Sylvester

Well that depends yet again on the type of hammered coin you're dealing with. On some serieses the legends are notoriously bad, on others they are good. In my experience it's very seldom (bearing in mind other types i'm not familiar with may differ from this), but i've often found it to be the case that if the legend is good then the portrait is below average. If the portrait is a stunner then the legend is crap! To see both being good is somewhat uncommon. Certainly for things in say Queen Mary's reign, and Elizabeth I's reign it generally holds true. The Stuarts may vary somewhat. Grading is very difficult, it often depends on strike to some degree, weakly struck coins with only light wear can look pretty circulated whilst exceptional strike coins with more moderate wear can still pull off a high VF. There is no general rule, it really does depend upon the coin and the 'normal' wear features of that series. I'm sure Tom would agree that grading a coin of William the Conqueror would be a whole different kettle of fish than say a coin of Henry I or Charles I. Hammered is all about knowing the series. Grading Stuart coins is VASTLY different to grading Norman coins. Actually whilst we're on about grading and legends this reminds me of something that annoys the hell out of me. I once saw the most beautifully struck Queen Mary groat for sale, sharp legends, crisp sharp portrait (exceptionally uncommon!), the catch? Mary being unpopular as she was the coin had been defaced by having lines (deep lines) scratched through the portrait! It breaks the heart. Good contemporary damage = good history and context for sure, but not on a museum quality specimen!

Not a problem Josie! It's what we're here for, any questions or problems just ask us. I'm not promising we'll know all the answers because we don't, but as the members here have a wide variety of interests in different areas there's a good chance we might be able to help. And we were all beginners once upon a time!

I don't know if i'm even follow this conversation correctly, but Josie when you talk about 'secret types' i presume you are talking about all the minor varieties (like the 1908 above?) And why they're not listed in the catalogues? Well that all depends upon which catalogue you're referring to. General guides and specialist guides vary in their approach. Some collectors are nuts about minor varieties, other collectors couldn't care. Something like the Krause book of world coins is a general guide of 'all' world coins in whatever century the particular volume is covering. This is clearly a general work that is trying to cover the main 'major' coins of each country. There is obviously a limit to what they can record, why record all the minor varieties? How many extra pages would it require, who's going to use it and how much is it going to cost Krause to publish it and how much for the collectors to buy? The 20th century Krause is a monster volume in itself, and there's alot of stuff missing out of it! Then we move to say Spinks coins of England which is still a general all-purpose work but more specialised than Krause as it only covers England, but it still goes from BCE to present, which is a long period of time. Then we have Chris' books, which are even more focused, the late milled one on British coins for instance covers the period from c.1797 to present, much more focused and thus you can go into more detail. That said though this is still a general all purpose coin catalogue, not a specialist work. If you want to find the secrets of British coinage, it would depend upon where your interest lies. If you are big into copper of bronze then you need the books by Peck or Freeman. These deal souly with a very, very narrow field of coins but they go into extreme detail. Detail that someone like me who is not into copper or bronze would never need when trying to price up a Victorian penny. If hammered was your thing then you'd need the North catalogue (which isn't exactly user friendly!) but it goes into much more detail than Spink does. The difference is Krause/Spink/Chris' books are generally 'price guides' rather than reference works. Coincraft likewise is more a price guide than a reference work, although there is alot of interesting aside texts delving into the backgrounds of the coins themselves, which makes it kinda both. Works like Freeman, Peck, North etc. are proper reference books. The main aim of the book is not about being able to price a coin up accurately, but about learning how to identify a coin to a type and to know all minor types and all the history that goes with the coins.

Where are you exactly?

What i meant was slabs are generally (i say generally, but NOT always) about investment, getting as much bang for the buck, the best price or return for a coin bought. Prices of coins in the US have skyrocketed since slabbing came in, in the 80s. It makes it easier for investors and novices in the coin world to buy good quality stuff and not worry about things like grading and fakes.* The question i put forward though is that a good thing or a bad thing? (see below) How do you feel about this Josie, do you think profits and money spent on coins and returned from selling them the most important factor in numismatics? (from above)... Slabbing companies are doing alot of the work for US collectors these days (lets ignore the sometimes inaccurate grading that occurs occasionally, or the odd good fake coin fooling the experts [it happens], or heck even the fake coins in fake slabs that have turned up before now). Lets ignore all that. Alot of newer US collectors (and investors) are just going with the grade on the lump of plastic and are taking it as gospel! Is this a good thing? Collectors need to know how to grade for themselves and they need to learn how to spot fakes for themselves, i feel slabs are dumbing down the hobby alot and taking away alot of the learning that has to be done in the formative years as a collector. It's best to make mistakes when you're starting out on cheaper coins and learn from those mistakes than to buy an expensive coin and have no idea how to grade and thus overpay for the coin, only to find out it's a dud because you've never bothered to learn how to spot them because you left it to the grading company to protect you. I'm not saying slabs are all bad, they have their uses, they are very useful for ease of liquidation of a collection and they offer some kind of protection from the environment, although it varies from slab to slab (but take into account Scottishmoney's statement earlier). The problem with this debate is how you look at coins, why do you collect them? Do you think like an investor (does money out and back matter?), do you think like an art/sculpture aesthetic type where it's about preserving the image, the design, the message of the artist who created the coin? Or do you think like an historian/archaeologist whereby it's all down to what the coin may or might have seen and where it may or might have been? I'm an historian myself, so to me the history matters above almost any other attribute. Thus slabs really don't feature much in my viewpoint, but i can see that they'd be of use for the other two points.

Without a doubt.

I agree with what you all said. In particular i agree with Tom. There was a time back in the days of me being a milled collector when i did place an emphasis on grade. When i say emphasis i don't mean that grade was the 'be and end all' of the coin for me, far from it, but grade did matter. Lets face it when you're staring at a group of 1920s sixpences or shillings you might as well get the BU rather than the VF if you could afford it. Although the more i think about it the more i wonder if even back then it was really about 'grade', i think grade was actually only the superficial exuse for what i was really buying on. I would by nice lustrous BU sixers because they looked nicer than the dull grey worn VF things sat next to them. Although it took me until hammered to realise that really to me grade for grade's sake didn't mean a great deal! I have to say even now i still like high grade hammered coins, but the sellers i deal with most often usually stick all their hammered coins in trays ungraded. I've found the grade is almost never stated (they expect you to know yourself). So often i'm buying higher grade coins (without generally taking much explicit notice of what grade the coin is, lets face it i'm too idle to grade), i generally buy coins where the detail is sharp, well struck, and it a nice tone. Basically i now collect by eye appeal. Which is what i've been doing all along really, but these days i rarely bother grading my purchases. With ancients and hammereds the grade can vary greatly from person to person, so i figured there wasn't much point.

I say no. I simply don't like slabs, the last thing i want to have to do is have to go through the process of having to crack every purchase out. Trust me i've had to crack two out in the past and it's a process that requires a g-clamp, a cloth and alot of patience. Especially when the coin is a 1786 Austrian ducat. Talk about being under pressure. I definately wouldn't want to have to crack out something like an Henry I penny, a series that is notorious for coins cracking in the post.

* Are you referring to population reports here? If so it's probably worth while me pointing out one small often overlooked point by even more experience collectors. In the US coins are slabbed and given population reports (i.e 12 grade as this 3 higher), however, they quickly become very unaccurate, firstly because coins submitted after that might be the same type and add a few more to the population report. However, simultaneously many coins are cracked out and resubmitted regularly! So How many have been added to that 12 since it was graded and how many lost from that 12 due to resubmissions. Which to me makes the whole pop. report a pretty useless measure. It's simply put there by slabbing companies as a selling gimmick.. kind of "look how rare this is!". ** Another small point which you'll no doubt encounter as you become more experienced, and it's worth holding in mind, "higher grade doesn't always mean better or nicer". Sometimes a coin in EF can look way better than another one in a higher grade. Be it differences in strike, tone, or whatever. Some coins simply have more eye appeal than others, and eye appeal has nothing to do with grading. Let no one try and convince you otherwise. It's an important point that's often overlooked. You will no doubt here colectors and dealers saying that AU58s often look far nicer than MS60s. MS60 might have the higher state of preservation but AU58 whilst a lower grade can often turn out nicer looking specimens.

Yep this forum is the mahogany cabinet fraternity.

Christianity has done some good in society. It's left some stunning architecture, nice paintings, some beautiful manuscripts and alot of entertaining history... beyond that though i'm going to keep my gob shut.

Slab/ornot varies from collector to collector. It all comes down to 'how they collect', 'what they collect' and 'why they collect'. Take for example these two coins; 1) Proof 1969 Kennedy half in MS67 Versus 2) A circulated Denarius of Trajan dating to the 2nd century CE. One has value in grade and condition which, if not encapsulated somehow (be it slab or airtite) many be prone to knocks or damage. The other has more value in history and archaeology than in grade. Big difference. As for my own personal preference i disagree with slabbing not so much on the fact that the coin is encapsulated (true i physically have to handle my coins to get any pleasure out of them), but more on the fact that emphasis is placed upon grade. There's more to coins than grade and i believe slabbing is making many collectors miss the bigger picture of the whole joy of numismatics, of which grade is only part. Secondly slabs infer "objective" grading, indeed this is misleading there is not such thing as 'objective' grading, all grading is in the eye of the beholder and thus 'subjective'. What i think is pretty might make Oli choke on his laurels.

Yes Aidan we are aware of the many different types of spam on this forum. Oh and hi JMD nice to see you around again!

Ah the perpetual 'to slab' or 'not to slab' debate... that goes around.

Hey i missed it! I'm quite a fan of James II, i dunno why but i always have this uncanny habit of backing the Catholic side of an argument. I had no idea Aidan was a bible person, if he doesn't like homosexuals, then what's his take on pagans? Hmm i read recently that it was actually 616 that was the number of the beast. Now 13 is a good number! I love 13.

That's different that's accent/dialect. I think regional diversity and accents should be promoted. So it doeasn't bother me when i hear someone speaking like that. Nor would it bother me so much if they spelt like that either. I think the standardisation of the language in the late 18th century was a very bad move. Spoken discourse changes with each generation, it always has (and every previous generation frowns at it!).* The written discourse prior to standardisation wasn't far behind with the adaptation. When you standardise you're in danger of doing a Latin. That said English isn't bad in that respect. The French well they are their own worst enemies. The crux for me is not whether it's 'proper grammar', but rather is it understandable? If it's understandable then has it not served it's purpose? I knew what you meant though. *In the 1967 there was a big uproar about the degradation of the English Language. The catalyst was, wait for it... Star Trek. William Shatner's uttering at the beginning; "to boldly go where no one has gone before" didn't go down too well. Back then it was a sin to split the infinitive. Today no one thinks twice about it. Fings change t'otherwise we'd be using the medial 's', þ, ð and à still, to say nothing of connexion and shewn.

I'm not arguing against that Rob, i think it has it's uses as far as that goes. Why i said it was pointless is because universities just don't recognise it like they do other A-Levels. It all depends why you do A-Levels, if you are doing them for their own sake and you don't intend to go further (and what with the new University fees i can see this becoming more popular), then general studies is fine. If you do A0Levels as a passport to university, like i did, then general studies is almost on a level with key skills. Do it for fun (or torture where key skills is concerned), but don't expect it to go anywhere.

Ah General Studies well... that figures! Every year people complain about how pointless that subject is, most universities don't take it as a qualification either. Yes critical thinking, rather you than me, i went to an open day on that and came out totally baffled. Not my strongpoint at all.

I agree five is too much, but for Geoff's example i'd be willing to pay it. It's the perfect example of everything being wrong. Other than that i don't actually intend to buy (or attempt to depending upon his answer) any more fakes, as i'm gonna harvest them from change.

Congrats Oli! 6 AS Levels? Jeeze... that's alot of AS levels. Back in my day we did four. Although actually my day and yourday is still the same, because i was in the first year to take these new A-Levels. Experimental batch you might say. I didn't find them particularly easy, regardless of what people say about exams dumbing down 6 AS must have been tough timewise! How many are you taking through to A2? Four i presume?

In that case you'd love mine. It's dated 1995, but the reverse, instead of the Welsh dragon, has the Scottish thistle, and the edge inscription is the English "Decus et Tutamen". Or least that's what they were attempting, because what it says, in crude and uneven letters, is "DECUS EE L TUTAMEN". On top of these blunders, the reverse is totally out of alignment with the obverse and both sides have a dent in the centre where the surface metal has worn away to show the (lead based?) alloy underneath. A real beaut! Geoff

Actually i thought there were alot less fakes in circulation than there used to be. 2001-2 was the period when fakes were here, there and everywhere. As it stands i'm actually putting together a date set of fake £1 coins, currently i have 2004, 2002, 1994 and 1988. I haven't seen any others in a few months though. The 1988 one came as a surprise, i thought that was the only design to have escaped it as of yet! Unfortunately they are all 'correct' forgeries, i haven't seen any wrong reverse for year, or wrong edge inscription for design ones in some time. I've still yet to find one with all three wrong, but one day perhaps!

Kuhli you're da man! I never thought of looking there! Thanks.

Okay chaps we all know that the small 10p coins debuted in 1992. The question that i can't seem to find an answer for though is what month did they arrive? Presumably some time between April and September? Anyone know?

Flemish coins would come as no surprise to me from this period. Bearing in mind the English wool trade was the staple export commerce of England during the period and the place we usually dealt with was Antwerp. France wouldn't come as much of a surprise either because the mid-fifteenth century was the back end of the Hundred Years war, and we still held Calais (until 1558), and thus French coinage would enevitably find it's way in. Spanish coinage surprises me a little. Where did you find it Mark? (Near a port/sea town?) Which is what i'd expect. Or somewhere on a trade route. Obviously if you say somewhere landlocked like i dunno Leicester i'd be even more surprised.