Leaderboard

Nothing particularly special, but it ended up being a freebie, so I forgive it its faults (my iPhone images are of course even more unkind, it’s actually got a reasonably nice tone) 🙂 BCW LN-1A:d2 where one die is apparently/likely N over I and reading “REGNA” Quite nice in that respect!

Hello Everyone! I hope you are all doing well. I recently released my newest video on Henry V and his coinage. Personally, I think it's one of the best videos I have produced ; I hope you will enjoy watching it as much as I enjoyed making it. If you find it interesting be sure to subscribe and share it across the community! Thank you all so much as always! And if you have any comments or suggestions, I would love to hear them! Best Regards, The Coin Realm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olcpFc--WxU&t=6s

Very nice. Particularly for a freebie!

I bought the 1566 dated coin with the two different lions in the Comber sale (ex RCCB) which uses the same obverse die. Thus it is reasonable to assume that this obverse die was in use at the turn of the year and your reverse may well be the first 1567 die.

I honestly think it looks rather nice. The face details are clear and the shield is well struck. Interesting N over I which you pointed out. It certainly wouldn't have been a freebie if it wasn't for the gash at the reverse! I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

The problem is that a majority of collectors like a number to assign to a particular variety. It allows them to tick it off once acquired. Date collectors already have it on their coins and as a result many don't feel the need for a reference at all. That's why I keep being asked for 1947 brass threepences, 1923-5 pennies and 1961 halfpennies. Collecting by type or date whatever the condition can also exclude identification of varieties due to the lack of detail. However, a more specialised collection such as a denomination or reign will almost certainly be based on one or more of the major references with the varieties researched. I have to say that when I published my article on the Weyl patterns in the BNJ over 10 years ago, the first comment from the referee was 'Pearce numbers?' Like your 1878 1/2d, they were easily identified as being what they were and most types appeared to be unique, so I didn't feel the need for yet another list of arbitrary numbers. Unfortunately, a result of not giving numbers is the near total disregard of the article despite having shown the existence of new metal types, the individual rarities of a particular variety and an assigned provenance to each of the coins extant. I feel that had I given each a number, then the reference would likely be used. Referring to the article would also help curtail the diarrhoeic marketing blurb such as that in the last St. James's Premier sale when an 1860 farthing was described as 3-5 known (show me a duplicate), was struck in 1904 (there were examples in Clarkson 1901 and Cholmley 1902).

This is why hardback editions of any reference book are so much better. The binding stands up to long term continued use.