More Pennies

[secret santa 2,013]

8 hours ago, Rob said:

A quick question for you penny chaps. What level of detail do people collect to? Is it date example, Peck/Freeman number, Gouby variety or as far as you can go?

In my opinion, Freeman number will always be the prime definition of variety detail but, because it will become increasingly out of date, it will have more and more omissions. Gouby tends to fill these gaps and his identification system is flexible enough to allow endless introductions and his Victorian penny book is the most exhaustive in terms of listing the different varieties which collectors would pursue and label their coins to. Other publications tend to take the difference in varieties to ever more esoteric and trivial (?) levels of detail but which do provide the collector with something to look out for during periods of coin drought.

So, what do people collect ? My theory is that the more money one has to spend on one's collection, the more one concentrates on the "major" varieties, i.e. Freeman and Gouby's original Bronze Penny list (i.e. without the numerous minor date differences etc). The less affluent collector will tend to pursue the esoteric/trivial "varieties" because many of them go unnoticed and can be obtained at less expense. This is my opinion and I may be quite wrong. If I am right, them there won't be much money for the dealer in seeking out these varieties as they won't realise huge prices.

I'm basically a Freeman man myself.

[terrysoldpennies 691]

11 minutes ago, secret santa said:

In my opinion, Freeman number will always be the prime definition of variety detail but, because it will become increasingly out of date, it will have more and more omissions. Gouby tends to fill these gaps and his identification system is flexible enough to allow endless introductions and his Victorian penny book is the most exhaustive in terms of listing the different varieties which collectors would pursue and label their coins to. Other publications tend to take the difference in varieties to ever more esoteric and trivial (?) levels of detail but which do provide the collector with something to look out for during periods of coin drought.

So, what do people collect ? My theory is that the more money one has to spend on one's collection, the more one concentrates on the "major" varieties, i.e. Freeman and Gouby's original Bronze Penny list (i.e. without the numerous minor date differences etc). The less affluent collector will tend to pursue the esoteric/trivial "varieties" because many of them go unnoticed and can be obtained at less expense. This is my opinion and I may be quite wrong. If I am right, them there won't be much money for the dealer in seeking out these varieties as they won't realise huge prices.

I'm basically a Freeman man myself.

I agree with what you say Richard, but the using of two systems is already confusing , what I tend to do is think in terms of the year , and the major definition in freeman , and if its a sub variation of one of them , then add after it the Gouby definition. Of course a new type find I suppose should be give a Gouby classification , unless it is a new die discovery, then who decides where to place it, Is Michael willing to adjudicate, or would you .   Terry 

[Rob 3,000]

New dies are always coming to light, albeit infrequently. Not related to pennies, but the past 10 years has seen a new bust recognised for both James I and Charles I shillings. And I would love to know what the attached punch was used on. It currently sits in the box of halfcrown punches in the RM museum. It does show signs of being used.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Rob

[secret santa 2,013]

4 hours ago, terrysoldpennies said:

I agree with what you say Richard, but the using of two systems is already confusing , what I tend to do is think in terms of the year , and the major definition in freeman , and if its a sub variation of one of them , then add after it the Gouby definition. Of course a new type find I suppose should be give a Gouby classification , unless it is a new die discovery, then who decides where to place it, Is Michael willing to adjudicate, or would you .   Terry 

I think in an ideal world, Michael Gouby would be the person to maintain a definitive list/database of varieties with associated Freeman number where relevant (just as he does in his books), taking on the role of adjudicator and allocator of identification using his BPYYYYAB coding scheme. Whether he wants to is a different question.

[terrysoldpennies 691]

3 hours ago, secret santa said:

I think in an ideal world, Michael Gouby would be the person to maintain a definitive list/database of varieties with associated Freeman number where relevant (just as he does in his books), taking on the role of adjudicator and allocator of identification using his BPYYYYAB coding scheme. Whether he wants to is a different question.

 

3 hours ago, secret santa said:

I think in an ideal world, Michael Gouby would be the person to maintain a definitive list/database of varieties with associated Freeman number where relevant (just as he does in his books), taking on the role of adjudicator and allocator of identification using his BPYYYYAB coding scheme. Whether he wants to is a different question.

Yes we should not assume he would ,in a way that's why I for one would consider your judgment, as being measured and informed . One type in question would be the Hollow Neck , classified as Gouby X , which is of course a totally new found die. It really should be listed in Freeman as a  F171a, in a similar way to say the F164a, but a coin like the VIGTORIA will obviously be a highly sort after type , but is only in fact an error coin, so where should it be placed.  Terry

[jelida 1,196]

I would say that if developing the Freeman system  then most error coins should have a precursor die which does have a Freeman number, and a suitable alphabetical suffix can be attached. Thus the VIGTORIA 1862 would be Freeman 38 B or C or D etc depending of the order of publication of other sub-varieties worthy of listing.

This principle has already been used by Freeman in his later editions.

Jerry

[1949threepence 3,366]

19 hours ago, Rob said:

A quick question for you penny chaps. What level of detail do people collect to? Is it date example, Peck/Freeman number, Gouby variety or as far as you can go?

Just wondering, as I came across Court's article on Edward VII pennies in the January 1971 Coin magazine and noted that it contained details of more varieties than the mainstream publications that was only really matched by Groom, though with differences. It was also considerably more extensive in scope for this albeit limited range than say Santa's site including the rare varieties sections.

Just wondering with a vested interest in finding things I could potentially sell.

For me, it's Freeman all the way down the line. 

Whilst I have read the Gouby books cover to cover, and greatly admire his work and outstanding level of detail, I just can't get used to his classification system, and find myself constantly cross referencing back to Freeman numbers.

Besides which, as far as I'm concerned, there has to be a natural limit on the collection, otherwise it could just go on forever, delving deeper and deeper into the tiniest discrepancies. 

That said, Gouby has turned up some new discoveries, which very much are of interest. 

     

 

[davidrj 194]

I use Gouby for my bronze pennies, but include Freeman in brackets in the label. Hopefully a revised renumbered   "Son of Freeman" will appear in the future for us to use as a reference, time moves on, who still uses Peck numbers for bronze?

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by davidrj

[Rob 3,000]

4 minutes ago, davidrj said:

I use Gouby for my bronze pennies, but include Freeman in brackets in the label. Hopefully a revised renumbered   "Son of Freeman" will appear in the future for us to use as a reference, time moves on, who still uses Peck numbers for bronze?

 

The problem is not so much who uses what reference rather that all references seem to have the infuriating habit of not including a variety listed in other tomes. It is not unknown to have to refer to Coincraft in order to find a variety. I would normally use Peck for the bronze decimal patterns unless it was a later addition unknown to Peck, but Freeman for the currency.

The real bugbear is the inability to produce a logical numbering system that also allows for expansion. The most amenable solution in this case is probably a set of references for each denomination which starts with the date and includes an element that readily identifies a variety such as A for an 1862 halfpenny letter by the lighthouse, but would need several components to build up a full reference that could also be used across the board for all varieties and numismatic material. I think you need an 8 character reference to make this workable.

[terrysoldpennies 691]

14 hours ago, jelida said:

I would say that if developing the Freeman system  then most error coins should have a precursor die which does have a Freeman number, and a suitable alphabetical suffix can be attached. Thus the VIGTORIA 1862 would be Freeman 38 B or C or D etc depending of the order of publication of other sub-varieties worthy of listing.

This principle has already been used by Freeman in his later editions.

Jerry

I agree with the A B C system for major variations, but I collect these plus date variations , now I know that its not most peoples area of interest , but there are some long established collectors like Ian [Alfnail] .  I have come up with about eight differing unlisted date width types ,some extremely rare which have little value , but the interest in them is growing, as can be seen by the 189 6  extremely wide date penny in at best Fine condition sold on LCA for £200 . Now Goubys date width list is pretty comprehensive , listed as A B C etc and not as a say a 12 tooth narrow date or say a 16 tooth wide date ,which can instantly be recognised .   With a numbered or Lettered system you find yourself having to refer to the manual all the time.    I feel though, this would only be applicable to date widths.   Terry

[Mr T 169]

On 10/01/2017 at 6:36 PM, Rob said:

Sorry, that should have read Cole's article, not Court's

What extra varieties does it mention?

I tend to stick to Freeman but also look out for any new dies as reported by Gouby and the penny people here. I avoid all flaws, date varieties, re-entered letters etc to keep things manageable.

[Rob 3,000]

26 minutes ago, Mr T said:

What extra varieties does it mention?

I tend to stick to Freeman but also look out for any new dies as reported by Gouby and the penny people here. I avoid all flaws, date varieties, re-entered letters etc to keep things manageable.

Pass. It's on its way to Matt.

From memory it's mostly things like open and closed 9s.

[Nordle11 564]

16 minutes ago, Rob said:

Pass. It's on its way to Matt.

From memory it's mostly things like open and closed 9s.

44 minutes ago, Mr T said:

What extra varieties does it mention?

I tend to stick to Freeman but also look out for any new dies as reported by Gouby and the penny people here. I avoid all flaws, date varieties, re-entered letters etc to keep things manageable.

I'll let you know of anything interesting when it arrives.

[jelida 1,196]

1 hour ago, terrysoldpennies said:

I agree with the A B C system for major variations, but I collect these plus date variations , now I know that its not most peoples area of interest , but there are some long established collectors like Ian [Alfnail] .  I have come up with about eight differing unlisted date width types ,some extremely rare which have little value , but the interest in them is growing, as can be seen by the 189 6  extremely wide date penny in at best Fine condition sold on LCA for £200 . Now Goubys date width list is pretty comprehensive , listed as A B C etc and not as a say a 12 tooth narrow date or say a 16 tooth wide date ,which can instantly be recognised .   With a numbered or Lettered system you find yourself having to refer to the manual all the time.    I feel though, this would only be applicable to date widths.   Terry

I would not have thought it a year ago, but I am also starting to look at date widths! My obsessive tendencies coming through I suppose.  I would have thought the simplest would be to state date width after the appropriate Freeman number, eg for a hypothetical and very rare 1862, F39 A 13 tooth. This would ensure rapid allocation of the coin as you say.

Jerry

[terrysoldpennies 691]

3 hours ago, jelida said:

I would not have thought it a year ago, but I am also starting to look at date widths! My obsessive tendencies coming through I suppose.  I would have thought the simplest would be to state date width after the appropriate Freeman number, eg for a hypothetical and very rare 1862, F39 A 13 tooth. This would ensure rapid allocation of the coin as you say.

Jerry

   Terry

[secret santa 2,013]

4 hours ago, jelida said:

With a numbered or Lettered system you find yourself having to refer to the manual all the time.

I don't think you'll ever get away from having to go back to the "manual" or whatever becomes the central repository of varieties. Unless the naming system contains a lot of free format to catch the particular nature of the uniqueness of the variety such as B over R in BRITT, first 6 over 8, top leaf missing etc etc, you'll never invent a system that immediately captures the nature of the variety. Even with Freeman number, there are so many 1874 variants that I always have to go back to the "manual" to check the die pairing.

Gouby's system is not very intuitive when it comes to dates with many variants but at least it is expandable and can cope with new obverses such as the 145 tooth Victoria, and virtually any date width. The important thing is to have a single source of varieties, their names and descriptions, with photographs, with single point maintenance (and maybe a small committee to agree new varieties). Chris P has mentioned producing a "new" Freeman with updated numbers but, if that involves changing existing F numbers, it would be fraught with danger.

[Rob 3,000]

34 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Chris P has mentioned producing a "new" Freeman with updated numbers but, if that involves changing existing F numbers, it would be fraught with danger.

That's not a good idea. Look at the debacle that is the revised ESC. Leaving aside the fact that the concordance list is faulty due to the introduction of new varieties which were apparently incorporated part way through the revision, you now have two parallel sets of numbers which means a need to quote both old and new because you can't simply rely on the new which appears to have been poorly proof-read and many people will have the old book which doesn't relate to the new numbering in any way shape or form.

Far better would be to accept Freeman, Peck, Gouby et al for what they are, i.e. a reference written at a particular point in time, and start afresh with a name and format that couldn't be confused with anything that has gone before. Then you can build a new reference taking into consideration the drawbacks of all the previous attempts. Sure you have to learn the skeleton structure of the format, but that shouldn't be beyond people.

BCW have managed this in the case of Elizabeth I to some extent by using abbreviations for the number of letters in each title. Fixed legend formats can be ignored, so the legend doesn't need to be part of the reference unless noted. Dates can be written in full. You could use a semi-intuitive form to identify the number of leaves/berries for example, In fact there is so much detail in common that date, bust type (which eliminates the need to list leaves or berries, reverse type and a small subset at the end for varieties will probably suffice. There is nothing to stop you using any previous coincidental numbering as the way forward as this would be easy to remember.

It is important not to be reliant on any one person who could relinquish a task or even pop their clogs at the drop of a hat, so the case for a logical numbering system that can be extended by anyone which others would instantly relate to should be paramount. Anything number or letter parameter should remain so. So a reference would start with say a date (1860), bust type (1-9 or A-Z), reverse type (01-99 or AA-ZZ(?), or similar including special characters, 2 characters for special features- say BR for B over R, and a digit or possibly 2 for varietal extensions. You could do that with only a 10 or 11 digit reference that anybody could remember. It would be as simple as remembering someone's telephone number.

[1949threepence 3,366]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

I don't think you'll ever get away from having to go back to the "manual" or whatever becomes the central repository of varieties. Unless the naming system contains a lot of free format to catch the particular nature of the uniqueness of the variety such as B over R in BRITT, first 6 over 8, top leaf missing etc etc, you'll never invent a system that immediately captures the nature of the variety. Even with Freeman number, there are so many 1874 variants that I always have to go back to the "manual" to check the die pairing.

Gouby's system is not very intuitive when it comes to dates with many variants but at least it is expandable and can cope with new obverses such as the 145 tooth Victoria, and virtually any date width. The important thing is to have a single source of varieties, their names and descriptions, with photographs, with single point maintenance (and maybe a small committee to agree new varieties). Chris P has mentioned producing a "new" Freeman with updated numbers but, if that involves changing existing F numbers, it would be fraught with danger.

100% agree with that.

[terrysoldpennies 691]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

I don't think you'll ever get away from having to go back to the "manual" or whatever becomes the central repository of varieties. Unless the naming system contains a lot of free format to catch the particular nature of the uniqueness of the variety such as B over R in BRITT, first 6 over 8, top leaf missing etc etc, you'll never invent a system that immediately captures the nature of the variety. Even with Freeman number, there are so many 1874 variants that I always have to go back to the "manual" to check the die pairing.

Gouby's system is not very intuitive when it comes to dates with many variants but at least it is expandable and can cope with new obverses such as the 145 tooth Victoria, and virtually any date width. The important thing is to have a single source of varieties, their names and descriptions, with photographs, with single point maintenance (and maybe a small committee to agree new varieties). Chris P has mentioned producing a "new" Freeman with updated numbers but, if that involves changing existing F numbers, it would be fraught with danger.

I have to agree, Freeman, is the reference most used by collectors and dealers, and as such should not be changed to much. Changing the F numbers to year references was what Gouby tried , which was well meant , but it has not replaced Freeman. with the F numbers still very much in use. Adding a letter for new found dies as he did with the 164a I feel should be the way forward. and as Richard says adding an abbreviated description after that for various types , with maybe the date variations [8 over 6s etc narrow 3s ] with the date widths, expressed as a 13 tooth / 16 tooth etc last , but not as another set of numbers or letters, as this is where it is somewhat confusing with Gouby.                                                   But then Buggered if I know, yes Buggered if I know.   Terry   

[scott 129]

we also have the numbers used in satin.

it should be the dies, and varieties of each die, this sort of format

[die combination]

sub varieties (overdates etc)

Edited January 11, 2017 by scott

[1949threepence 3,366]

23 hours ago, davidrj said:

I use Gouby for my bronze pennies, but include Freeman in brackets in the label. Hopefully a revised renumbered   "Son of Freeman" will appear in the future for us to use as a reference, time moves on, who still uses Peck numbers for bronze?

 

If only Freeman had left a gap in his numbers between each year, the spare numbers could have been utilised for new finds in later years.   

[Rob 3,000]

15 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

If only Freeman had left a gap in his numbers between each year, the spare numbers could have been utilised for new finds in later years.   

If everything commences with the year you then only have to worry about the varieties. Starting at 1 is always going to be a problem because there is a real chance you will find number 0. 1860 and 1861 are likely to be the most problematic, but spare a thought for applying the same principle to W3 silver..

Date followed by die also allows the same die ref to be distinguished year on year.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Rob

[1949threepence 3,366]

2 hours ago, Rob said:

If everything commences with the year you then only have to worry about the varieties. Starting at 1 is always going to be a problem because there is a real chance you will find number 0. 1860 and 1861 are likely to be the most problematic, but spare a thought for applying the same principle to W3 silver..

Date followed by die also allows the same die ref to be distinguished year on year.

I don't think there's anything before a Freeman 1, but if there was, and it is theoretically possible, they could always have 0, -1, -2 etc, marked in bold, to indicate a discovery pre-dating what was previously thought to be the first example.   

But in any case, it is not vital to the integrity of the numbering system/die pairings, that they be in exact chronological order, in terms of which type is produced first and subsequently, within each year. In some cases it's not even going to be possible to determine where any given type or variant fits in chronologically.   

Edited January 11, 2017 by 1949threepence
added a bit

[Colin G. 147]

I think it very much depends on your collecting habits, whilst Freeman numbers may work for the bronze penny series, which have now been quite thoroughly studied, this is definitely not the case for other periods/denominations. I am amazed that the BMC references have held up as well as they have but I assume this is due to the fact that this was a monumental task executed with thoroughness. However certain sections such as the Farthing Tokens of James I and Charles I would now be substantially different following their study by Tim Everson.

This is an aspect that I have reviewed quite thoroughly whilst cataloguing farthing varieties, and it becomes quite obvious at an early stage that you either would have to leave your numbering until the latest opportunity...and even then it would need amending the following day or you commence with a system that can incorporate amendments which is inevitably more cumbersome. The more cumbersome the numbering system the less memorable it becomes.

I have settled on a system which uses Date - MonarchType - Obverse Type (Obverse variety) / Reverse Type (Reverse Variety) - Where Required a shortened description is then used to pick up Die Rotation/Edge/Metal/Finish

Therefore you can end up with examples such as:

1895-VB-7/F - 1895 Victoria Bunhead farthing

1895-VC-1/A - 1895 Victoria Veiled Head farthing

1895-VC-1/A-BP - 1895 Victoria Veiled Head Bronze Proof farthing

1839-VA-1a/Aa - 1839 Victoria Young Head farthing with Type a minor Obverse variety combined with a Type a minor Reverse variety

1839-VA-1/A-BCP▼ - 1839 Victoria Young Head Bronzed Copper Proof farthing with a 180% die rotation (Die rotation only captured when it differs from the norm)

 

I appreciate that at a glance this can appear quite cumbersome, but obviously I have been working with it and fine tweaking it for quite some time, and as a result it does become second nature for me. I have no doubt up until the point where I decide to release the catalogue this could potentially yet evolve again, but I have found this to be the most flexible system I have used to date.

 

The system could potentially be used on anything from hammered farthings to pattern farthings and I think actually works well to establish some kind of chronological order with care. I have used it on such collection sets just to determine its viability. It also allows people to select just the main design types and avoid the minor varieties if they so choose, and similarly select out the proofs/patterns if they want.

 

 

 

Hopefully you are all still awake if you got this far 

 

 

 

 

[Rob 3,000]

I concur with the above. If you can agree on a basic structure for date (or in the case of no date the ruler), obverse and reverse together with making as intuitive as possible the rendering of the variety, then the system can be used for any denomination (which doesn't need to be included because you are describing that in advance and so is at the top of the tree in the description). i.e. you only need to learn the structure and not the minutiae which will always be the preserve of specialist collectors.

It does work as I have used this for my stock for the past 30 years. Things such as using resistor colour coding translates into a 0-9 figure, screws are xx for the thread size and yy for the length, integrated circuits are their code, commonly used products are the name under which they are marketed, all are quite logical and the system readily translates into completely different areas of material and products.