Coins of England - 2018 - Spink

[Rob]

That's a well argued piece worthy of merit and further consideration.

The only downside is the way people habitually read lists, expecting a date run to be in numerical order, so a change in mindset would be required.

[pokal02]

The problem with proofs and patterns, especially the latter, is what to put in and what to omit (I like the idea of a separate volume as they could then include everything, although a lot of the prices would be meaningless). 

At present they include for example the Briot pattern halfgroat of Charles I - why this and and not some of the other Briot patterns and the Edward Greene groat?  Why a Reddite crown but not the (much less rare) Garter 1804 dollar? 

A minor gripe as a crown collector is that 1551-53 are the only dates not listed separately (1553 I would say being about 20% pricier that 1551) although 1642 & 1643 Oxford (S2946 & S2946A), which have always been given the same price, are split.  Another inconsistency is that the Exeter crowns alone are differentiated by mint mark - why not then the Tower issues (and James I & 1551 Y & tun) which would have as much/more rarity/price variation. 

   

.

[Rob]

4 hours ago, pokal02 said:

The problem with proofs and patterns, especially the latter, is what to put in and what to omit (I like the idea of a separate volume as they could then include everything, although a lot of the prices would be meaningless). 

At present they include for example the Briot pattern halfgroat of Charles I - why this and and not some of the other Briot patterns and the Edward Greene groat?  Why a Reddite crown but not the (much less rare) Garter 1804 dollar? 

A minor gripe as a crown collector is that 1551-53 are the only dates not listed separately (1553 I would say being about 20% pricier that 1551) although 1642 & 1643 Oxford (S2946 & S2946A), which have always been given the same price, are split.  Another inconsistency is that the Exeter crowns alone are differentiated by mint mark - why not then the Tower issues (and James I & 1551 Y & tun) which would have as much/more rarity/price variation. 

   

.

I suspect the Exeter crowns are differentiated by mintmark due to the undated pieces previously being attributed to Truro. That gave the first 3 types with mm. rose for Truro (Besly's A1, B2 & C3-7) with the remainder at Exeter. Once the undated Rose coins with obverses B & C were given to Exeter it became necessary to rewrite the book. My personal view is that you could still reasonably argue the A1 and B2 as being Truro coins on account of both having the T stops in the obverse legend.

The question of rare mms for type will never go away - James I 5th issue shillings being a very obvious example..