TomGoodheart

Mmmm .. I kinda agree. People seem to forget that the reason Germany is the financial anchor of Europe while other countries such as Greece struggle is largely because Germany makes things while Greece/Portugal and even Spain grow stuff and make money from tourism. Where countries do make stuff they are often offshoots of German companies such as Seat cars. And all the while our government (not just this one either) seem to be bent on making more and more graduates. Presumably they hope we can build a knowlwdge based economy, but forget that millions of people just aren't suited to making webpages, writing software or working in service industries where they often spend the day trying to sell more services over the phone. Or the fact that other countries also offer degrees and if nothing else their graduates speak two languages (English being one) in addition to their discipline. We need polytechnics and technical colleges and apprenticeships to capitalise on the skills of people who are good with their hands, that think practically and need to see the product of their labour. And on a vaguely related theme (and because I found it interesting): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17126713

I think that's fine if you have deep pockets. There's one occasionally posting member here who buys nothing but the very best examples of everything and of course, as such, they all have amazing provenances. But for the average collector on a budget, if you have the choice between a handful of provenanced coins or five or ten times as many, albeit in most cases slightly lesser coins, it's going to be difficult to resist buying the cheaper coins without the history. The additional problems as I see them are that there are many uninspiring coins that have nevertheless been part of a major collection. Is it better to buy a coin lacking eye appeal for the provenance over one without history but clearly nicer? Plus, although nowadays most coins tend to be illustrated in catalogues, more than 20 years ago, that wasn't the case. It's my experience that grading companies (and even some dealers) have not been good at retaining old tickets with coins. Without either a photograph or some other support, such as a ticket, it's very difficult to be certain about an individual coin's history. The vast majority of coins now on the market probably have little or no evidence of where they were before their last sale. Buying only coins with history will compound the challenge of finding an example for most collectors. What the answer might be, I'm not sure. I quite agree that the best answer is to only buy coins that can be trusted, which is those that have a history prior to any known fakes, from reputable sources. But modern (post 1800s or so) machine made coins are by their very nature much more alike than the earlier, cruder, efforts. Making distinguishing between one made in 1869 and 2009 very difficult. And of course, it's not just milled. Most of us here know of the run of replica coins that were on ebay a little while back. I myself nearly bought two of them, one believing it was the coin from Rob's website until it dawned on me that I'd seen that particular coin too many times for it to be true. Fakes are a real pain.

If you know a coin has been on a dealer's books for six months or more than I'd say there's a good chance you could haggle for a bit of a discount. For regular coins I was always told the higher the price, the more liklihood of a 'best price' if asked. After all, profit on a £50 coin is probably £25 at most. A £500 coin it could be hundreds, so dropping the price by £10 or £20 to get a sale is a bit more palatable. Of course if it's a known rarity and an eventual sale can be guaranteed then it's probably not worth asking!

He's that guy in the adverts of course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYw4os8nK9I

Actually, no. They aren't. In fact, they have never officially been made legal tender in Scotland! However they are accepted as promisory notes, other words, traders are entitled (and do) to accept them if they wish. In the same way they accept euros, dollars, cheques and plastic cards, none of which are actual legal tender. The only legal notes anywhere in the UK are those issued by the Bank of England. Consequently, the further south you go, the less likely people are to accept your Scots notes. An odd situation, but there you go. In fact, because of the law, only BoE £1 notes were legal tender in Scotland. With the withdrawal of notes for pound coins there is now no paper legal tender there at all! All a bit splitting hairs, I know, but interesting all the same I think! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling

Hmm .. he does look as if he hasn't slept in a while! Berwick is that Geordie?

Well, in the meantime there is forgerynetwork.com .. http://www.forgerynetwork.com// Anyone can register and add details if they want.

Sadly, I too have lost my coins. I haven't seen them since I last looked and am heartbroken. [insert weeping smiley] However I am also open to offers of freebies, preferably hammered Stuart silver in decent quality, though I'm not fussy. I'll take early milled too if you have it. Sorry. Couldn't resist! But on a serious note, I'd say go for it Patrick. I'm sure you'll get just as interesting a selection of coins from members here (probably more so) as you would from a dealer or local shop. And you never know, one of the coins might be the start of a new collecting theme!

Oh, go on then. It's a nice coin so count me in too please Huss!

It was the person I suspected. That narrows it down to two or three. B****r, I had a choice (still have) of the Briot Crown or F7 for the T in C slot. No prizes for guessing the easier of the two. mm .. well, if you will set yourself these challenges Rob ..

It was the person I suspected.

Hi again Patrick. I'm sure the coins will turn up some time and no doubt you'll find it interesting to look at them with fresh eyes. Glad to know you're still interested in the hobby!

No problem! As I say, it'd be very uninteresting if we all were after the same things and interested in the same aspects. And while I don't think I'd want to embark on such a project, I'm more than willing to contribute or share what I can. Oops. That makes it sound like I'm just plain lazy!

Or take these for example. Seven of the eight known examples of Sharp G3/2. And apparently four different obverse dies! Woule I like an example of each? No. I'm happy to have even one in my collection. But would I upgrade it if I could? ... But then, we're all different. Otherwise collecting wouldn't be as much fun, all chasing the same things, eh? And of course, these illustrate a problem with trying to class coins down to the die. Many hammered coins are so worn that the details that distinguish one variety from another such as a recut (re-engraved) shoulder to show armour, or the addition of some rivets to make the armour more obvious, are lost. Plus it's taken me quite some time to obtain these photos. Many collectors aren't as willing to share their collections or knowledge as my contacts. There will undoubtedly be other examples out there (with four obverse dies perhaps up to another 30 or so!) Some will have been recognised but the owner chooses not to share this with anyone I'm in contact with, or more likely, they simply don't know what they have. And a comprehensive study really depends on as many examples as possible being available to research. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I'm not sure it would be as .. straightforward as Peck (who had access to the BM collection) Groom, Gouby et al who catalogued more modern coins. I'm not sure how long it's taken Maurice Bull to put together his analysis of half crowns, nor how much money he might have invested. But I'm guessing it's been a fair amount of both and shillings will be more of a challenge. But I guess it's an opportunity for someone!

I don't think I would Stuart. While it's interesting to me to be able to recognise that one of my coins is from the same obverse die as Brooker xxx, or a Shuttlewood coin, that's about as far as it goes. Largely it's about budget, in that I only have enough money to buy one decent example of each bust type and if I'm lucky I'll expand that to examples of that variety with each of the privy marks it was struck under. If it so happens that two similar coins have different legends, that's a bonus of sorts. However I don't then yearn for every overmark variety, every different harp style and so on. For that I would not only need to have a much larger budget to pick up the additional varieties, but I'd also need to accept that I would have to put up with many lower quality coins to fill the scarcer gaps. Generally I find myself aiming towards a collection in better condition. In fact I've sold on a few very scarce coins to buy better examples of commoner coins, partly because I've come to realise that for most people a knackered coin, however rare, is still just a knackered coin! For example, I passed on this: Very scarce with this privy mark, but I just knew that I would find it unsatisfying sitting next to my other coins. Will I ever find one in thegrade I'd like? Possibly not. But if I spend the money on a coin I prefer, even though it's far commoner, I think I will be happier.

Well, it's possible. The problem is agreeing where to stop. If you look at modern coins then differences between one (micro-)variety and another can be down to whether a tooth in the border aligns with a feature or not, or the spacing between the bust and border down to parts of a millimetre. With hammered coins striking quirks, die wear or damage can make two coins struck from the same die look subtly different. Do we count those as varieties, agree that we'll stop at a particular die pairing (Morrieson tried this), or just aim for a general description such as Osborne's (or Sharp or Spink or North ....) I guess it comes down to what sort of collector you are and whether several broadly similar, but subtly different coins is your aim or you are happy to stop at collecting by type or ... Personally, while a portrait/reverse combination I don't have would be a draw, I'm not worried about finding examples of each different privy mark, legend variation etc.

I'm not sure you do. I think there are over 1000 individual dies identified to date, and that's just for shillings. T in C was a huge issue. In fact, everything from Crown onwards with the exception of sceptre was quite prolific. 382 pages. Volume one of .. two? detailing the Tower mint coins. Then there are two more volumes on provincial issues ... and I have a sneaking suspicion that shillings could be just as complex, if not more. So not a work for the faint hearted to attempt. Or even read!

Or as Roy Osborne says "Busts 65 [E2] and 67 [E3]. Small neat portraits on the shillings only. The rare 65 portcullis is the only one with an inner circle [D6]. Superficially alike, these two dies are made by different methods; 65 by small punches, 67 by one punch, it is here that the join in the hair ceases. On 65 the band of the crown has 6 jewels with 2 pearls between each, the hair breaks at the neck and has a parallel curve at its tip, the collar front has a straight line at the throat with dots above, the first rear lobe of the collar is obscured by the hair and there is a fine edging to the pauldron. On 67 the band of the crown has 9 jewels with no pearls, there is no break in the hair, but there is a twist and outward turn at its tip, the collar front has a curved line at the throat with no dots, the first rear lobe is clear of the hair and there is large lobed edging to the pauldren." ... so when are you going to start this book Stuart?

You say bust punches but I'm not sure if you're aware that at least some of the busts weremade using several puncheons. One for the crown for example, another for the face/head and another for the collar/ body details. I'm not sure that anyone has done a comprehensive study of which busts stand alone and which might be the result of the same puncheons being used in slightly different orientations/positions. Osborne is the only one I'm aware of that has studied aspects of the coinage (such as differing harp designs, shield garniture and so on) and while his work is very good, it's not as detailed as to go as far as identifying specific die parings and so on as for some other coins. I think the coins of Charles will be a challenge because they are the most varied of any reign and at time quality control was very poor. Personally I find just a broad identification of type and variety as per Michael Sharp is adequate for me to use as a basis for my collection. I'm not so interested in the micro-variety sort of thing as having an example of each castle mint mark, however I know another member here has taken more of an interest in Osborne's work. Horses for courses I guess!

As for storage, if I was collecting copper then I'd be a lot more careful than I am with my current coins (stored in trays in a traditional cabinet) which have been handled for the last few hundred years and aren't going to be much affected by a bit more! You don't want finger prints on your nice coins, so a pair of gloves (available from Chris P, owner of predecimal) or some coin slips might be sensible. Acid free paper envelopes are good, but you cant see the coin! For that you need holders/flips. The cheapest are a piece of card with two windows. Pop your coin in, fold the flip over and your coin is safely sandwiched between but can be admired through the windows. They come in different window sizes to suit the coin and you can also get storage trays or books to hold them. Of course there are also capsules (little round boxes) and so on, depending on choice.

The problem is, the best way to learn is to see some actual coins. However a chap called Colin Cooke (now sadly passed away) was a notable collector of base metal coins, in particulat farthings. His successors still have unparallelled experience in this area and you might want to chech their stock for examples with and without lustre: Colin Cooke halfpennies Plus he sold the Basil Nicholson collection which is worth a look: http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/nicholsoncollection.html Just remember that the original 'red' colour of a coin will also shine through after it has been cleaned: Such a coin is not desirable and will never regain it's original lustre. However shiny it may be, it's ruined. A nicely tones coin will always be preferable to a cleaned one. Particularly in good grade: So don't dismiss 'brown' coins out of hand!

Welcome David! Lustre is more than the original colour of a coin, it's an effect you get with uncleaned coins and I think is rather like a shimmer. The problem is it's difficult to always tell from a photo becasue lustre is often best seen by moving the coin around and observing the play of the light on the surfaces. However here is a coin that looks to have full lustre that was sold by the auction house Baldwins a while back: However it's important not to get carried away with lustre! This for example is a proof coin and while deep brown in colour is a splendid thing (and went for a splendid price!):

I don't think it's the roundness that's a problem! Perhaps people are missing that this isn't actually a hammered coin after all, but an early machine made coin produced by Nicholas Briot. Second milled issue (1638-39, Spink 2860) Typically they are very round being made from specially prepared blanks and very rarely found clipped. Here's a similar example that sold through Baldwins 18 months ago: What concerns me, like Rob, is the rather odd 'frothiness' to the worn areas. That doesn't look like the adjustment marks caused by a file (which is typically what was used). Nor does it really look as I'd expect if it's silver. Coupled with the low weight, I too am ... unsure about it.

Not that I'm aware. I don't believe I've had any problems (but I only get notifications when someone pms me). I wonder if it might be your email system? Have you checked that it doesn't think there's something dodgy about predecimal.com and isn't filtering them somehow? Oh, and I replied to your pm at 17.20 today Fri 6 July, in case you don't get it until later and are interested to know when it was sent!

Mine are straightforward, all being the same monarch and denomination, but I have a space for the Spink reference number (and one for the specialised notation suggested by Michael Sharp for Charles I shillings. No point checking, thinking 'Oh, I have an 1873 shilling already' only to find out you have an A1-B and have just missed out on a B1-A (I made up those for illustration, but you get the idea)) I also, it being a spreadsheet, keep a running total of how much I have spent. When I sell on a coin and upgrade it I delete the initial entry and price and put in the new one. Hopefully you'll never need to tell an insurance company the value of your collection (which is of course, not the same as what you spent!), but a total might be useful one day. (Actually I have two spereadsheets, one in Spink/type/date of minting order so I can check if I have a particular variety, the other in date purchased order which tells me how much of my budget I have left to spend. I guess most people spend out of income so maybe that's not relevant, but I have a fixed amount and it's useful to know at a glance how much is there.) The other things I do are keep a photographic record of all my coins. Partly against loss, but mainly so I can check a photo against a potential purchase. If you have one of those new-fangled mobile devices you can carry around with your records on a memory stick or card, all the handier. Finally, each coin has a ticket. A few came with one, (some came with bloody irritating square ones that don't fit my storage trays, thank you DNW et al!) but I always write one myself. It sits under the felt at the bottom of the tray hole, but less and less people seem to use them, so it's more of a quirk than a useful thing I guess!