Collectors Coins Great Brit. 2014

[Gary D 76]

As a variety collector the more the merrier, valuing varieties is a real bitch. Having them listed with values would make life so much easier ,especially when it comes to insurance. And as insurance companies tend to use Spinks that's were they need to be.

[Peckris 579]

As a variety collector the more the merrier, valuing varieties is a real bitch. Having them listed with values would make life so much easier ,especially when it comes to insurance. And as insurance companies tend to use Spinks that's were they need to be.

The trouble is, the market for some of the most obscure and trivial varieties is so small that how could you get a realistic value? Especially if one of the collectors has much more money than sense like the person who bought that 1863 'narrow 3' penny. Others - such as the two kinds of 1905 penny, 1937 penny, 1928 halfcrown, and several others - where the two varieties occur in roughly equal quantities, aren't worth listing as each variety would have the same value. It's a minefield.

[RLC35 288]

As a variety collector the more the merrier, valuing varieties is a real bitch. Having them listed with values would make life so much easier ,especially when it comes to insurance. And as insurance companies tend to use Spinks that's were they need to be.

The trouble is, the market for some of the most obscure and trivial varieties is so small that how could you get a realistic value? Especially if one of the collectors has much more money than sense like the person who bought that 1863 'narrow 3' penny. Others - such as the two kinds of 1905 penny, 1937 penny, 1928 halfcrown, and several others - where the two varieties occur in roughly equal quantities, aren't worth listing as each variety would have the same value. It's a minefield.

Chris already shows the 1905, 1937, etc with just an asterick (*), explaining that both types generally have equal value. That's a pretty good way of dealing with minor variations on some coins, while still listing thay are differant varieties.

[Accumulator 52]

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.

Totally agree. Spink, and even 'British Coins Market Values', already list all of these varieties, leaving only the very basic 'Coin Yearbook' to exclude them. In my opinion, any 'serious' guide needs to include all of these major die variations and known overdates (albeit that the overdate cited is almost certainly the least obvious of all).

As a variety collector the more the merrier, valuing varieties is a real bitch. Having them listed with values would make life so much easier ,especially when it comes to insurance. And as insurance companies tend to use Spinks that's were they need to be.

The trouble is, the market for some of the most obscure and trivial varieties is so small that how could you get a realistic value? Especially if one of the collectors has much more money than sense like the person who bought that 1863 'narrow 3' penny. Others - such as the two kinds of 1905 penny, 1937 penny, 1928 halfcrown, and several others - where the two varieties occur in roughly equal quantities, aren't worth listing as each variety would have the same value. It's a minefield.

Chris already shows the 1905, 1937, etc with just an asterick (*), explaining that both types generally have equal value. That's a pretty good way of dealing with minor variations on some coins, while still listing thay are differant varieties.

These, being die varieties, need to be included or mentioned, in my opinion. A simple asterisk/footnote is perfectly acceptable though.

I think the key difference between a price guide and a detailed reference work is that the former doesn't need to actually explain the differences, just list and price them.

Regarding pricing, I agree with Peckris that the market for many varieties is simply not large enough to be specific. Again, a note about relative rarity is useful, though. Possibly, in extreme circumstances, where one die variation is of the highest rarity, this could be indicated. I'm glad I don't have the headache of setting all this out in a single volume!

[azda 973]

Kindle book downloaded. Thanks for the heads up on the kindle app Peck. Could be a popular app for me and the Frau

[Peckris 579]

Kindle book downloaded. Thanks for the heads up on the kindle app Peck. Could be a popular app for me and the Frau

You're welcome. It may even synchronise between your computer and your Kindle as to where you are in a book, though I haven't researched this in depth.

[Red Riley 2]

I may be wrong here, but isn't the main difference between the 1874-9 narrow/wide dates and those of the old head series that the former is a separate master die and the latter random modifications of the working die. As a result, the former will be as uniform as any other date and the latter will cover a wide spectrum due to the fact that at this point in history, the working die modification was done at a very low level e.g. a first year apprentice. I had hoped to come up with a really useful rule of thumb based on master die v. working die varieties but it really won't wash as overdates seem to be working die based and nobody is suggesting that they shouldn't be included. So hey, whatever takes your fancy I guess.

[pies 33]

I will order in a month or two, as if a new book arrives at home now i will be shot, as i will get the "we could of got you that for xmas"

As for varieties for me its simple,if the design was intentional it counts, if not it dont Date varieties dont count as its not a design change, just a date change

[Coinery 926]

It's just suddenly occurred to me, reading Pies post, that varieties represent nothing other than the depth to which an individual wishes to collect!

My usual comparison is E1 (sorry), where it's possible to collect the 'spink' 6ds, the individual date 6ds, all dates with numerous mm's, the BCW varieties, where dates are broken down into obvious types by pretty major things like rose style, lis, lions, shield, legends, and leaf styles (all noticeably different by eye), and then there is even individual dies if you like?

Without opening the book...

1561

Spink's 4 or so varieties!

BCW distinct varieties, around 100?

Distinctive dies of 1561 1000 (approx)

As a collector, I could easily do one of the following:

Collect the spink list of 6ds, or go for the BCW list of 6d's, which would preclude collecting anything else (ever), OR collect every known die for 1561, which would be the end of collecting anything every again!

The main point is: all would have the same pleasure, just a different focus!

[Rob 2,998]

It's just suddenly occurred to me, reading Pies post, that varieties represent nothing other than the depth to which an individual wishes to collect!

My usual comparison is E1 (sorry), where it's possible to collect the 'spink' 6ds, the individual date 6ds, all dates with numerous mm's, the BCW varieties, where dates are broken down into obvious types by pretty major things like rose style, lis, lions, shield, legends, and leaf styles (all noticeably different by eye), and then there is even individual dies if you like?

Without opening the book...

1561

Spink's 4 or so varieties!

BCW distinct varieties, around 100?

Distinctive dies of 1561 1000 (approx)

As a collector, I could easily do one of the following:

Collect the spink list of 6ds, or go for the BCW list of 6d's, which would preclude collecting anything else (ever), OR collect every known die for 1561, which would be the end of collecting anything every again!

The main point is: all would have the same pleasure, just a different focus!

Which is why we are back to the question of what to include or not. Essentially there will never be a volume to suit all, though there might be collectors who adjust to a specific volume. More likely is that everyone will have two or three preferred references. As you were chaps.

[Coinery 926]

It's just suddenly occurred to me, reading Pies post, that varieties represent nothing other than the depth to which an individual wishes to collect!

My usual comparison is E1 (sorry), where it's possible to collect the 'spink' 6ds, the individual date 6ds, all dates with numerous mm's, the BCW varieties, where dates are broken down into obvious types by pretty major things like rose style, lis, lions, shield, legends, and leaf styles (all noticeably different by eye), and then there is even individual dies if you like?

Without opening the book...

1561

Spink's 4 or so varieties!

BCW distinct varieties, around 100?

Distinctive dies of 1561 1000 (approx)

As a collector, I could easily do one of the following:

Collect the spink list of 6ds, or go for the BCW list of 6d's, which would preclude collecting anything else (ever), OR collect every known die for 1561, which would be the end of collecting anything every again!

The main point is: all would have the same pleasure, just a different focus!

Which is why we are back to the question of what to include or not. Essentially there will never be a volume to suit all, though there might be collectors who adjust to a specific volume. More likely is that everyone will have two or three preferred references. As you were chaps.

I think so! Though I still think a few popularly collected varieties should still be included! Particularly when there is little consistency in the cataloging otherwise!

[Peckris 579]

I may be wrong here, but isn't the main difference between the 1874-9 narrow/wide dates and those of the old head series that the former is a separate master die and the latter random modifications of the working die. As a result, the former will be as uniform as any other date and the latter will cover a wide spectrum due to the fact that at this point in history, the working die modification was done at a very low level e.g. a first year apprentice. I had hoped to come up with a really useful rule of thumb based on master die v. working die varieties but it really won't wash as overdates seem to be working die based and nobody is suggesting that they shouldn't be included. So hey, whatever takes your fancy I guess.

I will order in a month or two, as if a new book arrives at home now i will be shot, as i will get the "we could of got you that for xmas"

As for varieties for me its simple,if the design was intentional it counts, if not it dont Date varieties dont count as its not a design change, just a date change

Depends on what you class as a 'date variety' and 'intentional'. As Derek points out, the narrow/wide dates that occur in the 1870s are simply the easiest method to identify what is actually a different reverse design (see Freeman for all the other changes and identifiers). Yes, it's micro-design in that the main Britannia reverse is essentially the same from 1860 to 1894, but it was slightly changed intentionally many times.

On the other hand, the spacing of the final digit in OH 1890s pennies are the result of human agency in punching the final digit; you might view that as a kosher variety - some do, like some people collect Vicky silver die numbers - but it isn't even a micro design change and is certainly not intentional.

Edited December 25, 2013 by Peckris

[davidrj 194]

But then the 2p & 20p mules are both certainly accidental - should they be excluded?

Taxonomy is always an imperfect discipline

[Rob 2,998]

Let's approach this from a different direction. Given there is general acceptance that we will never be able to produce a volume that suits everyone, why not aim for a really basic volume on cheap loo-roll paper (as per Coincraft catalogues) that everyone and their dog can afford? I think that people are getting too hung up on varieties that are already too complex for many novices or would be collectors. Variety collecting is a bit like an Alice in Wonderland story where nothing is as it seems and requires a bit more than a quick look through a keyhole.

A basic volume would cover every type with a life-size coin identifier, or at least a generic indicator for design and size. Milled coinage usually being done on reducing apparatus means that you can just show the basic designs with the diameters listed. All years would be included priced to the cheapest as per Spink now, with a note that varieties exist denoted by a mark of some form, the exact mark indicating which specialised reference contains the required information. Essentially it would be an overview of the contents of in-depth volumes of a given denomination or series.

In reply to David's post above I can see the case for including the undated mule as it would be no different to a year change that is in regular currency and known to the public, but the 2p mule is not common knowledge to the public, nor are they encountered on a regular basis.

[azda 973]

I would tend to agree that listing varities in CCGB is not viable, Chris would then have to go through every other Denomination and do the same with that. Keeping it Basic and as an up to date Price reference is what makes the book, although i think several of your Prices are a Little out of touch now Chris, judging from recent sales such as DNW, the Prices for top grade items are far exceeding most reference guides, this part might Need an overhaul

[Chris Perkins 223]

I concentrated on the highest grades last year and this year paid more attention to the others.

It's not printed on telephone directory paper like Coincraft, but it is already essentially what Rob suggests - a basic volume with values. It contains more varieties than any other coin book and is the lowest priced but I do have to be careful about what varieties are listed as a lot of them just complicate matters. It's difficult to describe some of them in words, so pictures are needed and they take up a lot of space.

I don't actually think that making it cheaper (by using thinner paper for example) would result in any more sales. In fact, I don't think thinner paper would actually make it that much cheaper. And especially now that it's available as an eBook for under £5, it's unbeatable value. I think people are suspicious of things that are too cheap. If it was £3 for the printed version, people may imagine that the contents were of little value.

Next year I'd like to go back to 1760, so if anyone has some nice images of pre 1797 GIII coins that I can use, they would be gratefully received (and acknowledged in print if so desired).

[Peter 615]

Excellent news Chris.

I think you have it right with varieties.

Covering George 111 seems a great idea...maybe George 11 in 2015

[jaggy 528]

Next year I'd like to go back to 1760, so if anyone has some nice images of pre 1797 GIII coins that I can use, they would be gratefully received (and acknowledged in print if so desired).

I have pics of 1787 sixpences both with and without Hearts (the with Hearts is slabbed so you can see where the coin is held)

Also a 1797 tuppence (also slabbed),

Edited December 26, 2013 by jaggy

[Chris Perkins 223]

I'll gladly take the 1787 6d images. They have to be at 300dpi. The holder plastic parts I can digitally remove but any reflection from the plastic may be more of an issue.

[jaggy 528]

I'll gladly take the 1787 6d images. They have to be at 300dpi. The holder plastic parts I can digitally remove but any reflection from the plastic may be more of an issue.

Yes, both are at 300 dpi. Just let me know where to send.

[Chris Perkins 223]

cp@predecimal.com

[jaggy 528]

cp@predecimal.com

On their way

[Peckris 579]

I have a few items I could scan for you Chris : two halfpennies that are better than VF (1771 and 1774 which covers both obverses) and a farthing 1773 EF. Let me know if they are any use (I would scan at 1200 dpi for size then reduce to 300 for you in Photoshop).

[Chris Perkins 223]

Ok Peck, if the quality is good enough. I prefer photos ideally, but scans can also be ok.

[Peckris 579]

Ok Peck, if the quality is good enough. I prefer photos ideally, but scans can also be ok.

When would you need them by? And what size do you prefer (x-life, I mean, rather than ppi)?

Edited December 27, 2013 by Peckris