coin 'Types' and Commemorative Issues and reserve the full Proof Sets for 1985, 1998 when the Obverse changed and 2008 for the new Designs.

Annual BU Sets could then have been issued annually to satisfy the demand of the Collector.

Sadly, we now have Proof and BU Issues not only for the Year Sets, but also for the Commemorative, non Commemorative and single release Issues.

In Standard, DeLuxe and Executive formats.

All available in Platinum, Gold, Silver and Base Metal .

Piedfort and 'Normal.'

Annual, Christmas, Birthday, Baby and Anniversary Sets.

I'm personally waiting for the Super DeLuxe Annual Executive Baby First Anniversary of Christmas Piedfort Bronze, Silver and Gold highlighted Platinum Proof Commemorative Collection.

Suffice to say that the market is over saturated. lol

Edited February 2, 2011 by RobJ

[Peckris 579]

I'm personally waiting for the Super DeLuxe Annual Executive Baby First Anniversary of Christmas Piedfort Bronze, Silver and Gold highlighted Platinum Proof Commemorative Collection.

And I would LOVE to see Spink remove the post-1967 stuff from "The Coins Of England", knock £5 off the vastly reduced size of it, and issue that in a separate book for those what want it!

[Rob 3,002]

And I would LOVE to see Spink remove the post-1967 stuff from "The Coins Of England", knock £5 off the vastly reduced size of it, and issue that in a separate book for those what want it!

I don't think splitting the references into pre and post decimalisation would be very sensible from a publication point of view. The current book weighs in excess of 1kg which is a significant price band with Royal Mail, but splitting it in half would bring it back to say 6-700g including hardback covers.

I do think that a division in 1662 would be very beneficial by now. It is very close to half way as things stand and would give the opportunity to include more varieties in both halves. Coupled with the fact that many collectors specialise in either hammered or milled, and if they do cross the boundary an extra book costing say £20 would pale into insignificance compared to the cost of pre 1662 milled coinage and would result in few lost sales in my opinion. In all probability it would result in a significant uplift in sales for Spink because most people who currently buy one would buy both if necessary. Crucially, it is a handbook and needs to be comfortably portable. The weight is now becoming an issue.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Rob

[Red Riley 2]

I don't think splitting the references into pre and post decimalisation would be very sensible from a publication point of view. The current book weighs in excess of 1kg which is a significant price band with Royal Mail, but splitting it in half would bring it back to say 6-700g including hardback covers.

I do think that a division in 1662 would be very beneficial by now. It is very close to half way as things stand and would give the opportunity to include more varieties in both halves. Coupled with the fact that many collectors specialise in either hammered or milled, and if they do cross the boundary an extra book costing say £20 would pale into insignificance compared to the cost of pre 1662 milled coinage and would result in few lost sales in my opinion. In all probability it would result in a significant uplift in sales for Spink because most people who currently buy one would buy both if necessary. Crucially, it is a handbook and needs to be comfortably portable. The weight is now becoming an issue.

While we're on the subject, I think splitting coins into monarchs rather than denominations is bizarre as that just isn't the way most people collect e.g. I collect pennies not King Edward VII coins in general. I know it would muck up their numbering system but as things stand it is a right pain to look things up bearing in mind most other publications and/or websites go by denomination.

Or is it my republican tendencies coming through?

[Rob 3,002]

I don't think splitting the references into pre and post decimalisation would be very sensible from a publication point of view. The current book weighs in excess of 1kg which is a significant price band with Royal Mail, but splitting it in half would bring it back to say 6-700g including hardback covers.

I do think that a division in 1662 would be very beneficial by now. It is very close to half way as things stand and would give the opportunity to include more varieties in both halves. Coupled with the fact that many collectors specialise in either hammered or milled, and if they do cross the boundary an extra book costing say £20 would pale into insignificance compared to the cost of pre 1662 milled coinage and would result in few lost sales in my opinion. In all probability it would result in a significant uplift in sales for Spink because most people who currently buy one would buy both if necessary. Crucially, it is a handbook and needs to be comfortably portable. The weight is now becoming an issue.

While we're on the subject, I think splitting coins into monarchs rather than denominations is bizarre as that just isn't the way most people collect e.g. I collect pennies not King Edward VII coins in general. I know it would muck up their numbering system but as things stand it is a right pain to look things up bearing in mind most other publications and/or websites go by denomination.

Or is it my republican tendencies coming through?

The latter.

Whilst many people, myself included, collect denominations at some point, the problem of same-ness raises its head. Long term collectors will frequently migrate to a sideways expansion of their earlier habits and this provides diversity within the collection. Historically collections were very diverse, with the first specialist denomination collection probably being the T W Barron sale in 1906 which was crowns. I think narrow collecting interests are a modern phenomenon based on relative cost of the collectable item when compared with past eras.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Rob

[Peckris 579]

And I would LOVE to see Spink remove the post-1967 stuff from "The Coins Of England", knock £5 off the vastly reduced size of it, and issue that in a separate book for those what want it!

I don't think splitting the references into pre and post decimalisation would be very sensible from a publication point of view. The current book weighs in excess of 1kg which is a significant price band with Royal Mail, but splitting it in half would bring it back to say 6-700g including hardback covers.

I do think that a division in 1662 would be very beneficial by now. It is very close to half way as things stand and would give the opportunity to include more varieties in both halves. Coupled with the fact that many collectors specialise in either hammered or milled, and if they do cross the boundary an extra book costing say £20 would pale into insignificance compared to the cost of pre 1662 milled coinage and would result in few lost sales in my opinion. In all probability it would result in a significant uplift in sales for Spink because most people who currently buy one would buy both if necessary. Crucially, it is a handbook and needs to be comfortably portable. The weight is now becoming an issue.

I was being vaguely satirical Rob, but you make a good point. There's only one snag - I'm not tempted remotely by hammered, but I do like a Roman or two (coins! I'm talking about coins ), so the 1662 division wouldn't help me much. On the other hand, Roman values don't change much, so Spink could lump the ancient - including Celtic - into a separate little book they would only need to update every three years or so.

While we're on the subject, I think splitting coins into monarchs rather than denominations is bizarre as that just isn't the way most people collect e.g. I collect pennies not King Edward VII coins in general. I know it would muck up their numbering system but as things stand it is a right pain to look things up bearing in mind most other publications and/or websites go by denomination.

Or is it my republican tendencies coming through?

I agree Derek. And Spink are becoming the exception now. ESC, Coincraft, the Year Book, CCGB, Freeman, C&MV, they're all by denomination not monarch. And people who collect date runs don't stop at reign boundaries. Storage systems are designed around denomination too. It's a rare collector who prefers a monarch to a denomination or two.

But I suppose it would take too much of a major redesign for Spink to change it now.

[Rob 3,002]

It's a rare collector who prefers a monarch to a denomination or two.

Why do I always find myself being a contrarian? For years I collected halfpennies because they weren't fashionable, although the shillings were more popular. There's me getting fed up with the serried ranks of date runs that all looked the same, so now I specifically look for something to differentiate one coin from the next. Monarch, metal, denomination, mintmark, mint location, designer, error, metal provenance and design feature all provide the opportunity for diversity and has the benefit of something unfashionable always being available. I still can't wean myself off the halfpennies entirely though - some of my patterns are too attractive.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Rob

[Red Riley 2]

It's a rare collector who prefers a monarch to a denomination or two.

Why do I always find myself being a contrarian? For years I collected halfpennies because they weren't fashionable, although the shillings were more popular. There's me getting fed up with the serried ranks of date runs that all looked the same, so now I specifically look for something to differentiate one coin from the next. Monarch, metal, denomination, mintmark, mint location, designer, error, metal provenance and design feature all provide the opportunity for diversity and has the benefit of something unfashionable always being available. I still can't wean myself off the halfpennies entirely though - some of my patterns are too attractive.

I would have to say that my collecting activities did shift from date runs, which I guess is how we all got started, to a much wider spread of coins, eventually not only from this country but from the U.S.A. and Europe too. So from that point of view, I agree with you. Nonetheless, collecting by monarch would be just the other side of the coin (!) from the date run - serried ranks of coins all bearing the same design. To the layman, the most interesting collection would be one where the collector has employed a completely scattergun approach, producing an historical overview of a nation (or even several nations') coinage.

However, if you are producing a guide book, some logic has to be employed in its arrangement and using monarch rather than denomination strikes me as faintly bonkers. This is particularly true in the Mediaeval period where what coin was produced in which reign is still a matter of debate and no absolute agreement has been reached. Other anomolies inclue 'posthumous' coinages of such as Henry VII which bear his name and portrait but appear under the coinage of his son, Henry VIII.

I suppose the reasons are largely historical (but why did anyone ever think this was a good arrangement?) and if starting again, Seaby's, Spink's or whoever would just follow the trend and go with the much more logical denomination/date method.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Red Riley

[Accumulator 52]

I have to agree with the general view. I possibly have a copy of all the UK 'price guides' in either the 2010 or 2011 editions (often collected as birthday/Christmas gifts) but would give up the lot for a single Spink listed by denomination (but broken down into early/milled/decimal sections). Perhaps even with page edge cut-outs for the principal sections. Just a thought!

I read the market overviews and articles when I first get the other guides but then only open them when I need a quick date check and am too lazy to spend the extra 30 seconds searching through Spink.

What I would really like, and be prepared to subscribe to, is Spink annually available in database or spreadsheet form that I could merged with my own records. A Spink version of the 'Coin Manage' software discussed elsewhere on this forum would be really good!

[Peter 615]

I relented recently and got 12 months of coin news...it is only £34 but...Coin monthly was so better...but hey.

[Rob 3,002]

I would have to say that my collecting activities did shift from date runs, which I guess is how we all got started, to a much wider spread of coins, eventually not only from this country but from the U.S.A. and Europe too. So from that point of view, I agree with you. Nonetheless, collecting by monarch would be just the other side of the coin (!) from the date run - serried ranks of coins all bearing the same design. To the layman, the most interesting collection would be one where the collector has employed a completely scattergun approach, producing an historical overview of a nation (or even several nations') coinage.

However, if you are producing a guide book, some logic has to be employed in its arrangement and using monarch rather than denomination strikes me as faintly bonkers. This is particularly true in the Mediaeval period where what coin was produced in which reign is still a matter of debate and no absolute agreement has been reached. Other anomolies inclue 'posthumous' coinages of such as Henry VII which bear his name and portrait but appear under the coinage of his son, Henry VIII.

I suppose the reasons are largely historical (but why did anyone ever think this was a good arrangement?) and if starting again, Seaby's, Spink's or whoever would just follow the trend and go with the much more logical denomination/date method.

I can see where you are coming from. The only problem with it would be as I've found in compiling my database of provenances. I had a file for each denomination -simple. But there was a recurring habit of revaluation in the 16-17th century. Consequently you had angels revalued from 6/8 to 8/- initially, but which eventually ended up being current for 11/- for example. Once debasement started the denomination was in name only. Base pennies current for 1/2d, or base shillings at 4&1/2d or 2&1/4d - assuming the correct countermark was used. Rose-Ryals 30/- or 33/-, Spur Ryals at 15/- or 16/6d depending on the mark. Two nominally identical values such as the early James I angels and the double crown, but one struck from fine gold and the other from crown gold of lower fineness. Consequently their values diverged, even as issued. The problem is that either method has its inconveniences and as always, there is no universal panacea.

[Peckris 579]

What I would really like, and be prepared to subscribe to, is Spink annually available in database or spreadsheet form that I could merged with my own records. A Spink version of the 'Coin Manage' software discussed elsewhere on this forum would be really good!

An online Spink (which could be subscribed to - e.g. you pay a fixed amount per year for e.g. up to 250 prices, more up to 500, more still up to 1000, say) would be a boon. It would save me the hours spent hunched over Spink in the library, manually transcribing prices onto my database printout, only to key them all in when I get home. Ok, it's free, but I'd happily pay £10 per annum to access all the catalogue information plus prices for 500 coins.

[Red Riley 2]

I can see where you are coming from. The only problem with it would be as I've found in compiling my database of provenances. I had a file for each denomination -simple. But there was a recurring habit of revaluation in the 16-17th century. Consequently you had angels revalued from 6/8 to 8/- initially, but which eventually ended up being current for 11/- for example. Once debasement started the denomination was in name only. Base pennies current for 1/2d, or base shillings at 4&1/2d or 2&1/4d - assuming the correct countermark was used. Rose-Ryals 30/- or 33/-, Spur Ryals at 15/- or 16/6d depending on the mark. Two nominally identical values such as the early James I angels and the double crown, but one struck from fine gold and the other from crown gold of lower fineness. Consequently their values diverged, even as issued. The problem is that either method has its inconveniences and as always, there is no universal panacea.

Yes, I hadn't thought of that, but perhaps the best answer would be to list coins under their initial value i.e. 6/8d for an angel rather than 8/-. All academic however as I can't see it happening.

[Red Riley 2]

An online Spink (which could be subscribed to - e.g. you pay a fixed amount per year for e.g. up to 250 prices, more up to 500, more still up to 1000, say) would be a boon. It would save me the hours spent hunched over Spink in the library, manually transcribing prices onto my database printout, only to key them all in when I get home. Ok, it's free, but I'd happily pay £10 per annum to access all the catalogue information plus prices for 500 coins.

What will you do when your library closes?

[Accumulator 52]

By coincidence, there was an interesting program on Radio 4 today... "Decimal Day - What's That in Old Money". Worth a listen!

You can hear it again here: BBC - Decimal Day

[Peckris 579]

An online Spink (which could be subscribed to - e.g. you pay a fixed amount per year for e.g. up to 250 prices, more up to 500, more still up to 1000, say) would be a boon. It would save me the hours spent hunched over Spink in the library, manually transcribing prices onto my database printout, only to key them all in when I get home. Ok, it's free, but I'd happily pay £10 per annum to access all the catalogue information plus prices for 500 coins.

What will you do when your library closes?

I will weep! But, having said that, I don't believe any city centre main libraries are under threat?

[josie 8]

Just posting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/8317759/Decimalisation-Day-Forty-years-ago-we-lost-the-rich-and-beautiful-poetry-in-our-pockets.html#

1/24 semuncia in roman coin denomination.

1/240 10 semuncia or decisemuncia going to tower pound its like a piedfort or a multiple of a smallest unit of itself,maybe in other low grade metal what happen if it is in silver content,just incase they will change coinage.just a comment.

[1949threepence 3,366]

Just postig.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Richard-Heller-The-meddling-with.6679449.jp

Well fraction is a perfect number.

Well just wait and see.

At the time, he claimed that it would offer "considerable benefits to the country as a whole", although he did not identify them, still less put any value on them.

The main benefit is, and was, easier monetary calculations at every level.

Politically, it was obviously seen as a primary pre-cursor for Common Market membership. I'm not sure that was a benefit.

[josie 8]

12/186 0.0645 in sceatta there is 15 As or 1/15 or 1/20 .05-.0666..7 it is 1/15.5 12/12*15.5 12 uncia or 1 As, as a unit of 1 in 1/15 that 1 is 12 12*15 is 180 0.5 is 6/12 or 1/2 or 0.5

Just posting.

Edited February 13, 2011 by josie

[josie 8]

Just posting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/8318917/Cash-in-on-your-coins.html#

UKGB can change its pound or return to silver 15.6 to a pound or more than that?

[josie 8]

Just posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennyweight

Nice ratio from chalkoi to drachma to uncia to decimalization.

We still have 24 hours in a day and a lunar cycle of 28 and 29 days and 12 or 13 month in a year,that the ratio in coin is also equivalent in numbers of work in a day equivalent in its PPP to buy goods and grains that the counterweight and mass is of silver coin depending on its purity,that hours work,time elapse and product or grains it yield are all interconnected in a silver coin,just a comment

Edited February 14, 2011 by josie

[josie 8]

Just posting.

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing/2011/02/15/decimalisation-is-40-years-old-today.aspx

373.24 troy pound but base on pennywieght 0.05487 others or in the past 0.05 or 1/20 of pure silver and 0.0645 or 0.065 with 1 or 10 percent excess of wieght little less it will go to 364 grams or days in a year,that the weight of a physical grain will varies in growth for the number of days that the sun will shine or numbers of work for a man or a helper or livestock or animal from a As to a Bull,that the profit or yield or harvest is also equivalent to a bull in one month pay in gold, just like the gold coin of beoudica I think,that other measure is base on grain but depends on its weight depending how fertile the soil and numbers of hours the sun shine,etc,just a comment

[josie 8]

Just posting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/8320068/Decimalisation-picked-our-pockets-of-truly-beautiful-coins.html#

[josie 8]

Just posting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/sep/09/old-coins-currency-minted-before-1947