Collectors Coins Great Brit. 2014

[Peckris 579]

Sheep or not, I think the market dictates what is, and what is not, a collectable 'variety'. And this can change with time, as with the 1961 halfcrown "Designer initials partly or completely missing on reverse" which no longer features anywhere.

Now, the 1899 O'NE penny, and the 1946 ONE' penny were both featured on a beginners page in a 60s edition of Coin Monthly, along with a similar raised dot on a Vicky copper penny (I cannot now remember the date). So to me, as a schoolboy, they were well worth looking out for and I pulled a few 1946 ONE's from change. I would now be prepared to pay the right money for an EF example which I've never seen. What is the 'right money'? Well, you find one Rob, and then contact me and I will tell you

There may be no 'accepted standard' of what constitutes a variety, but does that matter? The Coin Year Book includes very few. Spink has included more and more over the years. CCGB includes even more. Who's right? The collector and his wallet, to a great extent.

[Peter 615]

There does need to be a cut off but I agree with Peck.

If Coin News shaped up with some good write ups apart from modern tat.

I may even buy it again.

[Colin G. 147]

I agree with Rob in terms of a standard price guide, which should just give an details on intentional design changes, but would also exclude overdates from that list. If you are willing to accept an 8/7 because it is re-use of a die, then you should also accept an 8 recut with an 8 because in terms of the process it is no different. Why would one be more acceptable than the other?

I think as long as any publication clarifies what are its defining parameters then there should not really be an issue.

[RLC35 288]

I agree with Rob in terms of a standard price guide, which should just give an details on intentional design changes, but would also exclude overdates from that list. If you are willing to accept an 8/7 because it is re-use of a die, then you should also accept an 8 recut with an 8 because in terms of the process it is no different. Why would one be more acceptable than the other?

I think as long as any publication clarifies what are its defining parameters then there should not really be an issue.

As for the date widths, I think Michael Gouby has a good explaination of what is considered important, and what (currently) is not. I think the market will decide what should, and should not, be placed in a coin reference.

"Some collectors have started collecting or recording variations in date widths.

I do not consider the great majority of these variations as being of significant importance or rarity above the norm.

Some, like the 1889 narrow date, do eventually achieve a rarity status and command a premium over the norm.

Only time will tell which of the others do !

I shall list and scan some of the variations that pass through my hands."

I think the 1877 Narrow Date has made the cut! Ha,Ha!

[Rob 3,000]

What is or is not included surely boils down to the space available and I would consider is best addressed as layers. If we assume that at least every substantive type issued as currency must be included from the date range covered, then that is the top layer and would include distinctive bust and reverse types. I would leave out individual proofs despite my liking for them and only include the sets made available to the public which were issued. Next down I suggest should be the dates including overdates issued together with distinct varieties such as legend errors, any die axis varieties or bust types where you have to differentiate by leaves with raised or incuse veins or a number of berries. Given the dire state of many examples, the novice collector isn't likely to worry about these details unless the catalogue has a large pounds sign against it, so this could possibly be partially relegated to the next layer unless obvious to the eye with minimal magnification.

A periodic issue of an updated 'all varieties' catalogue for individual denominations might be a possibility if done say every 10 years. Prices need only reflect the average price paid around the time of issue, as the majority of high grade items are fought over by collectors with deep pockets, and so any prices may not truly reflect the broader market.

As said above, there is no right or wrong and as Peck says the market does decree what is collectable or not, but the original discussion was what should be included and that doesn't have to encompass everything.

RLC's reference to the narrow date 1877 is a different case as the whole of the date has equal spacing and thus was intended to be narrow. My problem lies with the obsessive concerns over the spacing of the final digit or the last two which vary solely on account of having been entered by human hands rather than an engraving machine.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Rob

[Rob 3,000]

I agree with Rob in terms of a standard price guide, which should just give an details on intentional design changes, but would also exclude overdates from that list. If you are willing to accept an 8/7 because it is re-use of a die, then you should also accept an 8 recut with an 8 because in terms of the process it is no different. Why would one be more acceptable than the other?

I think as long as any publication clarifies what are its defining parameters then there should not really be an issue.

There are two possibilities for the 8 over 8, one of which is to prolong the life of the die after blockage or the second is crap engraving skills, but I would have difficulty deciding which is which. The overdate on the other hand is a clear decision to reuse an existing die.

[TomGoodheart 373]

I still like a book.

In view of all this PC techy jargon, I've finally decided I'm sticking with paper too!

I'm waiting for CCGB 2036. The one where you look at a coin through your Google glasses and a hologram of Chris appears and tells you what it is.

Of course, an upgraded version would be even better. .. you look at a coin through your Googles and a hologram of Bill Gates appears and buys it for you!

[Gary 7]

Gary: At the moment yes, as they're all in the UK. If you can wait a couple of weeks I can send one from within Germany, so that would be the £7.35 option.

could not wait, have ordered.

[Garrett 76]

Re: Varieties

Maybe eventually there will be two versions of the book, with many more of the varieties into the e-book version.

I carry a library in my top pocket, and it doesn't really matter if some of the books in it have a thousand pages.

cheers

Garrett.

[Coinery 926]

In the presence of specialist publications I view Spink's and Chris's book predominantly as a price guide! Which means, at least for me, that popularly collected varieties, especially higher value/rarer and significant 'types' would do well to be included!

I accept that a 1599 Anchor Sixpence of E1 will not be separated out far beyond an issue type, on account there are not a large number of collectors collating E1 date runs, but I can see how the 19th & 20th C bronze collectors (as an example) would benefit!

Edited December 19, 2013 by Coinery

[Rob 3,000]

In the presence of specialist publications I view Spink's and Chris's book predominantly as a price guide! Which means, at least for me, that popularly collected varieties, especially higher value/rarer and significant 'types' would do well to be included!

I accept that a 1599 Anchor Sixpence of E1 will not be separated out far beyond an issue type, on account there are not a large number of collectors collating E1 date runs, but I can see how the 19th & 20th C bronze collectors (as an example) would benefit!

As numerous as penny collectors are, they still only represent a small fraction of the collecting fraternity - certainly no greater than single figures, and I would hazard a guess in saying that there are probably more decimal collectors than penny ones given the low entry price and the ability to collect from change. It is therefore unreasonable to treat the penny any different to other denominations or periods? Every popular denomination is far outweighed by the numbers of those who don't have an interest in the same, with some alternatives particularly popular. Charles I shillings and halfcrowns spring to mind with most collectors of this type of material aiming to get an example of each Sharp variety shilling, with others aiming for the various initial marks within the group for example along with the halfcrown equivalents. Saxon coinage would be very popular if listed by type and mint rather than the current type listing for the cheapest mint. Given the order of magnitude or greater difference in price for certain rare mints compared to the common ones, this would be instantly comparable to the penny variety listings. The Saxon moneyer/mint combination would be the equivalent 'nerd' detail to those who collect by missing serif for example. Ultimately it is something that is impossible to resolve without making a paper tome that would be impractical in size and weight. That is why I think the basic references should be kept as simple as possible with the minor varieties covered by a denomination specialist reference.

[Peckris 579]

In the presence of specialist publications I view Spink's and Chris's book predominantly as a price guide! Which means, at least for me, that popularly collected varieties, especially higher value/rarer and significant 'types' would do well to be included!

I accept that a 1599 Anchor Sixpence of E1 will not be separated out far beyond an issue type, on account there are not a large number of collectors collating E1 date runs, but I can see how the 19th & 20th C bronze collectors (as an example) would benefit!

As numerous as penny collectors are, they still only represent a small fraction of the collecting fraternity - certainly no greater than single figures, and I would hazard a guess in saying that there are probably more decimal collectors than penny ones given the low entry price and the ability to collect from change. It is therefore unreasonable to treat the penny any different to other denominations or periods? Every popular denomination is far outweighed by the numbers of those who don't have an interest in the same, with some alternatives particularly popular. Charles I shillings and halfcrowns spring to mind with most collectors of this type of material aiming to get an example of each Sharp variety shilling, with others aiming for the various initial marks within the group for example along with the halfcrown equivalents. Saxon coinage would be very popular if listed by type and mint rather than the current type listing for the cheapest mint. Given the order of magnitude or greater difference in price for certain rare mints compared to the common ones, this would be instantly comparable to the penny variety listings. The Saxon moneyer/mint combination would be the equivalent 'nerd' detail to those who collect by missing serif for example. Ultimately it is something that is impossible to resolve without making a paper tome that would be impractical in size and weight. That is why I think the basic references should be kept as simple as possible with the minor varieties covered by a denomination specialist reference.

What, no more than 9 penny collectors?

I think you make some good general points Rob. However, surely varieties in the machine age (post-1797) are more 'significant' to collectors, in that 1) they are more modern and therefore represent more collectors, but 2) any deviation from the 'norm' stands out much more, unlike the numerous punching errors of early milled and the massive unpredictability of individually produced coins of the hammered era?

I do think - possibly in vain - that a line SHOULD be drawn however. I think I'm probably among the majority here who would rate the wide/narrow date spacings of bun pennies as significant, and the variations in final digit spacing of OH pennies as not, to give one fairly obvious example.

[Colin G. 147]

I agree with Rob in terms of a standard price guide, which should just give an details on intentional design changes, but would also exclude overdates from that list. If you are willing to accept an 8/7 because it is re-use of a die, then you should also accept an 8 recut with an 8 because in terms of the process it is no different. Why would one be more acceptable than the other?

I think as long as any publication clarifies what are its defining parameters then there should not really be an issue.

There are two possibilities for the 8 over 8, one of which is to prolong the life of the die after blockage or the second is crap engraving skills, but I would have difficulty deciding which is which. The overdate on the other hand is a clear decision to reuse an existing die.

And if it is done to prolong the life of a die, why is that any different to the decision to re-use an existing die. The process and also the reasoning behind the process would be exactly the same, however the overdate will inevitably always be more collectable because of its visual distinction.

[Colin G. 147]

Similarly, the difference in spacing of the final datal figure is down to it being entered by hand.

Again I emphasise that I agree with drawing a line...but it is very difficult to do once you start looking into the subject in depth. I find this topic of discussion very interesting, because as a variety collector, and also with my website I find I am constantly reviewing my understanding of micro varieties and parameters for what I consider worthy of inclusion or exclusion.

With the above quote from Rob I find it fascinating that most will accept all four digits being cut individually (such as the narrow date pennies) but challenge a variety that is based on the position of a last digit. Why is it acceptable when all four digits are in a different position, but not when the last one has been cut in a different position. There are several examples through the bronze series where the last two digits were positioned, and I could probably dig out examples where three of the four digits may have differing positions....(1879 farthings come to mind)...is that worthy of inclusion?

Please don't think I am being pedantic, but it is important for me to get an understanding of where other collectors think the line should be drawn, and I appreciate such a wide range of views...it makes interesting reading

Edited December 20, 2013 by Colin G.

[VickySilver 775]

Hmmm, IMO a specialist publication would be fine for those narrow dates and datal position varieties and not a general publication. Recognised varieties such as the basic 1926 ME or 1864 serif and crosslet types don't bother me at all and have been generally established for a long while.

[Colin G. 147]

VS I agree wholeheartedly, a price guide should just be that, and then specialist publications should break the subject down into the deeper layers (as Rob described it).

Edited December 20, 2013 by Colin G.

[Rob 3,000]

In the presence of specialist publications I view Spink's and Chris's book predominantly as a price guide! Which means, at least for me, that popularly collected varieties, especially higher value/rarer and significant 'types' would do well to be included!

I accept that a 1599 Anchor Sixpence of E1 will not be separated out far beyond an issue type, on account there are not a large number of collectors collating E1 date runs, but I can see how the 19th & 20th C bronze collectors (as an example) would benefit!

As numerous as penny collectors are, they still only represent a small fraction of the collecting fraternity - certainly no greater than single figures, and I would hazard a guess in saying that there are probably more decimal collectors than penny ones given the low entry price and the ability to collect from change. It is therefore unreasonable to treat the penny any different to other denominations or periods? Every popular denomination is far outweighed by the numbers of those who don't have an interest in the same, with some alternatives particularly popular. Charles I shillings and halfcrowns spring to mind with most collectors of this type of material aiming to get an example of each Sharp variety shilling, with others aiming for the various initial marks within the group for example along with the halfcrown equivalents. Saxon coinage would be very popular if listed by type and mint rather than the current type listing for the cheapest mint. Given the order of magnitude or greater difference in price for certain rare mints compared to the common ones, this would be instantly comparable to the penny variety listings. The Saxon moneyer/mint combination would be the equivalent 'nerd' detail to those who collect by missing serif for example. Ultimately it is something that is impossible to resolve without making a paper tome that would be impractical in size and weight. That is why I think the basic references should be kept as simple as possible with the minor varieties covered by a denomination specialist reference.

What, no more than 9 penny collectors?

I think you make some good general points Rob. However, surely varieties in the machine age (post-1797) are more 'significant' to collectors, in that 1) they are more modern and therefore represent more collectors, but 2) any deviation from the 'norm' stands out much more, unlike the numerous punching errors of early milled and the massive unpredictability of individually produced coins of the hammered era?

I do think - possibly in vain - that a line SHOULD be drawn however. I think I'm probably among the majority here who would rate the wide/narrow date spacings of bun pennies as significant, and the variations in final digit spacing of OH pennies as not, to give one fairly obvious example.

Point 1, I meant to say percentage, not fractions, but only realised after the edit cutoff had passed. Doh.

Point 2, I didn't include legend errors which are large in number all through the hammered period. Nor do I include underlying characters due to the fact that die pairs were essentially two lumps of round bar which had one end engraved with the design and when it wore out was rubbed down and they started again. This accounts in part for the underlying detail that is often seen and referred to as double struck. Sometimes it is double struck, but other times it can't be as the underlying detail doesn't occur on the die in its then state. For hammered coins I would draw the line at substantive type and mint. Individual moneyers would represent the third level - on a par with the minor varieties in terms of collector interest. For small mints there would only be one moneyer in any case and serious collectors of a series will know which moneyers are rare. Legend errors don't have any significance in the hammered series as there was no accepted standard for language and people were as illiterate/careless as they are today.

Point 3, I agree that something as obvious as a wide or narrow date should be included. I also agree that differences in the last digit or two as applicable should not be included. The latter arise from the production of 18, 181, 184 etc dies with the last digit or two omitted. This allowed the dies to be dated as required, hence the inevitable variable spacing.

To move onto Colin's points, the reason I would give for including overdates rather than recut dates is that overdates will appeal more to the date run collector, whereas the whole spectrum will probably appeal to the specialist only, who by definition will be in a minority. For more than one digit hand punched, see point 3.

As to the case of the 1879 farthing, if this is down to the existence of a 1--- die with the remainder hand punched, then no I wouldn't include it. But if the whole date was hand punched and misaligned then I would as this clearly is not in line with the normal mint methods. If narrow and wide dates occur on substantially different dies, I can't see a reason for excluding them. I guess it boils down to how obvious the differences are.

[Accumulator 52]

Similarly, the difference in spacing of the final datal figure is down to it being entered by hand.

Again I emphasise that I agree with drawing a line...but it is very difficult to do once you start looking into the subject in depth. I find this topic of discussion very interesting, because as a variety collector, and also with my website I find I am constantly reviewing my understanding of micro varieties and parameters for what I consider worthy of inclusion or exclusion.

With the above quote from Rob I find it fascinating that most will accept all four digits being cut individually (such as the narrow date pennies) but challenge a variety that is based on the position of a last digit. Why is it acceptable when all four digits are in a different position, but not when the last one has been cut in a different position. There are several examples through the bronze series where the last two digits were positioned, and I could probably dig out examples where three of the four digits may have differing positions....(1879 farthings come to mind)...is that worthy of inclusion?

Please don't think I am being pedantic, but it is important for me to get an understanding of where other collectors think the line should be drawn, and I appreciate such a wide range of views...it makes interesting reading

In the case of pennies, the so called 'narrow date versions' of 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1879 are from totally different dies to their normal or wide date counterparts, with other design changes being incorporated too. I don't think these can be considered in the same way as otherwise identical dies, where just the date position is altered. The former are separately listed in Spink and, I believe, should be included in any reasonably detailed price guide. The latter are for specialist publications like Gouby.

Edit: I think Rob has just said the same.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Accumulator

[davidrj 194]

confusing terminology gets in the way when discussing date widths in pennies

the "narrow" dates for 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, & 1879 are distinctly different dies from the "normal" or "large date" bun pennies -

I prefer "small" date - using "wide" and "narrow" as descriptors for variation of date width for a specific die

the former should be in the price guides, the latter not in my view

edit: Just noted Accumulators post above

Edited December 20, 2013 by davidrj

[Accumulator 52]

confusing terminology gets in the way when discussing date widths in pennies

the "narrow" dates for 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, & 1879 are distinctly different dies from the "normal" or "large date" bun pennies -

I prefer "small" date - using "wide" and "narrow" as descriptors for variation of date width for a specific die

the former should be in the price guides, the latter not in my view

edit: Just noted Accumulators post above

Snap, David! We're in danger of reaching a consensus.

[Colin G. 147]

Similarly, the difference in spacing of the final datal figure is down to it being entered by hand.

Again I emphasise that I agree with drawing a line...but it is very difficult to do once you start looking into the subject in depth. I find this topic of discussion very interesting, because as a variety collector, and also with my website I find I am constantly reviewing my understanding of micro varieties and parameters for what I consider worthy of inclusion or exclusion.

With the above quote from Rob I find it fascinating that most will accept all four digits being cut individually (such as the narrow date pennies) but challenge a variety that is based on the position of a last digit. Why is it acceptable when all four digits are in a different position, but not when the last one has been cut in a different position. There are several examples through the bronze series where the last two digits were positioned, and I could probably dig out examples where three of the four digits may have differing positions....(1879 farthings come to mind)...is that worthy of inclusion?

Please don't think I am being pedantic, but it is important for me to get an understanding of where other collectors think the line should be drawn, and I appreciate such a wide range of views...it makes interesting reading

In the case of pennies, the so called 'narrow date versions' of 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1879 are from totally different dies to their normal or wide date counterparts, with other design changes being incorporated too. I don't think these can be considered in the same way as otherwise identical dies, where just the date position is altered. The former are separately listed in Spink and, I believe, should be included in any reasonably detailed price guide. The latter are for specialist publications like Gouby.

Edit: I think Rob has just said the same.

Thanks for the clarification, that's the trouble when you are housed in a farthing bubble

[Peckris 579]

Similarly, the difference in spacing of the final datal figure is down to it being entered by hand.

Again I emphasise that I agree with drawing a line...but it is very difficult to do once you start looking into the subject in depth. I find this topic of discussion very interesting, because as a variety collector, and also with my website I find I am constantly reviewing my understanding of micro varieties and parameters for what I consider worthy of inclusion or exclusion.

With the above quote from Rob I find it fascinating that most will accept all four digits being cut individually (such as the narrow date pennies) but challenge a variety that is based on the position of a last digit. Why is it acceptable when all four digits are in a different position, but not when the last one has been cut in a different position. There are several examples through the bronze series where the last two digits were positioned, and I could probably dig out examples where three of the four digits may have differing positions....(1879 farthings come to mind)...is that worthy of inclusion?

Please don't think I am being pedantic, but it is important for me to get an understanding of where other collectors think the line should be drawn, and I appreciate such a wide range of views...it makes interesting reading

In the case of pennies, the so called 'narrow date versions' of 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1879 are from totally different dies to their normal or wide date counterparts, with other design changes being incorporated too. I don't think these can be considered in the same way as otherwise identical dies, where just the date position is altered. The former are separately listed in Spink and, I believe, should be included in any reasonably detailed price guide. The latter are for specialist publications like Gouby.

Edit: I think Rob has just said the same.

Yes, that's crucial : the different date spacings in the 1870s pennies are simply the most recognisable feature of what is actually a different design. That's what I meant to say before.

confusing terminology gets in the way when discussing date widths in pennies

the "narrow" dates for 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, & 1879 are distinctly different dies from the "normal" or "large date" bun pennies -

I prefer "small" date - using "wide" and "narrow" as descriptors for variation of date width for a specific die

the former should be in the price guides, the latter not in my view

edit: Just noted Accumulators post above

The problem with 'small' date is you then get a confusion with the 'penny using halfpenny date punches' realm, which is genuinely small in all dimensions. The 'narrow' date at least has the virtue of being what it says on the tin - 'close spaced' rather than 'wide spaced'.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Peckris

[VickySilver 775]

OK, I confess to be a "lumper" and not a "splitter" - maybe comes from being a biologist, where a few of us classical types don't care a lot for pigeonholing as there was and is a tendency to get lost in the forest for the trees.

So, my vote (for whatever it counts) is to have an entirely separate catalogue for wide and narrow, and data variants (save the overdates), and the like. To present a countering view, I think, to what has been proposed - I think an overdate is far more obvious to the observer than a date spacing die variant. And quite frankly, though admittedly a matter of personal perspective, I think listings in a general catalogue ought to be obvious as to type to even a beginner or slightly advanced collector/cataloguer.

[Peckris 579]

OK, I confess to be a "lumper" and not a "splitter" - maybe comes from being a biologist, where a few of us classical types don't care a lot for pigeonholing as there was and is a tendency to get lost in the forest for the trees.

So, my vote (for whatever it counts) is to have an entirely separate catalogue for wide and narrow, and data variants (save the overdates), and the like. To present a countering view, I think, to what has been proposed - I think an overdate is far more obvious to the observer than a date spacing die variant. And quite frankly, though admittedly a matter of personal perspective, I think listings in a general catalogue ought to be obvious as to type to even a beginner or slightly advanced collector/cataloguer.

There's a problem with that! Countering with my own experiences as a schoolboy collector : the date spacings for e.g. the two types of 1875 penny were striking and obvious to me. On the other hand I never ever found an 1865/3 overdate, and even when I later saw pictures of them, I still couldn't make out the overdate. So it's not really as straightforward as you suggest.

[VickySilver 775]

OK, I was thinking 1860/59 (not bun head) and the like which I would imagine you would agree fairly obvious. Not to mention all our silver overdates....(excepting some of the multiple digit types).

Edited December 22, 2013 by VickySilver