Rob

I think the only area in which you need play the waiting game is bullion value or close to items. Top grade pieces will always command a premium to bullion and rightly so with the exception of modern isues which are rarely encountered in worn condition and generally found only as collectables of bullion value in the secondary market. The intrinsic value of silver coins is not a primary consideration for anything vaguely collectable. The current fashion for snapping up the low grade silver is entirely driven by bullion values which attracts far more people than there are collectors. From the collecting point of view, individual denominations are varyingly popular at any point in time. Historically, the most popular pieces were the largest - probably driven by the ability of people to easily identify what they were holding. Conversely smaller coins suffer a greater likelihood of being passed over as a casual glance will probably not lead to the mental recognition of the item. So hammered farthings will not be as popular as milled ones for example which retain a sentimental attraction. However, outside of bullion, the majority of prices are driven by collector pressure being as they are well in excess of the scrap price. Whilst I haven't plotted out a value/time graph for individual denominations, their values relative to each other have broadly stayed in the same ratios over quite a long period of time. Any divergence from this relationship tends to be the result of collector pressure to acquire what is perceived to be a real rarity, be it the huge prices currently seen for minor varieties or the premiums paid for specific types in the inter war years. In the case of the former they are probably rare because nobody apart from a few individuals really cares about the actual variety detail, but greed dictates that everybody wants to find one to sell and so they will be found in the fullness of time. In the case of the latter, communications were considerably more difficult and so the awareness of relative numbers was the driving force. A crown with only 3 or 4 known examples might have sold for £20-30 in the inter-war years relative to a common issue selling for £2-3 each. Now however that price differential has been largely eradicated because we now know there are several times the number of pieces extant than was thought at the time. You do get fluctuations between denominations which I would suggest are driven by new collectors entering the market and looking for something cheap to collect at the bottom end value-wise whilst being aesthetically attractive enough for the collector to want to look at them. The top end is driven as always by a relatively few individuals with deep pockets. Most of these are successful in business being driven by personal ambition - a trait which in all probability will carry over into their collecting habits with the desire to acquire a better collection than the competition. With the accumulation of large amounts of data over time, there is also a better appreciation of what is genuinely rare and what is not. This is a moving attribute and always open to the possibility of having to be revised as a result of hoard finds. Today we have information that our predecessors could only have dreamed of, but we all have to bear in mind that we too do not have the definitive answers to the various factors that shape demand and hence prices. As with any asset category, bubbles will always exist at some point in time. Prices fell off a cliff in the early '80s for example following what was probably the biggest bull run in numismatic history in the 1970's when the government was failing to balance its books, giving in to inflationary wage demands, living beyond their means...... Sounds familiar?

I think it's called a 'tile nibbler'. Get it for a couple of quid or so from any tile shop, B & Q etc. No, it's not a tile nibbler. You need a sharp pair of edges on the jaws to get through the plastic. It's a heavy duty cross cutter.

It looks like clashed dies to me which happens when the two dies come together without a blank between them, so leaving an impression of either the obverse on the reverse die or vice-versa depending on which die was the harder of the two.

Says Rob quickly hiding the hammer and chisel! Personally, I prefer a hacksaw around the seal... less splintery bits! No hammer and chisel for me - this is the tool of choice. It nibbles away the seal around the edge. The only one it has difficulty with is the early fat NGC holder. CGS come apart like a dream, followed by PCGS, then NGC in order of ease.

The 8 is cut over a 7 either because the 7 is a mistake, or in the case of successive years as here, usually because the die was not worn out at the date changeover and so used on the grounds of economics. Additionally, sometimes the underlying year had dies produced but not used. Rather than throw the dies away they were cut with the new date or initial mark to ensure they were compliant with other dies and put to use. Hi so are there two of that type (1888 1888/7) ? and if so how do i tell the difference . thanks You've chosen a funny one there, because all 1888 shillings are actually 1888/7. If you have an 1888 shilling, get yourself a cheap 30x jewellers loupe, and have a close look under good light. That'll show you what you're looking for - a clear overdate, if the grade is high enough. Not all 1888s are over 7. The straight 1888 is considerably scarcer, but does exist and is not rare as such. If I can dig both of them out I'll post a comparison as the 8/7 is quite obvious, consequently the straight 8 is equally obvious in the hand.

The 8 is cut over a 7 either because the 7 is a mistake, or in the case of successive years as here, usually because the die was not worn out at the date changeover and so used on the grounds of economics. Additionally, sometimes the underlying year had dies produced but not used. Rather than throw the dies away they were cut with the new date or initial mark to ensure they were compliant with other dies and put to use.

None of the copper coins in slabs bought for myself have come out in spots. The slabs have a problem though - they tend to crack and split and come apart into a few pieces.

Davies is British Silver Coins since 1816 by P J Davies. It goes into more detail on die differences than ESC (English Silver Coinage since 1649) which only has the most obvious varieties, but covers a shorter period. Your interests are labelled as shillings, pennies and halfpennies, but the books most suited to you will depend on the dates covered and so only some of the books mentioned will be of use. For pennies and halfpennies then the bible is Peck which covers 1558-1963 in the second edition (1964). Slightly more specialisation is found in Freeman's The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain (2nd.ed 1985 or 2006 reprint). Pennies are studied in depth in Michael Gouby's The British Bronze Penny 1860-1970. Hammered halfpennies are covered by Paul & Bente Withers excellent 5 volumes of Small Change covering Edward I-Commonwealth. Dave Groom has produced a book on the "Identification of English 20th century Silver Coin varieties" and another on the bronze, but this covers only post 1900. Generally speaking, the greater the detail, the shorter the period covered. This list is not exhaustive. All of these books have something to offer, and so it really depends on your chosen area. This was recently discussed in the Oooh err, hmmm section link

The date spacing on any coin prior to 1879 is due to the fact that the dies were finished with the addition of the last two digits by hand. The footnote on p.135 of ESC refers. If you look through past sales you will find that pennies and other denominations exist with only partial dates such as a copper 18 penny, or the 181 half crown. True wide or narrow dates are uniformly spaced so. Thanks Rob so its just a normal.Sorry new to all this some members seem a bit sharp Thanks again In my opinion, undue attention is paid to the position of the last digit or two of the date given we know they were hand made. It's ok as part of a die study for a series as it is one of the few ways to readily identify different dies, but for the average or new collector this is not really relevant. To go back to the previous point, here are a couple of images from another thread. 1862 halfpennies with different end spacing and Wide and narrow date 1876H halfpennies. The first is a random result and although technically a variety, it arose by pure chance. The second is a design feature as the dates on both are equally but differently spaced, and most importantly of all consistently so between nominally identical dies.

The date spacing on any coin prior to 1879 is due to the fact that the dies were finished with the addition of the last two digits by hand. The footnote on p.135 of ESC refers. If you look through past sales you will find that pennies and other denominations exist with only partial dates such as a copper 18 penny, or the 181 half crown. True wide or narrow dates are uniformly spaced so.

ESC 1338E yes that is right not no line .shorter or longer line thanks .going down right track now No problem, my thought processes were malfunctioning too - I hadn't considered faulty question as an option.

Well done. Living proof that if you want to obtain a rarity, best is to publicise an example of something unrecorded in any literature and suddenly the whole world has one too. 2 dies as a minimum means there will be more out there somewhere.

What is the reference for the no line shilling? Spink doesn't list one. Davies lists 3 varieties - cross to bead, cross to space and SHILLING more spaced. No mention of what would be a blindingly obvious missing line below SHILLING though. ESC lists a shorter line which is the same visual effect as a more spaced SHILLING. Coincraft hedges its bets and in footnote 10 says lettering and line length varies. I've never seen or heard of one. The immediate reaction would be that no line below shilling is most likely due to a blocked die or it has been physically removed.

Don't worry Michael, it's not that bad, just that opinion is quite divided on this forum just as with most collectors on the issue of slabs. Americans (the idea originated in the US), are great exponents of the slab, but even there you find a division between the adherents and the heretics. For most it boils down to registry sets, where various collectors are vying for the highest average grade score for the series - hence the desire by some for ever bigger numbers on the slab. This should not be confused with eye appeal as a more attractive coin may well grade lower. Good to know there are young collectors out there. First reaction to the fact that he is 9 is that a top grade copper coin is probably safer in a slab than in the hands of a 9 year old because it is all too easy to put finger or thumbprints on full lustre coins and there is no way to get rid of them. The issue of protection is the main benefit of them in most eyes around here. At least he has started with a nice easy series to collect with no real rarities in the currency pieces and they are cheap to acquire, so upgrading whether in a slab or not wouldn't be prohibitively expensive.

Just looked at the finest known section and there isn't a 1938 farthing listed, so God knows if they've actually graded any yet - but if not, I've no intention of being the guinea pig who throws a lot of 1938 farthings at them in the hope of getting back an 88 or a 90. I would suggest that those who desire a slabbed 1938 buy the raw coins and pay for the likely stream of submissions with inadequate grades. Losses should be possible to minimise as it isn't rocket science to grade a coin in most instances, which begs the question why we need to get grading company approval in the first place?

Point taken, but you might have a problem finding people willing to submit coins for slabbing - particularly low value pieces. It's the wrong mindset for most on this forum. Not unreasonably, most take the view of why pay someone for an opinion when they themselves are perfectly capable of assessing a coin's grade. And if you do send it off to CGS in the hope they will slab it with the right number for you and it comes back at less than you are looking for, then they have wasted money. Multiple submissions of cheap coins hoping you will get one back with a high grade label is gambling with the odds stacked quite heavily against you. That's silly. You can get away with recouping costs for lower numbers on more valuable coins, but nobody is going to submit a coin worth a tenner in the hope that it comes back with the right label. In all probability it will still be worth a tenner, even though it has cost you £20 or 30 to get "official approval".

Should get a healthy premium for the latter - much, much rarer than the slabs.

The US reference Krause states that up to 1981 all coins were struck with an inverted die axis, which is presumably what you mean with your question. The 1943 1SFr is therefore correct. In 1982 there was a changeover to medal alignment and so the 2SFr coin may or may not be anomalous depending on the date - which you haven't provided.

He certainly doesn't like full stops, does he. It's the "sorry for the grammer it should read a little batterd" that gets me. It's always funny to see anything corrected with yet another misprunt (sic).

It's the bit at the end I find funny. link That's an apology for an apology

Master broke? Punch used on the earlier coins unserviceable? Who knows? You could ask the RM why the change was made as if anyone is going to answer the question it has to be the people who made it.

You might have to wait a bit more than 5 years for a Cromwell if it means you aren't going to buy your regulation 2 coins a year. It books in this year's Spink at £3750 EF. Mint state you would be looking to pay at least £6-7K with stiff competition for it to that level. It could even go higher with the right eye appeal.

Well, presumably he was responsible for the condition of the coin as his id proudly states. What is more worrying is that it has 4 bids already. Still under melt price though Rob (which is where I suspect it is heading). Hopefully that will be its final destination - for the benefit of all.

Well, presumably he was responsible for the condition of the coin as his id proudly states. What is more worrying is that it has 4 bids already.

It isn't a mule because the obverse changed in this year. A mule occurs when 2 dies that were not intended to be used together are in fact utilised eg. the 20p with no date, or the 1711 3rd bust shilling. In the case of the latter, the 4th bust was introduced on Anne's shillings in 1710 and so the use of the preceding obverse die in 1711 would not be expected. I have no idea what you two are talking about. I've just checked Check Your Change and Chris only lists a single type. There was an obverse change in 1985, and again in 1998. There was not, to my knowledge, in 1992! Dave Groom's book p.210-211 refers.