Colin G.

No, it isn't. A quick look at the population report shows the occasional 90 or 91 for a non-proof. Oops I just realised I posted that 88 was what I thought was the highest for a currency strike, and then realised I have a currency farthing that was slabbed at 90 Out of the bundle I acquired a couple of years ago, I did submit a few that I had cherry picked as a bit of an exercise, and whilst the majority did grade at 82 or 85, I did manage an 88 and one 90. I suppose for the proofs, it is a bit tough, because I would anticipate it would be much easier for a proof to drop points than it would for a currency coin, so do you have a separate scale for proofs, or accept that a low scoring proof is potentially still going to be better in terms of detail etc that its currency counterpart at the same score. I don't have the answer just wanted to make an observation

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ... What's more, their top 4 numbers all equate to Sheldon 70 - would the Americans accept their absolute pinnacle can be further subdivided by 4? And strictly, should only be applied to proofs. The highest grade for a non-proof is BU or UNC. Which would prompt me to ask whether CGS 88 is the highest achievable grade for a non-proof! I believe it is, but don't quote me on that

Chris, I have sent you a bundle of farthing images through, feel free to use them if they are suitable

Can't beat an early cuppa, Happy Christmas to you all!!!

I would guess it may be taken from a specimen (Brilliant Uncirculated set).

I'm glad you didn't say beaver!

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. Thanks for the clarification, that's the trouble when you are housed in a farthing bubble

VS I agree wholeheartedly, a price guide should just be that, and then specialist publications should break the subject down into the deeper layers (as Rob described it).

It certainly has a ring to it

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

There are two possibilities for the 8 over 8, one of which is to prolong the life of the die after blockage or the second is crap engraving skills, but I would have difficulty deciding which is which. The overdate on the other hand is a clear decision to reuse an existing die. And if it is done to prolong the life of a die, why is that any different to the decision to re-use an existing die. The process and also the reasoning behind the process would be exactly the same, however the overdate will inevitably always be more collectable because of its visual distinction.

I agree with Rob in terms of a standard price guide, which should just give an details on intentional design changes, but would also exclude overdates from that list. If you are willing to accept an 8/7 because it is re-use of a die, then you should also accept an 8 recut with an 8 because in terms of the process it is no different. Why would one be more acceptable than the other? I think as long as any publication clarifies what are its defining parameters then there should not really be an issue.

Very nice

I tend to look at it from a different perspective...if I choose to buy a coin that is going in my collection, I do not see any harm with trying to allocate a provenance to it, and think that as forgery is becoming a more prevalent issue and undoubtedly will only get worse, having a provenance that can show that this particular example was included in a sale prior to that point can only be a good thing. When determining scarcity of a coin, tying up provenances also enables you to get a more representative idea of the numbers of a type in existence, whilst this is only really of benefit for rarer coins/varieties, it certainly can provide vital information. Finally when I have discovered that a coin I own does have a provenance, it does add something to the coin for me, I could not put my finger on exactly what that something is, but to know that a fellow collector coveted this coin, and chose it as the example they wanted in their collection does add something. I would not pay above the odds for a coin with provenance, but it is a factor that would certainly come into play if I was looking at two similarly graded examples at a similar price...not that this scenario is likely to happen very often .

I have downloaded the ePub version and it works perfectly on liberty reader (windows 8 app). I have then also opened it on my iPhone using a reader app called readmill had to tweak the font size slightly but is working great.

Stuart it does not take too long before you get back to a tree with many branches. The odds are then stacked in your favour that you will find something out of the ordinary. It is also quite bizarre how some branches can be easily traced and others are a complete nightmare. I am still chasing a John Smith from Chester le Street and as you can imagine it is a bit of a nightmare, but I am getting there!! Nick I can understand and agree with the principles behind your statement, but would agree with SM that really it is for the directly involved parties to determine how and when that information is divulged.

Doh...I only just got that one... Do share the joke! I was being quite serious. I've stopped using my mother's maiden name on most sites ever since my sister started doing genealogy on ancestry.com and posting family details that anyone who had quite basic details could research. I thought you were joking about the fact that if you were using your mothers maiden name on a genealogy site that it may not be the best security question...I should read more thoroughly However you have reminded of another issue, just because you may be happy for your tree and the information within to go public, do not assume that all family members will feel the same. Family history can be an emotive subject and it highly possible that you may stumble across information that needs handling with discretion. Invite family members to it by all means but I would never publicise my tree.

I think Ancestry has improved over the last couple of years, especially now you can submit corrections to the data, because as you can imagine spelling at the time was not great and then combien that with a computer reading text and you have a recipe for lots of disasters. However I would agree that the Free BMD is also a useful tool. They are all much the same but the way the search facilities operate mean that you may not find a record on one but then stumble across it on another because of the way the search tools operate. https://familysearch.org/ is another good free one and bizarrely they have plenty of the parish church records on microfiche and will e-mail you scans of the actual register entry if it is one they have a copy of. It takes a while to get a response but as a free service it is great...and you soon realise that with family trees it is a time consuming process so there is no rush. Most of your work can be done on Family Tree maker, so I usually just end up having a one month subscription every 6 months and do all my downloading in one go. Genealogy is one of those things that I have found I pick up and put down so a 12 month subscription would not be much use to me.

Doh...I only just got that one...

I agree Family Tree maker is very good and if you buy a copy you will get 6 months free on the Ancestry.co.uk website to search all the records. A great combination and there is some really useful information on there. My advice is that you will encounter many trees that will slot in to your tree as branches come together..take them on face value...a majority are inaccurate. Always check and double check everything. Certificates can also give you some great information..but they are about £9 a copy now so it does not take long for it to start adding up, but they are often the only way to tie things together.

It is quite difficult to put into words, however I find that the bronzed examples normally have a quite even chocolate tone to them, and often look "too consistent" in tone, whereas the copper examples can vary in tone quite like currency examples can.

I am watching but last time the online bidding was way behind..bidding was almost impossible

I am also not an error man unless I can not refuse the bargain......well it is definitely not an 1831, so must be 1834-1837

The logic behind it was the smallest bird for the smallest denomination..perhaps it was a lot to do with the wren being a very common small bird widely known by the population whereas the other two are less well known. Alternatively a baby wren is smaller than a goldcrest or firecrest