Peckris

I knew of Colin's site, of course, and of his enthusiasm. What I didn't know was that he was systematically "doing a Freeman" ("doing a Gouby"? that sounds vaguely rude, somehow ). I thought it was ad hoc and unofficial. It was adhoc and unofficial...at first...but I always had a vision of moving things into something a bit more formal but I really didn't feel I understood varieties enough at that point in time to produce something that I could be satisfied with. I have since re-assessed my ideas/visions and finally decided it was time to make the next big step forward. I have completely reviewed my entire catalogue and way of thinking/cataloguing etc. I have in essence started from scratch because it has meant renumbering my collection and database as well as webpages etc. This is the main reason progress on the website had stalled. It is still very much a work in progress, but I am more satisfied with where I am and feel that I am finally achieving something that will be worthwhile. Watch this space Cool. Good luck with the project. Of course, you do know another famous Colin was working on the farthings section of a planned update/replacement for Peck before his untimely demise? It's somehow appropriate that a Colin should be the one who steps into his shoes!

I did an Antonioni on the Enlarged close up, and thought I saw the ghost of the H. So I've outlined it in Photoshop.

That particular coin is surprisingly common in all grades up to and including AUNC. It's very elusive in BU. Whether or not it's £75-elusive (or whatever it shows as now) is perhaps a different matter. 1959 halfcrown, anyone?

I knew of Colin's site, of course, and of his enthusiasm. What I didn't know was that he was systematically "doing a Freeman" ("doing a Gouby"? that sounds vaguely rude, somehow ). I thought it was ad hoc and unofficial.

I shudder to think how many laws they could be breaking there!

Do you think that's a result of less study, Peck, or genuinely less variation? People do like their pennies... I think it is probably more to do with fewer varieties - farthings had a lower priority anyway, but the smallness of the design meant it was a better balanced strike anyway (look at how many survive in really decent grades). A similar case could be made for halfpennies, and Freeman covered them pretty comprehensively. On the other hand, if you want to do the study ... Farthings are being processed. You're doing the study Peter? How many previously undiscovered varieties are coming to light? (That's another reason I didn't mention - farthings are so small that study of them is a pain!)

Not just on the bay Declan. I had bought 2 cracking Lima Halfcrowns from an auction house (that will remain nameless) for £240 on a £180-£220 estimate. They were photographed side by side with an obv and reverse showing and graded as "high grade". They looked to be very nice coins so I was a happy bunny. Imagine my bubble bursting when the best of the 2 was flipped over in my hand to reveal 2 very large engraved initials in the field, worse still, the other one had 2 lumps of solder....BUGGER! Coins sent back and pennies returned to my account. Needless to say said auction house (where I had spent over £10k that year alone) has not had business from me again. You would have thought - where they had had good business from you - that a quiet warning about those coins would have gone out to you when they got your bid. Almost as if they didn't WANT your business.

Do you think that's a result of less study, Peck, or genuinely less variation? People do like their pennies... I think it is probably more to do with fewer varieties - farthings had a lower priority anyway, but the smallness of the design meant it was a better balanced strike anyway (look at how many survive in really decent grades). A similar case could be made for halfpennies, and Freeman covered them pretty comprehensively. On the other hand, if you want to do the study ...

You probably get a more realistic valuation declan - between the overhype of Spink and the dismal undervaluation of Market Values. On the other hand, using Spink would pay dividends if having to make an insurance claim

Cockinese? Cockernees? It's so long since I saw that classic Spike Milligan sketch, I can't remember HOW the "tribe name" was spelled, that's if we ever knew!

I use a big old bloated Excel workbook, ridiculously overcomplicated and held together with bits of string, rubber bands, and VBA. Keeping it pruned is a constant task, hence the loss of various bits of functionality over the years. One of which was the treatment of grades below Fine. On the grading scale I came up with when I started (years before CGS!), half of the numeric grades were below fine, because most of the coins I had at the time were. By condensing all that into one grade, Fair, that particular prune had the effect of reducing the number crunching by half, and eliminated such nonsense as "what would I pay for a 1967 halfpenny in VG+?". Which was being automatically calculated, along with 1500 other coins in 10 different low grades! Inbetween grades above Fine took me a while to get right, because I found that each coin has an individual gradient. Big silver, for instance, is nearly linear, as bullion value holds the lower grades artificially high, but bronze tends to follow a classic exponential curve. The solution I came up with involves taking an average of 4 price sources, calculating the gradient of the average, and plotting a trend line between the known points. As well as all that, I had to come up with a method for dealing with the more esoteric varieties that my 4 price sources don't list. Davies and Freeman both include pricing (albeit out of date) for their varieties, so I use those to factor up the prices given for the common types. Example: 1929 Halfcrown. None of the 4 price guides I use recognise the 2 Davies varieties, so I have to assume the prices they give are for the commoner D.1704, listed as worth £11 in Mint State by Davies (1982). He gives £14 for D.1705, so I can safely multiply recent book prices by (14/11) for D.1705. Make sense? Sort of! Here are my visible notes as seen on one of my database layouts, giving an idea of what's going on in the background (what's going on i.t.b. is the actual calculation as coded by me!): Make sense?

Can I just ask, as I have never browsed Gouby or Freeman, but do these books add anything more to Peck? If I was wanting to collect Victoria pennies, for example, would I be finding a great deal more to collect, many more variants listed, if I had Gouby or Freeman on the shelf? My God, the mentality of collectomania, the insanity of wanting to know the existence of ever micro-detail...and then seeking it out! Peck only goes into bronze varieties in a limited way - basically those that were known about in the 1950s/60s. And only those he regards as significant - which excludes broken dies, repunched dates, etc. Freeman is far more comprehensive, and Gouby adds the icing to Freeman's cake. Just plucking figures out of the air - Peck has maybe 66%? known bronze varieties. Freeman has over 95%. Gouby has all the currently known ones. However, Gouby only covers pennies. This is not a disaster - there are many fewer varieties occurring in halfpennies and even fewer in farthings, so Freeman's coverage is that much more comprehensive.

It may be just the photograph but when you get them check if they have been lacquered, and return them if they have. Otherwise they look a reasonable purchase.

And the reverse. That's a sixpence right? (The shilling has the same design). That one is a real beaut, especially the obverse. Wonderful tone and fields. Yes, it's fairly common, but you don't often see them in that condition. (Not sure what you mean by 'Radio Rental' Geo III ? It pushes all the right buttons? It cost as much as a month's TV hire? It gets a great reception if held the right way? It came in an envelope marked BAIRD? You're paying by monthly instalments? Spill...) Very funny Mate. Good try. Mental! Remember the madness of King George? Political correctness and all that, People in my neck of the woods will often say 'he's gone radio'. Glad you like the coin but it's a shilling. I promise it is faultless even though I have maximised the mirror effect.Wanna see my 1816 sixpence? No bother. Green and purple toning. Beautiful. Cheers, Alex. (unc) Ah, the Cockinese tribe, yes? I would have spotted it was a shilling if I had actually bothered to read the sub-title of the thread. Both very nice coins though.

Ah, but one of my 4 methods of getting a value (based on Spink) involves inputting a manual value for just such contingencies It does depend on having input all Spink values for every coin in my collection, which sadly is a part I would love to automate if only I could.

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage. I'm afraid you will have to stand corrected, sort of. The terms of the recoinage concerning pierced pieces reads as follows. Ruding R., Annals of the Coinage (1840), vol.2 p.44. "And in regard that such coins of the realm, formerly made with the hammer, and not by the mill and press, and which at that time remained whole and unclipped, would still be most liable and subject to the pernicious crime of clipping and rounding by wickedpersons, who regarded their own unjust lucre more than the preservation of their native country: for the better prevention thereof it was further enacted, thet every person having such unclipped hammered monies in his possession, should, before the 10th day of February 1695, or before he disposed of the same, cause them to be struck through, about the middle of every piece, with a solid punch that should make a hole without diminishing the silver; and that after the said 10th day of February no unclipped hammered monies, that is, as it is explained in the act, such pieces as had both rings or the greatest part of the letters appearing thereon, should be current, unless they were so struck through; and if any piece struck through should appear afterwards to be clipped, no person should tender or receive the same in payment, under the penalty of forfeiting as much of the clipped monies so punched through should amount to in tale, to be recovered to the use of the poor of the parish where such money should be so tendered or received. Hope this helps. I think so - that's some quote (why use one word when 70 would do! )

You too? I have some calculations based on "in-between" grades that took me forever to code! That's using scripting in FileMaker - what are you using? I tend to agree. Apart from a few rarities I had to have (the aforementioned 1905 halfcrown!), a worn coin is a worn coin and its rarity doesn't make it look any better or more special to my eyes (usually...)

Yes, all hammered coin was called in during the Great Recoinage, but I very much doubt (willing to be corrected though) that it was 'demonetised' by piercing. I would have thought that what was called in would have been melted down for the silver, to offset the massive cost of the Recoinage.

And the reverse. That's a sixpence right? (The shilling has the same design). That one is a real beaut, especially the obverse. Wonderful tone and fields. Yes, it's fairly common, but you don't often see them in that condition. (Not sure what you mean by 'Radio Rental' Geo III ? It pushes all the right buttons? It cost as much as a month's TV hire? It gets a great reception if held the right way? It came in an envelope marked BAIRD? You're paying by monthly instalments? Spill...)

You may be right about that, but it is actually perfectly placed for a charm bracelet or similar.

A tad overrated, pricewise. But like the 1934 crown, it has accrued its own mythic status over the years. I'm sure you're right, Peck, but a gap's a gap, and it MUST be filled! I understand (applies soothing compress to Declan's fevered brow). The problem is, which grade to go for? The top grades are truly rare and probably realistically priced granted a 10% - 15% "mythic" addition. The lower grades up to Fine are affordable but horrendously overpriced in relation to their rarity. If you could afford a GF or AVF that might be the best way forward? (My own example is only AF, or GVG if you're being über strict. However it cost me less than a ton so I'm content enough.)

Decide first what area(s) you want to collect in, as a complete library of those books would be expensive for you. If general UK bronze, then go for the Freeman book. If pennies, go for Gouby (or Freeman, though Gouby is more recent and has a few extra varieties in). If 20th Century, go for either or both of Dave Groom's books. If silver after 1816, go for Davies. And our own Chris Perkins' Collectors Coins GB (CCGB) is a price guide from 1797 which covers most of the smaller varieties (and it's cheap!) Forget Peck - it's a standard work, and very very comprehensive, but unless you are collecting early milled or 18th / early 19th Century patterns and proofs (Peck is peerless on the output of the Soho Mint for example), then other books give coverage just as good and a lot cheaper too. There is also the English Silver Coinage (ESC) but that is best for coverage of early milled; later coin issues are now superseded by both Davies and Groom.

Worked ok for me - it's an ABC News report of American detectorists waving their squeaking sticks over English fields. (You didn't miss much, unlike them).

A tad overrated, pricewise. But like the 1934 crown, it has accrued its own mythic status over the years.

It is straightforward. All you see is the outline with no internal detail, as the junction between field and design where the angle of incidence changes is responsible for the damage together with the field. The field, which is the higher feature on a die will therefore depress the metal on the softer die where there was physical contact, while not touching the die where the incuse design is. This results in a new raised (incuse on the damaged die) design feature equal to the parts of the impressing die's field. The damage will of course be effected on the softer of the two dies, which could be either one depending on the degree of hardening achieved for each die during manufacture. Dies produced under nominally the same conditions will still have subtle differences in their physical properties arising from localised inhomogeneity in the metal mix, temperature differences within the oven during hardening and by extension an effective difference in conditioning time at a specific temperature. One variation will be hardness. Ah, that makes more sense now - thanks for the explanation Rob.