Accumulator

As a complete aside, I notice that the forum software automatically capitalises any letter after a number as well as each individual word in the thread title. So "1st & 2nd" becomes "1St & 2Nd" even though it was typed propely! Grrrr….

I see that they've added a 1922 penny F-192A to the auction preview. I wonder if this was the eBay coin from earlier in the year? Their grade is near fine/fine, which I think is conservative for this example. I would say Good Fine, personally.

You can add 1953 to that list.

Surprisingly quiet. Everyone preparing for the days ahead, I guess, but still two working days left! Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to all. Good luck filling those gaps (as long as they're not the same coins I'm chasing )

You're very kind, Danz, though several others on here could put my collection to shame!

There's a problem with that! Countering with my own experiences as a schoolboy collector : the date spacings for e.g. the two types of 1875 penny were striking and obvious to me. On the other hand I never ever found an 1865/3 overdate, and even when I later saw pictures of them, I still couldn't make out the overdate. So it's not really as straightforward as you suggest. Totally agree. Spink, and even 'British Coins Market Values', already list all of these varieties, leaving only the very basic 'Coin Yearbook' to exclude them. In my opinion, any 'serious' guide needs to include all of these major die variations and known overdates (albeit that the overdate cited is almost certainly the least obvious of all). The trouble is, the market for some of the most obscure and trivial varieties is so small that how could you get a realistic value? Especially if one of the collectors has much more money than sense like the person who bought that 1863 'narrow 3' penny. Others - such as the two kinds of 1905 penny, 1937 penny, 1928 halfcrown, and several others - where the two varieties occur in roughly equal quantities, aren't worth listing as each variety would have the same value. It's a minefield. Chris already shows the 1905, 1937, etc with just an asterick (*), explaining that both types generally have equal value. That's a pretty good way of dealing with minor variations on some coins, while still listing thay are differant varieties. These, being die varieties, need to be included or mentioned, in my opinion. A simple asterisk/footnote is perfectly acceptable though. I think the key difference between a price guide and a detailed reference work is that the former doesn't need to actually explain the differences, just list and price them. Regarding pricing, I agree with Peckris that the market for many varieties is simply not large enough to be specific. Again, a note about relative rarity is useful, though. Possibly, in extreme circumstances, where one die variation is of the highest rarity, this could be indicated. I'm glad I don't have the headache of setting all this out in a single volume!

Cheers, Paulus...there's a fair bit in there you'd like I reckon!Just looking through it now! Me too. For example he has a simply gorgeous 1806 penny : priced as a Proof; looks like a Proof; but strangely not described as a Proof. Certainly their prices are reasonable Peck 1350, a Taylor restrike (R97). Common, so wait until one comes along without the lamination flaw in the obverse field. I'd noticed this penny earlier but been put off by the flaw… shame, it's nice otherwise.

2.00 in the morning and a rather succinct answer... A heavy night, Rob?

I'm glad you didn't say beaver! Obviously I made a typo and meant to say something completely different, but it's too late to edit now you've quoted me! I believe you - millions wouldn't! I'll get my coat...

For merde?

I'm glad you didn't say beaver! Obviously I made a typo and meant to say something completely different, but it's too late to edit now you've quoted me!

I'm glad you didn't say beaver!

Snap, David! We're in danger of reaching a consensus.

Again I emphasise that I agree with drawing a line...but it is very difficult to do once you start looking into the subject in depth. I find this topic of discussion very interesting, because as a variety collector, and also with my website I find I am constantly reviewing my understanding of micro varieties and parameters for what I consider worthy of inclusion or exclusion. With the above quote from Rob I find it fascinating that most will accept all four digits being cut individually (such as the narrow date pennies) but challenge a variety that is based on the position of a last digit. Why is it acceptable when all four digits are in a different position, but not when the last one has been cut in a different position. There are several examples through the bronze series where the last two digits were positioned, and I could probably dig out examples where three of the four digits may have differing positions....(1879 farthings come to mind)...is that worthy of inclusion? Please don't think I am being pedantic, but it is important for me to get an understanding of where other collectors think the line should be drawn, and I appreciate such a wide range of views...it makes interesting reading In the case of pennies, the so called 'narrow date versions' of 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1879 are from totally different dies to their normal or wide date counterparts, with other design changes being incorporated too. I don't think these can be considered in the same way as otherwise identical dies, where just the date position is altered. The former are separately listed in Spink and, I believe, should be included in any reasonably detailed price guide. The latter are for specialist publications like Gouby. Edit: I think Rob has just said the same.

I'm sure we'd all appreciate some pictures, if you were able to post these

It sounds like you might have some nice coins there. I'm sure, however you choose to sell, there will be members here interested (I'm always looking for pennies ). Good luck.

I kind of agree with you on many of the micro varieities, but I think the O'NE should be included. It has been in Sprink for a long time, and has a value of 100-1500 pounds! I concur with Vicky. Whilst the collecting of serifs present or not, digit wide or not quite so wide etc has a place in die studies, including these varieties is a very long piece of string. You could probably have a volume the size of Freeman just to list the bronze post-1860 even after cutting out the blurb. I also think that it should be restricted to genuinely intentional design changes or mint corrections as these are deliberate mint actions. Filled stops and the various states of these are nothing more than general wear and tear, which whilst not infinite in number, would rapidly feel so. The O'NE flaw is one such variety and I don't think value should have any bearing on whether it is listed or not. That it is so highly valued is a complete mystery to me, as is the midge's narrower 3 in 1863. IMHO, nothing resulting from die use should be included as a variety. I completely agree about the O'NE (and any other damaged die 'varieties'), but you both seem to be talking at cross purposes about any micro-varieties which aren't due simply to wear or damage. Are you saying that the Gouby X, to take just one example, shouldn't be included Rob? Vicky clearly is.

I completely agree. As well as helping to avoid counterfeits, provenance adds significantly to the history of the piece.

Nice coin Benny! Beautiful coin!

If you ever need a hand to produce a list of the main collected varieties of 20thC pennies, do let us know?

NEF for me too

I seem to have been lucky then! Sent by carrier from the US for free. I know I've spent some money with them over the last year, but not that much!

Has anyone else received the boxed set of Heritage catalogues for the January world (non-US) auctions, including Part 3 of the Eric P Newman collection? These catalogues, about 4 inches thick in total, are worth having for the stunning photos alone. Total estimated value must run into many many many millions of dollars. Unbelievable selection of, mainly, gold coins including a large number of British examples.

Just ordered mine. Thanks Chris!

You're right Nick, I was rather fortunate, especially as the survival of early parish records in many areas is perhaps only 50%. There are, of course, many other records, manorial rolls, hearth tax returns etc, etc. but linking these to specific ancestors is often very difficult indeed. It did help that I stuck to researching only the male line (i.e. followed my surname) rather than branching off down any maternal lines. One big tip is not to rely on indexes, but to check original records wherever possible. It's amazing what contemporary pencil notes and anecdotes you can find in the margins or parish registers that help to add context to the bare facts.