ESC 6th EDITION

[Rob]

Now that the new version has made its appearance, what do people think of it?

For those that haven't seen it yet the format has been changed. It is now sorted by reign rather than denomination and much better illustrated than the last edition. It has also been completely renumbered which means that most people will buy it if they want to be able to reference auction lots.

A lot of patterns have been included that weren't in previous editions, but as is probably to be expected, it is a bit of a curate's egg. For all the patterns that have been listed, including off metal strikes, there are a large number that haven't. There is no breakdown to the levels seen in say Davies or Groom, yet it is still deemed worthwhile including a re-entered N for the 1653 halfcrown or an unbarred H in HONI for the 1817 shilling for example. Only the previously noted legend errors where the wrong letter was corrected are listed, and it appears that very few previously unlisted error corrections have been added. A useful addition is the inclusion of recorded die numbers by date for the Victorian silver.

A weight of 1.35kg and a thickness of one and three quarter inches makes it a bit heavy/bulky to cart around a coin fair, so assuming it is going to stay at home it might have been preferable to include all the various varieties referenced in multiple volumes which are still missing.

I think that although a revision of ESC was long overdue, for the variety collector the other detailed references are just as necessary as they were before.

[Paulus]

Have they made it available as an e-Book do you know (e.g. a Kindle edition)? I can't find much about it on Amazon, except that it is out of stock ...

Edited September 16, 2015 by Paulus

[Rob]

No idea, I bought mine at the Midland last weekend.

[azda]

I saw this a month or so back, they also have a new Scottish, Ireland and the Islands edition. I'll be getting both in due course

[VickySilver]

I don't think it ever was "in stock" at Amazon or other venues to date...I still will get it and liked the previous even though it was missing a lot and was by denomination.

Rob, did they have good pictures of things like Victoria obverse and reverse types in the threepence series??

[argentumandcoins]

I don't think it ever was "in stock" at Amazon or other venues to date...I still will get it and liked the previous even though it was missing a lot and was by denomination.

Rob, did they have good pictures of things like Victoria obverse and reverse types in the threepence series??

As it is a Spink book I doubt the pictures will be up to much! Their latest auction catalogue is an absolute disgrace with coins incorrectly described, incorrectly identified and lotted up as if a 2 year old with a bag of crayons was responsible!

[azda]

I don't think it ever was "in stock" at Amazon or other venues to date...I still will get it and liked the previous even though it was missing a lot and was by denomination.

Rob, did they have good pictures of things like Victoria obverse and reverse types in the threepence series??

As it is a Spink book I doubt the pictures will be up to much! Their latest auction catalogue is an absolute disgrace with coins incorrectly described, incorrectly identified and lotted up as if a 2 year old with a bag of crayons was responsible!

Good too see you back and in top form John, unlike your football team, howay the lads

[VickySilver]

Yes, and hated their pics in the Yearly book - very confusing and I think there are mistakes, possibly more than would be warranted.

[Rob]

I think the pictures could be better. There is nothing better than a hi res photograph for showing the important detail, but as the images are life sized it isn't that good for the small pieces IMO. Some features are blown up howwever, so all is not lost.

[argentumandcoins]

Dave, football (like politics) should be left off a coin forum as Chris may give me a red card for my language if I start to vent my spleen about the absolute FROMAGE disgraceful shower of FLAMIN' sugar at The Toon...................

Edited September 29, 2015 by Chris Perkins
This post has been edited for bad language ;)

[Paulus]

Dave, football (like politics) should be left off a coin forum as Chris may give me a red card for my language if I start to vent my spleen about the absolute F*****G disgraceful shower of F*****N sh**e at The Toon...................

Very good to have you back posting John

1st target must be to finish above that absolute shower that are the Mackems! You need to change your manager (again), he is completely useless. Half expecting him to do an interview in a rubbish Geordie accent any time soon.

Back to coins, sorry!

[azda]

Dave, football (like politics) should be left off a coin forum as Chris may give me a red card for my language if I start to vent my spleen about the absolute F*****G disgraceful shower of F*****N sh**e at The Toon...................

welcome back old bean

[Mr T]

Didn't even realise there was a new edition - still, ordering by denomination and renumbering both sound like good ideas.

[Paulus]

Didn't even realise there was a new edition - still, ordering by denomination and renumbering both sound like good ideas.

It is now sorted by reign rather than denomination

[Mr T]

It is now sorted by reign rather than denomination

Sorry, that's what I meant.

Anyway, it's certainly good that numbers like 1475PP are a thing of the past.

[Rob]

Any numbering system is ok as long as it puts the reader in the right ballpark when opening the book to search for an entry. No system can ever hope to be perfect as different collectors' requirements vary, with the denomination collector and the reign/period collector probably chosing the status-quo and revamp respectively.

Any delusion that references such as 1475PP are a thing of the past will be exposed. The first issue of ESC was in 1949, the 5th in 1992. Unless we stop finding new varieties and striking new issues, I'm afraid the whole thing will start all over again. The original system soldiered on for 66 years, but the non-standard numbering started the moment the book went to print for the first time.

[pokal02]

Liked the provenances at the back - we can now know where e.g. the 1674 crown has appeared. Thought they'd tinker with the rarity ratings a bit more, e.g the 1654 crown is still shown as R3 despite being about as common as the 1652 which is R. ;

[jaggy]

Is there a cross reference between the old numbers and the new ones?

[Paulus]

Is there a cross reference between the old numbers and the new ones?

The Spink book web page promises there is, but I can't confirm

[Rob]

yes there is

[jaggy]

yes there is

Thanks Rob.

[pokal02]

I've got very confused with the Gothic crowns listing, particularly the plain edge proofs. They seem to be saying that almost all of them were struck in .999 silver and have either u over n in unita or m over m in dom (anything else they show as R6). Surely this is not right? My understanding was most were struck in .925 silver and not all have one of the two overstrikes, although they are all struck with upright die axis as opposed to the undecimo's which were mostly inverted. If they are right there must be more forgeries about then genuine ones...

[Peter]

Rob

I thought you were the brains behind this?

[pokal02]

My plain edge proof is .925 and doesn't have the U over N in unita so I was getting a bit worried about it. However a quick trawl through the web has revealed that although the majority of the plain edge proofs have the U over N, at least three recent ones (Heritage, St James and DNW) have not. I don't think that many fakes would have got through unchallenged. So I might even have a slightly rarer variety!

[VickySilver]

Just how did you figure the alloy on yours? XRF?

Also, how rare can these be if there seem to be innumerable varieties showing? I suspect that overall there are quite a few more than reported.

I think it a nice design, but despite my interest in Victorian silver I am just not able to develop enthusiasm over this coin or the other Young head crowns.