Rob

Why do I always find myself being a contrarian? For years I collected halfpennies because they weren't fashionable, although the shillings were more popular. There's me getting fed up with the serried ranks of date runs that all looked the same, so now I specifically look for something to differentiate one coin from the next. Monarch, metal, denomination, mintmark, mint location, designer, error, metal provenance and design feature all provide the opportunity for diversity and has the benefit of something unfashionable always being available. I still can't wean myself off the halfpennies entirely though - some of my patterns are too attractive.

While we're on the subject, I think splitting coins into monarchs rather than denominations is bizarre as that just isn't the way most people collect e.g. I collect pennies not King Edward VII coins in general. I know it would muck up their numbering system but as things stand it is a right pain to look things up bearing in mind most other publications and/or websites go by denomination. Or is it my republican tendencies coming through? The latter. Whilst many people, myself included, collect denominations at some point, the problem of same-ness raises its head. Long term collectors will frequently migrate to a sideways expansion of their earlier habits and this provides diversity within the collection. Historically collections were very diverse, with the first specialist denomination collection probably being the T W Barron sale in 1906 which was crowns. I think narrow collecting interests are a modern phenomenon based on relative cost of the collectable item when compared with past eras.

I don't think splitting the references into pre and post decimalisation would be very sensible from a publication point of view. The current book weighs in excess of 1kg which is a significant price band with Royal Mail, but splitting it in half would bring it back to say 6-700g including hardback covers. I do think that a division in 1662 would be very beneficial by now. It is very close to half way as things stand and would give the opportunity to include more varieties in both halves. Coupled with the fact that many collectors specialise in either hammered or milled, and if they do cross the boundary an extra book costing say £20 would pale into insignificance compared to the cost of pre 1662 milled coinage and would result in few lost sales in my opinion. In all probability it would result in a significant uplift in sales for Spink because most people who currently buy one would buy both if necessary. Crucially, it is a handbook and needs to be comfortably portable. The weight is now becoming an issue.

It's already known. Chingford already has one, and Michael Gouby had another a while ago.

I have found them to be extremely helpful when they have the information...... Lucky you. I've got 3 outstanding requests from the past 18 months still unanswered. On the plus side, they did at least acknowledge the query even if I haven't had an answer, unlike a few other museums who didn't even bother to do that.

Peanuts. The first has COPY on the obverse which is a bit of a giveaway. The second has little pits all over the surface which is indicative of a cast and it also has COPY inside the inner circle on the reverse at 4 o'clock.

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.