ESC Rarity Scale

[Sword]

I very much enjoy reading my copy of the new ESC. It's very interesting to see images of patterns not available to collectors in particular.

One thing I have noticed is that they have missed out (probably unintentionally) the meaning of the rarity terms like S, R1, R2 etc. That's of little importance of course since everyone know the definitions already and most would have the 5th edition.

However, I think it would be very useful (but would probably be too much work in practice) if it specifies the rarity of grades that collectors want to know. For example, the 1746 LIMA halfcrown is given a rarity factor of C3 (very common). However, I don't care about how many worn pieces are available but would be interested to know the rarity of an EF or UNC example.

I also don't understand the rarity factors allocated to certain coins. For example the proof RE rocking horse crown is given a rarity of R and they are readily available in auctions. The proof Arabic I double florin is given a rarity factor S despite a lower mintage. Also The Roman I which is so much rarer is also given the same R factor.

 

 

[Rob]

It is like every other unsubstantiated statistic, it is frequently in error. Bearing in mind the first edition was in 1949 and the previous was 1992, none of the rarity figures could be substantiated using a search of the net to inflate the sample size. You are therefore left with gut feeling as the final arbiter.

Probably of more use would be the English Milled Coinage 1662-1972 written by Cope and Rayner in the 1970s which does at least give rarity numbers vs. grade. FYI the 1746 LIMA halfcrown is given S(carce) and R(are) for EF & UNC

[1887jubilee]

3 hours ago, Sword said:

I very much enjoy reading my copy of the new ESC. It's very interesting to see images of patterns not available to collectors in particular.

One thing I have noticed is that they have missed out (probably unintentionally) the meaning of the rarity terms like S, R1, R2 etc. That's of little importance of course since everyone know the definitions already and most would have the 5th edition.

However, I think it would be very useful (but would probably be too much work in practice) if it specifies the rarity of grades that collectors want to know. For example, the 1746 LIMA halfcrown is given a rarity factor of C3 (very common). However, I don't care about how many worn pieces are available but would be interested to know the rarity of an EF or UNC example.

I also don't understand the rarity factors allocated to certain coins. For example the proof RE rocking horse crown is given a rarity of R and they are readily available in auctions. The proof Arabic I double florin is given a rarity factor S despite a lower mintage. Also The Roman I which is so much rarer is also given the same R factor.

 

 

Yes the Roman 1887  4/- is probably up around R4 There is a big question mark over the specimen set proof like coins.

[azda]

9 hours ago, 1887jubilee said:

Yes the Roman 1887  4/- is probably up around R4 There is a big question mark over the specimen set proof like coins.

I have one of These which is proof like

Edited January 18, 2016 by azda

[shagreen]

that's a beautifull crown Azda

and a condition rarity which gets me back to the concept of rarity. Rarity really encompasses two circumstances the first obvious one is numerical in how many are in existence this wont change and can only decrease with losses over time. The second is rarity in the market i.e. how often a particular coin regardless of the number in existence comes up for sale.  Some rare coins say a UNA 5 sov are undoubtedly a rare coin with less than say 400 struck but an example turns up in the market say 6 times a year so its not rare in the market. Some coins are also of course both e.g.petition crown

and rarity in the market can change over time depending on price and popularity

best in numismatics

Shagreen

[azda]

Funnily enough shagreen, probably one of the commonest crowns but also one of my favourites.

[Sword]

On ‎17‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 8:22 PM, Rob said:

It is like every other unsubstantiated statistic, it is frequently in error. Bearing in mind the first edition was in 1949 and the previous was 1992, none of the rarity figures could be substantiated using a search of the net to inflate the sample size. You are therefore left with gut feeling as the final arbiter.

Probably of more use would be the English Milled Coinage 1662-1972 written by Cope and Rayner in the 1970s which does at least give rarity numbers vs. grade. FYI the 1746 LIMA halfcrown is given S(carce) and R(are) for EF & UNC

So I assume that the majority / most of the rarity figures were simply done by "impression" by Rayner, Bull  and a few selected colleagues. Thanks for the figures for the LIMA halfcrown Rob.

On ‎17‎/‎01‎/‎2016 at 11:32 PM, 1887jubilee said:

Yes the Roman 1887  4/- is probably up around R4 There is a big question mark over the specimen set proof like coins.

Didn't realise they are as rare as R4. Wow.
 LCA should a couple at around the £1-1.2K mark I think. Not that expensive if it's around R4.

 

[freewheels]

I don't have the latest ESC publication, nor do I patrol the English auctions as I am a expat living in California, but this topic has raised some questions for me, the answers to which might be helpful to other forum members.

On the ESC rarity scale we have R4 given as 11-20 examples extant, how realistic is that numerical description of R4 in the modern information age?

What does R3, R2 and R numerically mean nowadays in your opinions?

Various coins like a 1723 arms at France shilling are obviously not rare in below VF condition yet a 1729 shilling that I never see in decent condition and a 1735 sixpence ditto seem far harder to obtain than an R rating would suggest. Why can't I ever find a 1735 halfcrown of rarity Scarce yet I can frequently see a 1720/17 offered for sale?

how does one square these ESC anomalies or maybe this new publication answers some of these dilemmas?

 

Please send me a link.

[jaggy]

I use the ESC rarity scale as a rough guide but personal experience of following auctions over a period of time is a much better guide in my opinion. Thus, for example, 1863 sixpences show up at auction more frequently than 1882 or 1862 which are, themselves, more frequent than 1854 while 1848 rarely show up at all.