Sylvester

I think new issues just try too hard to be 'sensational' and sadly (or maybe rather funnily...depending on the coin) they fail miserably. I've yet to see anyone that would buy a commemorative coin over a Gothic Crown... Sylvester.

Anyone dreading a David Beckham coin? I know i am... Sylvester.

I'll tell you for nothing...i hate that 50p already. The £2 coin and the £1 coins i'm not sure yet. I must admit though that the 'normal' (quite which one's the normal one these days is up for debate) £2 coin reverse (in my opinion) is so good that all these commemoratives don't stand a chance. The £1 coin i'm really not sure, you soon find out after they've been in circulation for a few years. Anyone notice how horrible circulated £1 coins look? especially 1985, which out of all the years wears the worst by far...1983 wears well though, anyone know why? (lower relief?) Sylvester.

Why am i thinking of the 1973 one all over again? Sylvester.

Have you got any links to any pictures? (I had no idea about the proposed new ideas to the £1 reverse, but i had realised that the current designs had ran their course. Personally i'll be glad to see the back of the Welsh Dragon and the Irish Cross, i never liked those two, well put it this way, it's not that i don't like them as such it's just i'm sick of seeing them!) I wonder why they didn't choose London Bridge? Rather than that eyesore they picked for England! I've yet to see the £2 coin or the 50p though. (personally i'm a big fan of the Britannia design so i sigh everytime i see a commemorative design). My opinion is that there are far too many commemorative issues these days, good Gods it's almost as bad as stamps! I think the mint are selling out... I crave to go back to the days when commemoratives were issued once every 10 years or less. Back to the good days when commemorative crowns were issues as regularly as 1935, 1951, 1960, 1965, 1972, 1977, 1980 and 1981. And even that's a bit more than i'd like. (1937 and 1953 fall into the first coins of the reign category rather than as commemoratives in my opinion, like those crowns dated 1887, 1893 and 1902.) Too many commemoratives reduce the 'special' issue. Now if they only issued them every 25 years then a commemorative would indeed be a sought after, eagerly anticipated (probably!), 'special' issue coin. Now we are getting to the stage where the commemoratives are going to be more widespread in circulation than the 'normal' design...ludicrous in my opinion. Sylvester.

I'll give it a shot but it might take a few weeks, probably next weekend if i get the time i'll dash off to my local library and sift through some books and see what i can find out! That is; see if i can clarify the issue further by quoting other sources to see if it states any where; e.g. how many halfcrowns were minted in weight during any of these years. Without doing that though it's pure speculation until we can break those weights up into denominations. Sylvester.

Those 'rare' rolls of 1971 2p coins are a bit of a give away to the over pricing me thinks. I've seen a fair few on ebay go for about face value. Sylvester.

Chris, Have you any idea whether Coincraft are going to be releasing another catalogue anytime soon, i've got the last one, the 2000 edition, but nothing's been heard since? In my opinion this is disappointing as the Coincraft catalogue is one of the best i've ever come across. Sylvester.

Eliza If you email me the dates/weights then i'll have a go at tackling them. Are they weights per denomination each year, or are they weights of all silver (or gold) coins for that year? Cos if it's the latter it's going to be very tricky...very! Sylvester.

Good question, well i used to until very recently buy mine via the post direct from dealers as they used to send catalogues in the post. Then i make regular visits to antique shops and specialised coin shops. Recently i have been buying them off of the internet, from both Ebay and Online coins. I have also bought from jewelry shops, but i've been ripped off a few times, so i will no longer be getting them from one of those anymore! Sylvester.

Ah here is a question one of which i have two (and a half)answers to, because i'm awkward (sorry but it's in my nature)... The most valuable coin in my collection going on the catalogue prices would be my 1688 James II Half Guinea in F condition, (incidentally it's the only James II coin i have), and the 2003 Spinks catalogue price was £300 i believe (although i bought it last year for £225 first time i've actually made a profit on a coin there! And first time i broke the £200 boundary) I'm not sure what the 2004 price is though. The second most valuble (which is the coin i have paid most for to date) would be the US Gold Double Eagle which pricewise would be about £275 (they cost more here than they do in the US due to supply being lower...most that go on EBay go for about £320 in EF, despite being not worth that in the catalogue. Mine is a 1894 GEF specimen, i still reckon it would fetch about £275 on a good day...i paid quite a bit more for it though, (£329 to be precise) but i knew i was paying more than it was worth, but what can i say i wanted one! And i had to fight to get it, so i wasn't the only one that though it was worth it. Recently i've seen a more common dated 1904 specimen in VF condition (if that) go for about £279 so i'm not far off then. The most valuable coin i own (sentimentally) would be my 1674 sixpence, (yes pictured in the avatar), i think this coin set me back about £125. Sylvester. Currently saving up for some more coins...

It also depends i should imagine, (i've never really given it much thought though about how they get the catalogue prices), but i suppose they would give the top price that has been paid for a coin. So Spinks might have just seen more of them than Richards have. Another alternative is that Richards might not have seen an FDC 1888 penny for a while, or perhaps they've used the bottom price paid for an example, whereas Spinks may have used the highest price? Is that possible? Well i'm just speculating cos i don't really know. The Americans have many different price guides, they have books containing buying prices, some have dealers selling prices in, others have auction estimates? in...all three would give a different price. So it depend who the audience of the price guides are aiming their info at. Thinking of Greysheets, Red Books and Blue books here, although i can't remember which one is which...and i'm sure there are others. Sylvester.

Eliza, i would be very grateful of those weights of silver and gold, and i've waited for some time now for them so another few weeks isn't going to be a problem. Then i think i better get good at adding up/dividing and converting imperial into metric (since all the figures i have access to are in grams...) I take it they are Troy Pounds and ounces that have been used? If so then it should make it easier as these can be converted to grains and i'm sure i had figure to convert grains into grammes. Sylvester.

Eliza i've got a few mintage figures, one definate... 1798 shillings, there was £30,000 minted which equates to £30,000 x 20, or 600,000 actual coins. Of which many got melted as they were deemed an illegal issue. I think that's right, i was having a problem there for a minute trying to figure out whether it needed multiplying or dividing. Also in 1787 my book states that £55,549 silver coins were minted. That includes sixpences and shillings presumably, so it's probably fair to say that the mintage of 1787 shilling is some way below 600,000 a piece. If it was this is IF (which i doubt), a mintage of half each, i.e £27,774 of shillings and £27,775 of sixpences, then you'd be looking at about, 555,480 shillings and about 1, 111,000 sixpences. Although i think that sixpence figure is somewhat high. There was also a rumour that the 1763 issue of shillings was limited to an issue of £100 face value, but the Coincraft book states that this is probably not true and i agree, because the mintage figure would be only about 2000 specimens. And going on the current prices one of these coins sell for about £180 in F condition, so i doubt that's true because if it was i'd expect that price to be considerably higher. Sylvester.

Actually Eliza i have had a brain wave of sorts, you say that the total number of coins issued for any one year are given in weight rather than numbers minted. Well if you could find the figures for say, all the shillings minted in 1697 (as a pure example), then taking the weight of the average shilling, you could figure out roughly how many were minted. Perhaps exactly how many were minted because coins of this period were still based on their weight, rather than their size (notice how the size varies by a few 32nds of an inch on these older coins, some are also rounder than others). Failing that i think you are spot on with your assumption that the mintage figures are lost within the depths of economic history. I bet for instance you could find (in the sixpences at least, since this is my area of speciality, so i know the dates...hopefully!), 1674 (the first issue), and even more so i bet you'd have a very good chance of finding out the 1696/7/8 mintage figures as it was this mass coinage that saw the ousting of the hammered silver coins. Other dates possibly the VIGO stuff, the SSC stuff (Shillings also have the WCC, I've often wondered why a copper company would supply silver?), and dates 1757, 1758. And there must be figures for 1787. I'm just going to consult a book about a shilling... Sylvester.

I have the first edition of Edward Hawkin's 'Silver Coins of England' (published 1841) , and there is no mention of mintage figures in their either. Although the most interesting thing in this book is the annotations in the margin by a previous owner (looks to be Victorian handwriting...definately written with a quill...actually it looks a bit like my handwriting which is scary!) One intersting footnote/annotation is that the book stated that in 1650 there were no halfcrowns minted, (no anything minted actually), and the date 1650 has a small star penned in beside it refering to his? comments at the bottom, which states "I bought one in Birmingham, query, Is it genuine?...if so very rare-" It's things like this that makes numismatics even more fascinating. Seeing what people in the past have had, and i often wonder where these coins are now, and is it possible that i might own one of them? I've yet to find the First Edition to Kenyon's gold coins of England [published 1887?]...but i'm keeping an eye out for it. No mintage figures yet though. Sylvester.

Don't worry, i'm not into Shillings (yet) too many dates/varieties for my budget and the prices in the higher grades are far higher. I'd rather have a go at collecting something that will be a challenge, take some years to do, but i think the shillings will take a bit too long and at too much cost. Thinking here of such specimens as that (1666?...i can't quite remember whether this is the date or not), shilling with the obverse from the die of a guinea. (It's thought the original shilling die got destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666). And if i recall it might well be the five guinea piece on the front of that coin catalogue! One book i do recommend if you haven't already got it, is "Coincraft's 2000 Standard Catalogue of English and UK Coins, 1066 to date" There's plenty of info in there about shillings and sixpences. (No early modern mintage figures though, except for the elephant and castle guineas). Sylvester.

Luckily i seem to have avoided most of this sudden interest in the early milled phase, for one basic reason. That reason is that most people that get into the early stuff predictably go for the following coins; Guineas (if they're well to do of course), Crowns (likewise not cheap), and the biggest by far that i've noticed Halfcrowns...those three denominations seem to be by far the most collected of the range. Shillings are not too far behind i shouldn't think neither. The thing is though i went into sixpences because there are fewer of them to get to obtain a full set, they are cheaper and the small size of them actually does most of the designs credit, notice how stunning a high condition sixpence (say EF) can look next to a lower conditioned crown of the same price (say VF). Size doesn't matter! However there are some other under collected areas in this series, the half guineas, although in many instances far rarer than the guinea for some dates, they often go for the same price as demand for the larger coin is higher, as people like to collect the 'full thing' so to speak (it's also why early sovereigns go for the same price as early half sovereigns, despite the latter being rarer it's not as well collected). By far the most under researched coins of this period, it should come as no surprise is the five guinea and the two guinea coins, but very few collectors have that kind of money, hence the lack of research done on them. The 1703 VIGO Five Guinea piece is fascinating as out of the few that have survived (very few were struck in the first place), at least two or three different obverses are thought to exist, maybe more, but this is still under going research. Personally i still think that the sixpence is under appreciated because as i often set foot in the York coin shop and ask for early milled sixpences, the usual reply is either none are available, or if they are they turn out to be 1696, 1697, 1698, 1711, 1723SSC, 1745 LIMA, 1746 LIMA, 1757, 1758 and of course 1787. Now if they aren't the most common dates out there i'll eat my hat. Then you look at the Halfcrown selection and there's a whole plethora of dates and obverse/reverse combinations, not to mention edge lettering varieties available! Although i once saw a GVF James II 1686? sixpence i think it was 1686, might have been an 87 though, but i didn't have the cash on me at the time or i would have snapped it up. Now there's a coin you just don't see. Oh and likewise i also missed out on the 1694 (and it was a very good one too!) due to not having £350 on my person. That actually came from a whole collection of early milled sixpences that he had just purchased, but i didn't have the cash, next time i went in the whole lot had gone. Pity that, it really was. Sylvester.

Well Chris, i've often heard the term mentioned with regards to ancient and Roman coins, usually those that have been dug up/found in hoards, it's where the contact with the soil forms a crust of muck/dirt ect, where the metal has reacted. At least that's my interpretation of it. Of course ancient coins are often 'curated' which is basically, gentle cleaning to remove this excess debris. The usual soft brush (very soft brush) and soapy water, and ocasionally dipping i should imagine. But of course there is limit to how much can be conducted without damaging the coin further. So when people ask the question, 'should i clean my coins?' - well my answer is it depends on the coin, anything milled then it's wise not to (polishing is a big no no!), gentle cleaning is sometimes advised, but only for the really bad stuff...and it should be avoided with copper and even more so with tin...at all costs! Hammered coins on the other hand, especially ancient stuff it's a different case altogether, but i'd say it depends on how bad the coins are. Sylvester.

Probably now account for over half of the pound coins i circulation, still it must save the govt some money as they won't have to mint as many now... Sylvester.

Ewww Nastay...

Hmm mahogany, definately the best wood of the lot in my opinion, i love the stuff. And of course he uses renewable resources, where they replant some trees afterwards...that is always good. Sylvester.

Yeah, but the question is where did they vanish to? With regards to most of the 1787 issue of Sixpences and Shillings, most of them entered circulation and promply vanished, reason is they were (in the case of the sixpence, not the shilling) the first silver coins with George III on them, and thus people hoarded them as a curiosity, but also they were new and good quality high grade stuff. (Alright anything not worn smooth) was very scarce indeed hence they all ended up in people's drawers, and attics. I think the American equivalent would be the 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar, loads of them minted, but how often do you see them? (or any half dollar for that matter). Most people have a few hidden away, firstly because it was a new issue, secondly because it was in memory of the recent Kennedy assasination and thus in many people's eyes a good peice of history to pass onto the grandchildren, and thirdly they were issued in the last year of 90% silver coins (actually not entirely correct...silver coins were minted till 1966 but all were dated 1964 to fool people into thinking that no-one was hoarding the silver and also to use up the mint's supply.) Thus History often repeats itself...So that's why many of the silver coins dated from 1750s onwards are to be found in higher conditions than the earlier dates. And also why Kennedy halves are so plentiful in higher grades. Syl.

Many were made out of nearly 20 million melted down worn William III and Queen Anne guineas/halves. It's fairly safe to say that most of those that were consequently minted were officially melted down to make later issues (and sovereigns after the great recoinage), and many were melted down unofficailly due to the coin shortages and rising gold/silver prices from the 1750s onwards. And an interesting fact for Eliza is that during the early period of George III, many of the coins circulating were actually either tokens or 'forgeries' when i say forgeries i actually mean foreign coins of similar size to the English denominations that were sanded/worn smooth and passed off as sixpences/shillings etc. If you look at the silver coin mintages after 1758 there are very very few, mostly 1787, and 1763? in the shillings. 1798 shillings never really circulated as they were illegal Dorrien Magens who kindly supplied the silver probably got into trouble for minting them anyhow. This lack of coinage mean't that the earlier stuff had to still circulate and was worn smooth, so that's why people 'forged' the foreign coins by sanding them smooth. The mint tried to solve the problems of high denomination silver coins during this period by minting smaller gold coins, because gold was in better supply, hence why guineas and half guineas were minted most years of Geo III's reign. Syl.

This is what i feared Eliza about the mintage figures, i have some for gold coins, i actually have mintage figures for the elephant and castle guineas. But regarding the other gold coins of the period all of the mintages of gold (i have none of silver) say things like for 1760 £111,229 was minted in gold coinage, including guineas and half guineas, and that's about it. Later dates are even more confusing because guineas, half guineas and third guineas were being minted simultaneously, 1797 for example. Syl.