TomGoodheart

People on Coin Community were suggesting a blowtorch! But, yes, heating by some means or other does sound quite possible. .

Ak!!! Toned A small sample for those that don't want to click: .

Fashion I guess, though why blackamoor went out of fashion but negro remains acceptable I don't know. .

No I'm still collecting, or would be if only some nice coins would turn up! These aren't exactly surplus, in that they fill gaps in the Sharp number sequence. But I don't get the pleasure from them that I once did. It's the old story I'm afraid. The coins I'm prepared to sell aren't my nicest and the ones that would sell easily I don't want to part with! I really need a new type collector who wants to fill some of the gaps in their collection to come along, .. but I'm not sure if people collect Tower shillings that way any more! I'm afraid not Alan. I was lucky with mine as I managed to pick it up in a Stacks Bowers sale a couple of years ago. A poor photograph and it being unslabbed helped me I'm sure! I'll keep a look out for you though .. .

.

Spink 2800 Sharp G1/2 This first bust is very scarce with the Eye mint mark. £45 Spink 2791 Sharp E2/1 Scarcer with this earlier reverse. Bought York Coins 2004 £160 .

Spink 2799 Sharp G1_2 £280 Spink 2787 Sharp C2_2 ex Brooker 462 (this coin), Michael Sharp (and illustrated in his article in the BNJ XLVII 1977 p120 Plate VI #21) Extremely rare. I know of only two other examples. £400 .

Well, I still need that first £million, so if anyone is interested ... Spink 2793 Sharp E2_3 ex FS Dobbin Noble 101 Nov 2012 Lot #2051 (Part), previously Noble 80 Nov 2005 Lot #1622 £120 Spink 2799 Sharp G1_2 ex London Coins 148 Mar 2015 (part) Lot #1590 £160 .

Yep, and get a do-it-yourself slab from eBay so it won't get lost or spent Good idea. I think in another recent thread it was mentioned that the price of undated 20ps had dropped from the original highs when their existence was first announced. The cost of having it graded and encapsulated is likely to equate to a fair proportion of the coin's value. Better to get the views of members here about the grade for free. Unless it's absolutely pristine I think the self-slab would then be the best option. Or there are coin capsules that would protect it just as well ... .

Anyone know if Richard Castledine is still trading? Stock is mostly ancients and some hammered plus literature. I've had no response to my emails or a message I left on an answerphone and of course, websites last pretty much forever and it's difficult to tell when one was last updated ...

As Rob say, it's like collecting the coins themselves. Catalogues come up at auction occasionally. Or through specialist dealers. At times I've spent more time looking for catalogues than coins and I have no idea how long (and how much work) it must have taken Rob to build his library. And part of the problem for the likes of me is that earlier catalogues were often bound together with other sales. My copy of Raymond Carlyon-Britton's Edward I to Charles II sale was bound in with PWP's 1913 and 1916 sales plus EW Rashleigh's of 1909, making it a hefty volume to get posted from the US! .

Actually, probably it's just an ordinary photograph of the cast! The human brain is very good at interpreting what it expects to see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0 So I suspect a (concave) photograph of a cast will be seen as a normal coin once printed, providing the lighting casts the shadows correctly. .

Don't whinge. You might be on the receiving end of some nice info one day. LOL I wasn't complaining Rob! I was just thinking it was odd from a money-making viewpoint!

Not the first time coins have been listed without. Seen it on dealer sites too. Personally I like to know as much as possible about a coin's 'collectable' history and I can't see it would do any harm. Perhaps it's just more work than they think it's worth putting in? But it feels like they're missing a trick there. The only people that benefit would appear to be the buyers who end up with a more interesting coin than the competition realised. Most unbusinesslike! .

Many happy returns from me too! .

Paraffin lamps were in more common use from the end of the 1850s I believe. They would have provided sufficient light for close work and certainly an improvement on candles. If it's red wax (or less commonly yellow) it's likely from where a cast was made of the coin. Then, to avoid the problems of different levels of reflectivity or toning the cast was photographed rather than the coin. It's not a guaranteed way to tell if a coin was illustrated in a sales catalogue (or possibly journal article) but it does suggest the possibility and that further research may be merited. In terms of dating, I guess we're talking about any illustrated catalogues prior to 1960 or so, is that about right Rob? Nice coin by the way Nicholas. Shame they don't make them like that any more. .

In common with quite a few people I have been offered a free Microsoft 'upgrade' from my Win 7 OS to Windows 10. I wondered if anyone has any view on whether this is a Good Thing or not? I know W10 is in pre-release so a true comparison can't yet be made. But I deliberately chose 7 because I liked Vista and wanted something familiar when the only alternative was 8. As an aside, Wifey uses W 8.1 and gets on OK with it. But then she never wants to go to the Control Panel or do the things I like to do on my laptop. I guess it may be possible to revert to W7 afterwards, but as my laptop came pre-loaded and doesn't have a disk for Windows 7 I'm going to have to assume that this would be a one-way road. Any views welcome! .

Hi sjh. Not something I know anything about I'm afraid but maybe someone will. In the meantime, here's an (the?) article. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/09/old-coins-currency-minted-before-1947 But the article is from 2011 and I'm not sure if banks still do this. Why not send Chris (forum owner) a message and see if he has any more up-to-date info? Link through his profile: http://www.predecimal.com/forum/user/1-chris-perkins/ .

Yes, I guess the theme of this thread applies not just to hammered coins. And as Mark says, Spink have been saying pretty much this same thing for many years. I'm not sure if that means that I have followed the market ,or if as one matures as a collector then the less nice looking pieces lose a bit of their appeal? And of course there are still many collectors out there who revel in finding a scarce variety providing the key features are clear enough to allow identification. I do think the 'investor set' has influenced things. If you can afford a Picasso, why not pick one that is nice to look at? And if you can have your pick of nice ones then choosing one that has been owned by a Rockefeller or Chrysler can't do any harm, surely? Same with coins. Particularly if you know little about the things. The reassurance an earlier collector has seen fit to give space to an object or that everyone that sees it goes 'oooh!' must make a difference. For me I guess it's that nice examples show off the die engraver's art more effectively. The fact that a coin will prove easier to sell later on makes no difference at all really. Well, OK, maybe it does a bit.. .

Yes. When I first started I intended to try to find an example of each Sharp combination if I could. My 'ideal' was to find as good as, if not better than, the Brooker coin where possible and used him as my benchmark. Of course my budget was never sufficient to match Brooker. He collected legend variations and mint marks as well as by type. A type collection was enough for me. To work within my budget I never bought a duplicate. Either I upgraded and sold on the original coin or if it had different but equal qualities I passed. But more recently I have stopped worrying about filling gaps. In fact there are quite a few coins I bought for that purpose that I would happily be rid of now. Although, unlike perhaps in the US with more modern issues, it's not really possible to state for certain how many individual examples exist of a particular variety it's certainly likely that, as Stuart says, some are down to single figures. Consequently you have to compromise on quality if you want one. And I have moved away from that completest view of late. I am, I realise, a collector not a numismatist. And a collector with quite strong aesthetic views. I want a collection I get pleasure from and for me that means enjoying looking at my coins. The mere fact that a coin is rare no longer 'does it' the way it once did. The trouble is, non-specialist collectors also generally want a coin that is pleasing to look at. The number of serious collectors of Charles I Tower shillings is, I suspect, quite small. And relatively speaking, the number of coins available, large. Most of the people I know will have an example of the Sharp D6/1 I originally posted already in that there are 12+ coins and 6+ collectors. Will we ever return to the days of collectors like Brooker or Osborne? Probably not as it requires more funds (relatively) than it used to. But also I suspect because non-specialists are more interested in the better grade end of the market, making it harder to find pleasing examples ... of course Rob might say 't'was ever thus' ... who knows. Just giving my perspective here!

LOL .

Oh, I admit I agree Nicholas. Otherwise I guess I would have bought it myself! For me, the idea coin will be full and round with a clear design and decent toning, but so few within my budget (or in some cases at all) are like that, it's a balance of features I like and others I can live with. But somewhere in that balance I certainly aim for a pleasing portrait. Yes, I have a few coins I bought for some other feature; the reverse design, the mint mark, provenance or that, overall, it appealed to me at the time. But there are very few in that category I wouldn't upgrade in an instant if I could find the key feature with a better portrait! .

£160 from Lloyd. .

I keep returning to look at this: In theory it has quite a bit going for it. Scarce (I know of 12 examples). With a decent provenance; ex Michael Sharp (and used by him as a example of the type in his BNJ paper (Vol 47, 1977, Plate vi #32)) subsequently bought by John Brooker (Brooker 485 and illustrated in SCBI 33 Plate XLVII) and then owned by Alan Morris (via Mark Senior). And yet it's not sold in over 2½ years and despite a price reduction ... Why? I can only assume because it's just not a very attractive coin. I find that interesting. And I suppose I feel a little sorry for the poor old thing, that it appears to have gone out of fashion, too! .