Sylvester
-
Posts
3,109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Sylvester
-
-
King Philip I (Or should that be II?
) (Phillipvs?)King George VII? (Georgius)
Charles III? (Carolus)
How about a King Arthur at last? (Arthur?)
Notice everytime in history there has been a prince (heir apparent) called Arthur they've never made it...
-
That is an incredibly generous offer
... although I think that my dad had the idea that the collection might be worth more than the sum of its individual parts and since talking to him about it he has said that has listed and valued the coins with this years coin year book at roughly £325 (although it looks like I still get the pleasure of typing it all out)
Would he be correct that the collection could comand a higher price due it being a complete set?.
Many thanks for your time!
Your welcome...
Not sure about whether it would sell for more as a complete set or not though, it might!
But you know what they say about selling in bulk quantities!!
-
Well there's a number of ways we could do this...
Now i presume since your father has such an extensive collection that he knows how to grade and whatnot...
If so you could either purchase a cheap coin book and look up the prices once you've catalogued the dates and grades of each and every coin.
Or you could PM me with a list, lets say 50 coins at a time (so my inbox doesn't overflow!)
Starting with the pennies, state the grade and dates and i'll be happy to look them up for you. It'll not take me long to get through 290 coins.
Then i could give you an approx value per coin and let you add them all up!
Obviously the 1960s stuff won't be worth a great deal even in UNC, as they are pretty common.
But the earlier stuff might be. Unless it's all below AVF condition, then it might not be worth all that much.
But we'll see.
Regards.
Syl.
-
Seriously, for your broadcast you could do something as simple as introduce listeners to the pre-decimal system, as I'm sure many under-40s will be hazy about it.
Geoff T
... and you could mention that in those days you could build a collection from change in your pocket spanning 100 years and five monarchs, but now all you can get are 30 year old coppers.
Or, you could look forward to the Euro and say how we would be able to pick out coins from other countries in our change. After all, we haven't changed our currency for 30 years...
Mark
I have removed a whole bagful of 1971 stuff from circulation as part of my experiment into how common the Machin head copper stuff is. 1971 is at the top, 1982 is the least encountered. (unless you count 1972 proofs with 0 examples raked out of change)
Syl.
-
What's your favourite?
Mine would have to be the Guinea.
Don't collect them but i do like them.
Syl.
-
My collection used to just be totally random but now I've started collecting 20th century Farthings in the best BU (or nearest to) condition I can get. Anybody who wants to sell any....I will pay a premium!
My collection was alot like that too, totally random till about 2 years ago.
Now i've got a direction but i do deviate slightly, alright quite a bit.
Main Collection is Sixpences 1674-1787 trying to get them in as higher grade as possible.
Secondary collection is now 20th Century sixpences, all in BU condition, (will accept those coins that miss the BU grade based on their tone alone)
Third collection being English Hammered, no real focus here just whatever catches my eye, preferably minted between 978-1399. I fancy some hammered gold when i get around to it, i just lost out on the chance of a hammered gold quarter noble last week, someone pipped me to the post, so i've got a virtually UNC 1750 sixpence coming instead, to replace that cleaned one.
Fourth gothic florins/Edward VII Florins.
Fifth anything else that i like the look of.
So there is some focus beginning to appear, but i still need to work on it.
I've just cleared out my spare coins from my failed attempts at collecting shillings and brass threepences.
I do fancy some tin farthings though.
Sylvester.
-
More like: "In 1662, more Crowns than 6d were minted due to & c & c." Let me see what I can find.
--E.
That's just the kind of thing we need! I need to know years in which more crowns or whatnot were minted than other denominations. I've taken the basic approach of having fewer minted of the upper denominations per say, and more of the lower denominations minted. But if it turns out that the bigger denominations were always minted in bigger numbers then my figures are waaaaay out!
But it's a start!!!
Syl.
-
I just don't think many women are into that kind of thing. I do have female customers, I don't think it's quite the odds you mention but it is certainly male dominated.
In fact when I think about the women I know, none of them collect anything, and none of them even have a hobby as such.
I take it you are female then, mystery guest?
Actually i don't want to get flamed by the female members here for stating this...
But i know a few women that do so much clothes shopping you could say they collect both clothes and shoes!!! (One had over 200 pairs of shoes on the last count!)
-
Oh i know... don't worry i make sure i've got enough for uni to take out the money i owe them, and enough so i can travel backwards and forwards. Then the rest is mine...
-
Now just before i ask the question i'll be brief here...(brief me...never!)
I got into collecting 13+ years ago and focused on modern milled pre-decimal stuff. I always wanted to go back to the early milled though and give that a try, but i never had the cash.
Then came University and the student's loan...then came the early milled spending spree. Finally making up for lost time... BUT
Now i've got an urge to go and buy a whole load of early hammered coins, that's pre-1400 stuff to me. (Never was bothered about all the Charles I stuff)
I do fancy getting my mits on some Anglo-Saxon coins if i can, well the later ones anyhow, the Edward the Confessor and the AEthelred stuff. (Not too bothered about Sceatta yet).
Now does anyone else have this specialisation problem?
-
Also make sure you mention the fact that 1967 pennies are not R@re!
LOOKS LIKE COIN COLLECTING IS ON THE UP!
I mean if they asked you there must be a market for it, otherwise what'd be the point?
Looks like you're onto a winner here, and some advertising for yourself too!
Hope it all goes well!
Syl.
-
Can everyone report over here...
http://www.coinpeople.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2190
And vote for my Gothic Florin if it will let you!
I entered it in the Idol competition but it appears that entering it on an American orientated site wasn't the best move ever... (it's in the lead as i write this...just!)
Come on a Gothic is far better than a copper pattern half dollar!!!
Syl.
Arrh i think they've disabled guest voting due to some technical problems earlier on.
But since Emperor Oli is registered he's allowed vote
-
Can everyone report over here...
http://www.coinpeople.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2190
And vote for my Gothic Florin if it will let you!
I entered it in the Idol competition but it appears that entering it on an American orientated site wasn't the best move ever... (it's in the lead as i write this...just!)
Come on a Gothic is far better than a copper pattern half dollar!!!
Syl.
-
Eliza;
Is there any mention in those books of yours of mintage ratios? That is the percentage that is usually minted per denomination.
Bascially i've just been informed that the Spanish minted 8 reale coins and they more often than not made up 57% of the total mintage that year, whilst the other denominations made up a mere 11% for any given year.
-
I sometimes think they should be made to pay to use the word rare, something like £2 every time it's used in a sentence and £5 if it's in the title. That way the only people using it would be those that are actually selling rare coins and would get such a good auction that paying a bit extra for the word rare wouldn't even be noticed.
Great idea, but they'd probably do what spammers do and change it slightly to 'R@re' or even 'Rair'. And I think ebay should charge for 'Rare' but refund the fee if the item sells for over it's start price.
I mean there probably are lots of other items that really are rarish.
They can use the tern 'very scarce'
-
Whenever I see the typical 'Rare' ebay coins I always wonder exactly what qualifies the seller to state that fact? I mean is it perhaps the fact that they only have 1, or have seen 1?
Why can't the trade desriptions act be relevant on ebay auctions too? Because as we know, that year was fozen until 1970 and is the most common penny year of all time.
I'm with you on the Heads side thing, I get so many people stating that the monarch is on the back, and usually don't bother replying to them.
I think ebay would seriously raise their profile with collectors if they didn't allow crap like that and had a adjudicator to remove wastes of space.
It's not that i think people shouldn't be allowed to sell crap on ebay, afterall i think 1967 pennies fall into that category, i've seen far more of those than i have 1972 pennies.
I just think they should sell it for what it is. It might seem strange but i've often seen low grade common coins described as such go for far more than they are really worth, even if the seller made a big point about how common and low grade the coin was.
Conversely i've seen them being over rated and the sellers just get no where.
I sometimes think they should be made to pay to use the word rare, something like £2 every time it's used in a sentence and £5 if it's in the title. That way the only people using it would be those that are actually selling rare coins and would get such a good auction that paying a bit extra for the word rare wouldn't even be noticed.
There's nothing more infuriating than seeing someone selling a beaten up 1997 £2 coin with a reserve of £5 and having the words 'rare', 'once in a lifetime chance' being smattered throughout the auction description and L@@k at every available opportunity. Sometimes i feel like telling them what they can do with that £2 coin.
I.E. Go to the friggin shop and spend it as £2...!
Syl.
(It's these same people that state, 'It was my uncle Eric's therefore it must be rare because it's old. Look it even had a date that starts with 18, and it's as shiny as if it was new... i even polished it last night! MUST BE WORTH AT LEAST £200!!! I think it's a penny, can't read the last digit though, 90 something'.)
-
I think he must be foreign, because 'Imprint' may be a bad translation and 'Elisabeth' is the correct German spelling, which is close.
If he's British, then we have trouble!
Three things upset me about that auction...
1) Referring to the Queen's head as upon the back of the coin... grrrr it really annoys me when people do that! I'd have though it was obvious which was the front and which was the back? Same goes for a £20 or a $2 bill.
2) The use of the work L@@K, most auctions that i see that used as are usually selling crap.
3) Bad circumstances forced him to sell it, wow 10p debt?
That's not to mention he showed a picture of the wrong coin (one which was better nonetheless), and the persistant use of the word Rare!
Anyone would have thought it was a 1954 penny he was flogging...
-
This is better Chris/Eliza/etc...
Tell me if you think these figures are a bit more realistic!
1674;
CR = 31,000
HC = 65,000
SH = 160,000
6D = 315,000
4D = 10,000
3D = 10,000
2D = 10,000
1D = 10,000
1675;
CR = 5,500
HC = 10,700
SH = 27,000
6D = 53,000
4D = 10,000
3D = 10,000
2D = 10,000
1D = 10,000
1676;
CR = 320,000
HC = 630,750
SH = 1,580,000
6D = 3,153,000
4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM.
1677;
CR = 460,000
HC = 920,000
SH = 2,270,000
6D = 4,525,000
4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM.
1678;
CR = 25,000
HC = 50,000
SH = 120,000
6D = 240,000
4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM.
1679;
CR = 280,000
HC = 560,000
SH = 1,350,000
6D = 2,700,000
4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM.
1680;
CR = 200,000
HC = 360,000
SH = 900,500
6D = 1,801,000
4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM.
1681;
CR = 95,000
HC = 200,000
SH = 500,000
6D = 1,000,000
4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM.
1682;
CR = 40,000
HC = 78,500
SH = 195,700
6D = 391,000
4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM.
1683;
CR = 220,000
HC = 440,000
SH = 1,081,000
6D = 2,160,000
4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM.
1684;
CR = 54,000
HC = 107,000
SH = 267,000
6D = 533,000
4D-1D = 10,000 PER DENOM.
And that's it so far...
Only approx but it gives an idea, Maundy figures are very approximate and those shown are probably double, or even quadruple the amount of what they would have been in most years.
Does give some strange results though, the 1674 Crown is much rarer than the 1675 one, (both are rare), although the mintage figures suggest otherwise. If the mintage figures are averagely near accuracy then i guess the 1674 crown was a candidate for a meltdown for later recoinages.
Also note how few sixpences seem to have been minted in 1675, suddenly becomes apparent why the 1676/5 overdates are really the only coins known. (Do they exist without over dates? Looks like they didn't use too many dies in 1675, so there'd probably be surplus dies left over for most of the following year).
Syl.
-
Right Chris... Eliza and who ever else is listening;
we have one small problem with these figures, that of the Maundy Money...
I'm still very sceptical that they'd mint anything near 700,000 pennies.
Looking at the post 1816 mintage figures i think i'm right to think this, where most figures usually go no higher than 5,000 on a really good year!
So if i average out the Maundy stuff at about 7,000 pieces per year of each denomination (but i think more may have been minted for the 4, 3 and 2d coins, upto 10,000 as afterall they were for circulation purposes!)
If i can figure out a realistic average figure for the maundy stuff in any year then the rest should follow into place.
If only we could find these weights of all silver minted without the maundy stuff then it might be a whole lot more accurate and simpler.
If you think the silver is hard, the gold coinage is going to be much much harder.
Afterall the guinea went with inflation so the guinea relation to the pound changed year in year out, so figuring out the figures will be very difficult.
Looking at mintage figures for elephant and castle guneas though it appears the majority of coins minted each year tended not to go above 30,000 pieces.
Syl.
-
Right this is a rough estimate for silver coined in 1674;
(Note that weights of the coins vary as much from say 14.8 grams to 15.3 grams with halfcrowns). Based on the average weight of each silver denomination i get these as the following (all weights in grams for calculator simplicity); CR=30g, HC=15g, SH=5.8g, 6D=3g, 4D=2g, 3D=1.5g, 2D=1g and 1D's = 0.5g...
(this makes the following figures anything up to 30,000 grams out at the most, if those figures above are stuck to, but giving for variance in weight it could be as little as 25,000 grams out which equates to 833 crowns, or 12500 silver pennies! which is still some way out. Hence why i've put the calculator figure (as i found it out) first followed by a higher figure of what it could potentially realistically have been)
Very broad figures are;
1674 CR = 15, 944 - 16,000
HC = 31,888 - 32,000
SH = 79,720 - 80,000
6D = 159,440 - 160,000
4D = 239,160 - Lower at 239,000?
3D = 318,880 - 320,000
2D = 478,320 - 480,000
1D = 956,640 - 960,000
Following the latter figures we are still 17,000 grams out, or 567 crowns in weight down.
So add a few hundred crowns on and a few hundred half crowns on and we are getting there.
For crowns 1674 is a rare year.
It is perhaps the case that the maundy stuff has lower mintages. Though not necessarily the same mintage from 4d to 1d as in this period 2d-4d coins were issued for circulation. Only the penny was reserved for maundy purposes.
Quite what they do with 960,000 of them though?
perhaps the mintage of these could be as low as 700,000, which equates to 4333 extra crowns or double that figure in half crowns.
So revised figures could be;
CR = 17,000
HC = 40,000
SH = 80,000
6D = 160,000
4D = 240,000
3D = 320,000
2D = 480,000
1D = 700,000
TOTAL MINTAGE IN GRAMS = 3,844,000
Which is much nearer to the 3,839,283g that i initially got.
So no matter how it breaks down the mintage figures are still small when compared to the post 1816 stuff.
Syl.
Other dates to follow...
-
Right i've just converted all those weights for the silver between 1674-1684 to grams...
Now comes the tricky guess work bit!
I'll try dividing the total mintage in £s so that it's roughly equal between all denominations from Crowns down to maundy pennies.
Then i'll see if the numbers i come to when added up are near the average weight for that year.
If not then it's back to the drawing board.
Syl.
-
I'm standing by.
i'm just standing...
-
Hmmm, well I don't often get up that way.
Maybe later in the year. Sylvester is more local to you....Sylvester if you're reading this, can you get to Manchester easily?
I though Emperor Oli lived somewhere near Manchester?
Actually in Manchester?
First thing i've got to ask about that 50p is are there any lines running down the edge of the coin?
Secondly does the coin state 'NEW PENCE' on the reverse or 'FIFTY PENCE'? That's both reverses!
With you saying a 1970s coin i'm inclined to think it says 'NEW PENCE'
Is this the case?
-
First there was snow ...
Then freezing rain & sleet ...
Then MORE snow ...
Now it's about -8 F. for a windchill,
And I just crashed the Law School scanner trying to get these mintage tables ready to email to Chris.
Sigh.
Tomorrow, I go to the OTHER library across the street where they do this stuff all the time. Barring that ... it's snail-mail.
So: how *is* everybody?
Eliza
Excellent Eliza!
I'm not half accumulating these sixpences...
Charles II coins left to get;
1675 the no overdate variety (currently in the process of trying to aquire one of these, having to trade in some my coins now to nab this one, totally out of cash!)
1676 the no overdate variety, exists???
1677
1678/7
1679
1681
1682
1682/1
1683
1684
Oh it's all go! There is a 1681 available but it has some die flaws and is in much lower condition than i wanted, so i'll pass on that one!
Sylvester.
I'm back!
in Free for all
Posted
I'll have to give that one a miss (out of cash for the next two months)
Thanks for offering though!
Syl.