DALTON & HAMER TOKEN Grading

[newheart]

I downloaded a free copy of PROVINCIAL TOKEN-COINAGE OF THE 18th CENTURY ILLUSTRATED BY R. DALTON & S. H. HAMER 1910. In it the authors describe coins as R, RR and RRR, I think it is a scale of rarity but cannot see a definition in the book. Rare, Really Rare, Really Really Rare? TIA, Pete

[Rob]

17 minutes ago, newheart said:

I downloaded a free copy of PROVINCIAL TOKEN-COINAGE OF THE 18th CENTURY ILLUSTRATED BY R. DALTON & S. H. HAMER 1910. In it the authors describe coins as R, RR and RRR, I think it is a scale of rarity but cannot see a definition in the book. Rare, Really Rare, Really Really Rare? TIA, Pete

Traditionally, it went from 1 to 5 Rs. The last is unique. Make your own definition up for the others because they are all uncertain numbers. A bit like the Freeman or ESC splits, where you treat the actual number with a pinch of salt, because they are frequently adrift from reality too, it's just that people want to believe in what they read and love to assign an absolute number to things, especially the ones that say unique, or nearly so. .

[newheart]

Thanks Rob. So is RRR scarcer than R? And does "Scarce", when used in the Dalton book, mean more scarce than any number of Rs? 

[Rob]

1 hour ago, newheart said:

Thanks Rob. So is RRR scarcer than R? And does "Scarce", when used in the Dalton book, mean more scarce than any number of Rs? 

Scarce is more common than R. Also, if looking at Peck for example, a currency thing assigned as very rare can equate to multiples of the numbers for many patterns assigned VR. Do your homework and assign the rarity ratings you think apply. Every R, S, N or C and their subdivisions in whatever tome is simply a guestimate. Not everything that is written should be taken as gospel, but equally, everything that is written gives you a starting point that you can adjust along the way as your knowledge improves, so is still inherently useful.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Rob

[newheart]

Thanks again Rob. You said " if looking at Peck for example" - I have no idea what or who Peck is, sorry. You will wish you had never replied ;-)

I quite agree these books were written a long time ago and the rarities given may not be accurate, but as you say, they are a useful starting point.

So to recap, in order of increasing scarcity, we have:

Scarce - R - RR - RRR 

[Jester]

IMO, Michael Marsh, author of The Gold Sovereign, has an easy to understand rarity rating guide although I'm not sure if different rarity rating scales are used with specific coins (it would obviously be Sovereigns in this case):

C3 - Extremely Common

C2 - Very Common

C - Common

N - Normal

S - Scarce

R - Rare

R2 - Very Rare

R3 - Extremely Rare

R4 - 11 - 20 examples estimated to have survived

R5 - 5 - 10 examples estimated to have survived

R6 - 3 or 4 examples known to exist

R7 - 1 or 2 examples known to exist

Just another data point for consideration...

[newheart]

Thanks Madcap. At this time I am just trying to decipher the ratings used by Dalton and Hamer.

[Jester]

Gotcha...so there are multiple rarity rating scales with different rating criteria?  Ugh.  Love for it to be like the Hobbit...one scale to rule them all. 

[newheart]

I am not sure if they created their own scarcity rating system, but the book is from 1910. This is an example of their token ratings:

 

[Rob]

The thing is that all these numbers are relative because there is no way in any shape or form that you are going to be able to compile an accurate corpus for anything but the rarest items, and even then it isn't guaranteed.

If Peck (author of the BM catalogue published in 1958, English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the BM 1558-1958) assigned a rarity to a variety, it was always going to be loosely based on his personal experience over the years. The same goes for Alan Rayner and ESC where the rarities are way out in some cases. Nobody can be expected to find all examples of anything, not least because a lot of collectors hold things close to their chest, or maybe haven't looked hard enough at the coin in the first place. Some things are mis-atttributed. There is no failsafe method of catching all examples and rejecting all mis-attributions, just what you can work out yourself.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Rob

[newheart]

16 minutes ago, Rob said:

Peck (author of the BM catalogue published in 1958, English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the BM 1558-1958)

Is this book available as a pdf? I looked online but can only see it in printed version (and expensive at that!)

[Rob]

8 minutes ago, newheart said:

Is this book available as a pdf? I looked online but can only see it in printed version (and expensive at that!)

Yep. Not cheap, but invaluable. And no, not available online. The internet wasn't about in 1958.

[newheart]

2 minutes ago, Rob said:

Yep. Not cheap, but invaluable. And no, not available online. The internet wasn't about in 1958.

The internet wasn't about in 1910 either, but I have a pdf of  DALTON and HAMER ;-)

[Rob]

Somebody has scanned it in in that case. You are better of with the book though, as you have to keep going to and fro from description to the plates which are at the back.

[newheart]

I am guessing it is out of copyright now so someone has scanned it. I prefer it as a pdf (call me new-school!) because you can search for any text string. Good point about the photos if they are all in the back. Well I guess a copy of Pecks will have to go on my shopping list!

[newheart]

For anyone wanting to get a free pdf of Dalton and Hamer see http://provincialtokencoinage.weebly.com/ and see the "download book in pdf format" link.