Rob

Prices are the least important reason for the library as these fluctuate from day to day and no two coins are identical rendering precise figures irrelevant. My library occupies a full room - walls and floor, but there is also another which I am in the process of taking over with the spares (not included in the total) much to the wife's annoyance. I don't live in a mansion, rather a very untidy hovel. Books number a couple hundred or so and are all the standard references such as Snelling, Ruding, Hawkins, Brooke, Montagu, Peck, etc. BNJs, sylloges, price guides and specialist references also feature prominently. The vast majority (well over 3000) are auction catalogues of all ages and origin as long as they contain British coins, Spink Circulars, Seaby's Bulletins and dealer lists from which I extract images and provenances for a shortlist of coins I would buy of any particular variety and also those I would avoid. It helps me to stop buying something just because it looks appealing on that occasion. When coins appear infrequently, the attractiveness increases just through being there, but this is a temptation you need to avoid. When a coin is illustrated in old catalogues, it gives a good indication of the quality of the coin relative to what was/is available because illustrating coins 100 years ago was an expensive and time consuming operation and so only the rarest or best were accorded this treatment. A list of provenances is compiled at the same time, because a good one never harmed a coin's value (-the database is still not working properly at present after the links were corrupted recently). I basically try to discipline myself to only buy things that should be desirable to others unless they are out and out rare and still fit my collecting criteria.

I've seen easier things to interpret, but I'll go for the following. As there is no initial cross, I'm assuming that it is on the left side of the missing portion. Therefore, diametrically opposite after the cross arm is ON followed by what looks like [LV]NDE (London). This mint is by far the commonest for most issues, so a good punt. I can't make out the moneyer. What looks like S before the cross end I think could be a stop and a comma mark used a fillers because S is not a common letter at the end of a Saxon name. This would mean the name ends in RIC or INC which are both common endings. There could be the cross bar of an N in the picture. If London, the moneyers in North ending RIC or INC listed are Aelfric, Aethelric, Bruninc, Deorinc, Eadric, Godinc, Godric, Leofric, Lifinc, Swetinc and Wulfric. Given the missing portion has to fit into one quarter, a shorter name is likely.

It's a CNUT quatrefoil penny, but I can't make out the moneyer or mint because the image is too fuzzy and partly off picture.

As a collector who believes you can never have too much knowledge or too many books, I would be interested to know the amount of literature retained by members, and why it is or is not held. One recurring feature of the posts on this forum is the number of questions posed by collectors of varying experience who do not appear to have their own sources of easily obtained information. Why not? Is it down to: Excessive cost? Are people unaware of what is available? Do people refuse to buy books as this eats into their coin purchases fund? Do people find it easier to use books or web pages? All input gratefully received. I've got the ball rolling for the above poll, let's see what members of this forum think.

Very sensible. Going down the individual die collecting route would be unwieldy. A back of the fag packet calculation using the 1863 & 1864 etched tonnage figures on pennies gives approximately 134 tons of pennies struck up to the end of 1863. Assuming average weight of 145 grains as per Peck and say 100,000 coins per die pair would imply about 144 die pairs used in the first 4 years of the bronze currency. Depending on teething problems with the new currency, that number could and almost certainly would increase. It's fair to say you could be a while.

Thanks Rob, wonder if it's now available online, Googling beckons David I had a quick look but couldn't see anything. In any case, I would naturally suggest the printed version as you can't have a quick flick through a few hundred pages of online book like you can a physical copy. Check periodically on ebay for a DIY Hocking book kit, even a disintegrated copy would be useful and is unlikely to cost more than few pounds, so wouldn't break the bank.

Hocking ??? David William John Hocking. Assistant Superintendent of the Operative Department, Royal Mint & Fellow of the RNS. Published 2 volumes in 1906 (vol.I Coins & Tokens) and 1910 (vol.II Dies, Medals & Seals) listing the contents of the Royal Mint Museum. This was an update to Webster's work of 1874. A very useful reference which is readily available and can be picked up quite cheaply. A pair in good condition can probably be got for less than £100, or a little worn say £60-80.

For the bronze coinage we know for certain that they had a penny 186 matrix and both 186 and 18 penny punches; 18 halfpenny punches and 187 H farthing matrices because Hocking lists these items - nos. 1512, 1516, 1517-8, 1532 and 1550 respectively. Therefore we can say that one or two digits were added as required. The evidence is there for all to see that this is in fact the case. The seemingly unending search for slight variations in the position of the final digit(s) is the result of this method from a collecting perspective.

Pictures? There's no chance otherwise.

A genuine crown would weigh 30g give or take a little. The weight tends to be remarkably accurate on the early tower crowns. This one has cast written all over it.

Better late than never. The coin appears to be the 4th bust with die number (S3907A). Davies records the 3rd head up to die 12, the 4th up to die 26. Your coin is Davies obverse 6 and shows a slightly more pronounced bump in the hair detail between fillet and nape than does his obverse 7 which is standard from 1880 onwards. Attached is a comparison between the 3rd & 4th heads. The dates from left to right are 1873, 1872 (both Davies obv.5) & 1883 (Davies obv.7) which are unambiguous types. I use the hair detail to check the 1878 & 1879. The 3rd head which is the two on the left have hair that reverses in direction below the fillet. The 4th has groups of parallel lines that are a continous curve. The fillet has bands top and bottom on the 3rd head and the hair detail behind it on the group of strands above the bottom group is more pronounced and in higher relief on the 4th, seen to good effect in the image.

It purports to be a crown with Cooper's obverse E (needless to say a rare one), but the stops by the 1 mark look too bulky as does the first E and this, the L & the Z have indents on the bottom bar which the normal E die doesn't appear to have, though Noble sale 70 lot 1654 had one with an indented base Z. A better picture would help, but I'm going for a copy.

It's Edward III, but the detail (or lack of due to brightness) on the obverse makes it difficult to pin down any further. There are quite a lot of Treaty groat varieties including many mules between types.

Looks good to me.

If the coin is an attractive EF, £45 doesn't sound out of the way.

Certainly worth a premium because they are quite scarce not over 7, but what would really determine the price is the coin in hand. All EFs are not the same. The 1887 issue was so large that presumably there were many serviceable dies come the end of the year and a decision was made to use these first. As a ballpark figure, I'd hazard a guess that maybe 5% or so are straight 8s, but haven't tested that number. I've noted probably a dozen on ebay in the past 5 years, but that is without looking or even checking the Victorian section regularly. They are scarce and easily missed, but that may be due to a lack of knowledge.

I can tell you what you've got if the images are clear enough. The precise identification depends on the finer design details such as the shape of the lettering etc. hence the request for large clear images. There is a 150K size limit on individual pictures, but you can post one side first and then the other in a subsequent reply. Alternatively you can upload the images to a photo hosting site such as photobucket and provide the links. If you take bigger images at higher resolution and trim the waste to leave as much of the frame filled with coin, it would go a long way to sorting the problem.

If you can find one with the W replaced by a C, P or S, then your answer lies near your feet.

Funny how everyone has the rare types. I'd like to see one of those common, normal varieties, but they just don't seem to exist. Unless of course that is, the seller identified the coin as fair and that was the only type listed in that grade.

The pictures are too small to say which variety it is other than it is Edward the something, so post a larger image or alternatively upload the images to photobucket or similar and provide a link. Edward V would be nice, but is wishful thinking. The problem with Edward V is that it has not proved possible to say for certain which groats were struck at the end of Edward IV or during the short tenure of Edward V due to extensive muling of the different obverse and reverse dies. The gold has been sorted but not the silver, and there is no solution in sight. Another request for id which automatically homes in on the rarest possible type in the catalogue!!!

The mint records for 1949 p.3 state that 1949 saw the production of threepences, but some were from dies of other years, so 1950 seems a good cut-off date. cf.Peck p.517

There is no immediate reason to think they might be fakes. They were listed as Staffordshire no.123 in W J Davis' 19th century Token Coinage, first published in 1904 and illustrated on plate D no.9.

I'm looking for a single example of a token in mint state with the denomination noted and payable at a specific location. i.e. one that was actually issued for use by a business rather than the endless mules issued for collectors. This issue would fit the bill perfectly. If you have a mint state one and want to sell, that would only leave 206 to go.

I collect both hammered and milled and appreciate what you are saying and understand the price will be determined in all instances by supply and demand. The problem is the over-generous use of rarity. 1934 crowns are probably the classic example. Always described as rare, 934 struck, most still in existence and peddled through sales on a regular basis. In terms of absolute rarity, they aren't rare at all as many larger sales have one, so even if you don't get one today you should be able to get one in a couple of months at most if you are willing to pay the price which is determined solely by the larger number of collectors compared to pieces available. 1936's appear less often despite numbering nearly 3 times that for 1934. You pay less because there were more struck, but disproportionately less when compared in absolute numbers. We also have to get away from the assumption that rare equals not available within a 5 minute search on the net. If everything was available in an instant, all collections could be formed immediately.

There will be some pieces stashed away that only resurface every 50-100 years, but most collectable pieces are in a situation whereby they tend to be recycled on a more regular basis as collectors die. Most coins with previous references tend to be identifiable within the next 20-30 years at most, so it is possible to get a feel for absolute rarity. It is easier for hammered simply due to the irregularity of flans which aids identification. The point I'm making is that rarity attributions are usually off the cuff statements without reference to any evidence. A quick perusal of the first 10 pages currently going off on ebay gave 24 lots with an indication of rarity - 2 were very scarce (4 x brass 3d scarce dates & a 2008 £2 Olympics); 3 were very rare (1934 & 1936 farthings plus a lot of 15 x £2 coins) and the other 19 were rare, comprising 4 lots of 2011 50ps, 2 small lots of Elizabeth II 1/-s, 1884 farthing, 1806 1/2d, 1934 2/6d, 9x 1988 £1, 1988 £1, 1854 1d, Darwin £2, 1985 50p, 10 x 50p, 2010 50p, 1929 farthing, 1938S 1/- and an 1853/2 1/2d. The latter was based on the fact that there were no dots on the shield and so was rev. A which is noted for 1852 and not 1853, though the image begged to differ. Even though the seller is wrong, this was the only example that showed any attempt at rationalising the claim. None of these could be described as rare, with the least common probably being the 1934 2/6d. Most claims of rarity are spurious and without foundation. You have to do your homework, whether buyer or seller. Rare, particularly in the case of ebay usually means rare for one hour only as another similar rarity will be along in a short while. Genuine rarity or scarcity can only be ascertained after a period of monitoring or research and in most instances will only ever give relative rarity.