TomGoodheart

Indeed. And £200 for it.

I think if you could sort out the bend then it would be quite a nice coin. The detail is good (VF or so, apart from maybe a few scratches). The problem being that it can be quite tricky straightening the things without leaving an obvious crease. But maybe someone feels confident?

Not me. Still searching for that elusive shilling!

Its not ebay though Richard, it's NGC Exactly. And the problem being that, in the US, you can only quote a numeric grade in a coin listing if it has been provided by an approved grading company. You can't quote price list guides such as Spink (even if you don't give a grade, but just offer it for info) if the coin isn't graded by an approved grading company. And you can't list any coin for over $2500 unless it's been graded (and presumably slabbed) again, by an approved grading company. From the ebay blog of an American dealer: "Always return coins that you feel do not meet the ANA grading standards even if a grading service has slabbed them as MS70. However, please think twice about returning a PCGS, NGC, ICG, or ANACS graded coin since they are the most reliable grading services. If you disagree with their grading educate yourself on the ANA standards. I personally no longer accept returns on these four grading services." So if TPGCs are not offering accurate certification or grading, then there's a problem, no?

And what the hell does VF Details mean?? Surely, a coin is either VF or it's not? To me 'VF Details' isn't a grade. You might as well say 'some parts nice' or 'OK for it's age'! ebay grades for ebay crap.

I don't know. But it occurs to me, what's the point of designing a system of classification and then publishing it for everyone to read about if not the hope that people will find it of assistance? And surely, part of finding something useful will be that you will want to adopt it yourself, no? This is certainly the case with collectors of the shillings of Charles I, in that Michael Sharp's system is much more useful than Spink's numeric one (such as S.2793 which doesn't really differentiate within a type group) or Grant Francis' (1b2 etc ..) And Michael's introduction to his paper seems fairly clear that he designed his system for reference and in the hope that it could develop if any further types or varieties were found. The fact that we call a coin Sharp C2/6 effectively gives MS credit. Similarly it seems to me that by using BCW (or Peck or Spink or Freeman etc) notation we are acknowledging their work. As to a new system, while it's your area and you have the expertise, not I, my personal feeling would be that if BCW classifications are adequate, why re-invent the wheel? That's what Roy Osborne tried to do (again with the Charles I series) but to be honest he went into so much detail that the result is just unwieldy and inelegant. While it can be helpful if you can't access or send a photograph, but want someone to be able to recognise an individual coin by description (down to the style of harp and beard shape), for the most part simplicity equals functionality. IMHO .

Interesting that the main bidders have 91%, 30% and 15% bidding activity with this seller.

Not a laugh, just some a comment. That I'm pretty sure this is a fake. Or rather, it's a modern replica made of pewter-like white metal. eBay # 261102675755 So if anyone is looking to buy a Charles I shilling with the star mint mark, beware of ones looking like this!

Hi and welcome Cristatus! There are indeed other farthing fans here, who will no doubt be on sometime over the weekend, as well as enthusiasts of other denominations and periods. Feel free to post a few photos if you like. We always like new coins to admire! Just bear in mind that the limit for images uploaded from your computer is quite small, so you'd be better putting them on a photohosting site like photobucket or flickr and linking from there.

A poor one on ebay if anyone is interested? CHARLES II SILVER CROWN DATED 1666 **ELEPHANT BELOW BUST** RARE** £1.99 start!!

LOL I use my credit card for most purchases. It doesn't cost me and it delays payment until it's convenient. In the old days when my building society actually paid me interest on my current account it was even better!

Not sure why people do this. "The auction you are now visiting is for what I believe to be is a Hammered This enchanting example has very good detail on the obverse and the reverse. I have graded this piece as Fine and this is my opinion. Please study my photos and judge the grade for yourself. It is sold as seen. Please note that I always endeavour to be accurate or to under-grade because I am not a seasoned numismatist. I also guarantee, the coin/s displayed in the photos are the exact coin/s you will receive." And he has four more just like it ... .

Perhaps I should list mine? I'd be happy with only £200!!

I felt I had to post this photo of Michael which I found on Charles Riley's site. It was taken by CR at his leaving do. From what I've heard, I believe it to be quite a good likeness! .

Yes, the search function is rubbish I think. Takes ages and then doesn't turn up what it should! For example, a search for 'charles shilling' finds nothing unless you search for 'charles I, shilling'. Who designed that!?!?! And I like to open lots in a new tab, but if I try that it just gives me the whole catalogue page again which wastes time. Quite frustrating.

There was a thread recently by Mongo on exactly this topic. Can somebody link to it as I'm on my way out. Here: Cataloguing my collection .

great read, I hope you're right! Should I buy everything up now? Buy and publish, why not!

Or I have a sad vacuous life which I spend entirely on eating nothing but pizza while staring at a computer in my Mom's basement. Apple do an abacus app now?

I really don't think that you can apply statistics to the price of rarities Stuart. It will all come down, as Rob says, to who wants the coin on the day. As an example, when I bought my D1/2 shilling the previous Spink prices were £450 and £1250 for F and VF respectively, on the basis of four known examples. But two further coins turned up in the Prestbury hoard, almost halving the rarity. The first was Fine, the second nVF and comparable with the earlier specimens. DNW estimated them at £1000-£1200 and £1800-£2000, which I thought was about what I'd expect. But in the end, neither sold for those amounts. I got the second for below lower estimate and the poorer coin didn't meet reserve and was bought after the sale. Were they overpriced? I'd have said not. But clearly there wasn't the interest on the day I had assumed there might be. Was it that they were no longer as rare? That everyone that wanted one had one? Or just that the photos weren't very flattering and those with the money preferred to hold out for a better grade or provenance? Who knows. I know that's bit of a diversion from your example Stuart. And undoubtedly where a few dozen or more examples are (eventually) available to collectors it will be easier to see a pattern to prices over time than if there were only a handful. But I still think it's difficult to predict with any real certainty what a scarce coin will fetch. I know in my earlier collecting days I bid way over what was reasonable, on the basis I hadn't seen a variety or the coin was better than I'd previously seen. But of course, with time I've found other, nicer, coins. Often at less than what I paid in my fit of enthusiasm. You only need one enthusiastic collector to push up the price. And one thing that undoubtedly helps learner collectors is a comprehensive published work describing varieties and their scarcity. There's an appeal to Lizzy coins (Virgin queen, first explorations of 'the new world', Shakespeare etc) just as with Charles and the Civil War. There's a good quantity of available material at (mostly) modest prices. Maybe in time BCW will do for Elizabethan coinage what Peck or Brooker/Sharp/Bull have done for other series? Instead of collecting bun pennies people will collect sixpences by BCW number? OK, now I am off track! Stopping now.

261094905301 Ah, no. It says VF detail. And there is one small bit of it that could be considered to be VF! (Had you thought of getting a computer Stuart? They allow you to put in links and everything!) Oh, and I might mention that this seller has previously listed three (different) replica Charles I shillings as genuine, so he either doesn't know that much about what he sells, or he does. Either way, I'd be quite cautious about buying from him.

I guess my rule of thumb is how much avarage collectors are bothered about something. A new bust design is something that is clear to see and people can appreciate that. Similarly if a reverse has a cross through it or is just a shield. These are types. Next step down is varieties where the difference is subtler. The 1926 ME or all the different bows and hair sweeps of early milled. A fair number of people will be interested (although not necessarily go out of their way to aquire) in whether their Charles II shilling is first bust or first bust variety. After that however you get to whether a letter aligns with certain teeth of the border or not, which is fine with milled and modern, which I think of as micro-varieties. But with the vaguaries of hammered coins (as no two dies are identical) it becomes difficult to say if it's a feature of the coin (which no legend stops at all would be) or of the die (such as milled coins where a blocked die causes a stop to disappear). I also imagine that for most people they aren't of much interest (or not worth paying extra for) I guess for me the things like inverted As substituted for Vs is sort of in between, in that they mostly don't interest me, but I accept they are valid varieties. But I still think with hammered it's not a clear cut issue. This for example: The reverse legend error (AVSSPCE) is clearly the result of a single mis-made die. Only the fact that there was an example in the Brooker collection (425) with this error (though from a different obverse die) makes it interesting to me. I wanted an exaple of this type (second bust, second reverse) and the error was a bonus. But if a better example without the error had been available for the same price I paid for this coin, I'd probably have gone for the better grade. Is the AVSSPCE error a variety or a micro-variety or ... just an error? It's not listed in Spink (although several of the legend variations of say William III of course are). If it was, would I seek it out? Possibly not. As I say, I guess it depends what it is about collecting that 'does it' for you. And for me a decent example of each main design does and how many dots there are to the left of the legend or whether a coin is from die zx2 or die xz2 doesn't. Which is good really or I might be competing with you for all those BCW variations!

I think it partly depends on your interests. Obviously a type doesn't become a variety because the difference between types is a major redesign of bust or reverse or both. But the difference between varieties and micro varieties I think is less distinct. For me varieties are still fairly major differences such as a different size or position of the monarch's bust. Michael Sharp went on to counting the number of pearls in the King's crown and so I have to accept those as varieties too. But the differences where it's down to, say, whether a legend reads H! HI! or HIB! are micro varieties to me and of much less interest. However I notice Grant Francis was careful to tablulate legend variations as well as differing numbers of stops around the mint mark and so on. His aim was I believe to attempt to identify dies and so such details were of relevance and maybe if I was made of money, I might start to try to pick up such differing coins. But I'm only really interested in differences if they are mentioned or published already. Trying to see how many styles of Scottish lion there might be doesn't do it for me, though it does for others, and I tend to think of those sorts of things as the 'micro' end of the scale.

I think that's a subjective question Dave. (Sorry!) Obviously, there are ancient coins, like Roman and Greek. But after that it's sort of in the eye of the beholder. Most people divide up time into slices, such as Celtic/ Saxon coins, then early hammered/ mediaeval. I personally talk of modern coins as being after 1660 or so, but of course, they are still old. And while the word is bandied about for pretty much anything pre-1960 on ebay, 'antique' used to only denote an item over 100 years old. So your coin is an antique. But clearly not as old as the sort of thing I collect. My coins are older than America (well, sort of!). But then so was the school I went to (founded 1597). Which is quite recent compared to say, the Tower of London! Get my drift?

The last mark was the sceptre (Feb 1647-1649) although only one such coin was represented (in Pot C). The hoard consisted of three separate pots and the last coins in the other pots (A & B) had the sun mark (Nov 1645-Feb 1647) suggesting the last was buried subsequently. More details here in the British Numismatic Journal pp 84- BNJ 64 pdf Please note the pdf file is large (176 MB) so might take some time if you want to download it!

That probably explains the problem I had when I tried to re-register with Spink. But hotmail, yahoo and gmail (particularly the last two in the US) are commonplace with perfectly honest people like me, as well as bots. I'd imagine that it's going to be a problem for forums, groups or online shops when the majority of your potential members or customers can't register. There needs to be a better way than just saying 'no' without leaving some means for people to email an administrator!