Lockdales Catalogue

[Rob]

This weekend is Lockdales sale over 3 days. I can't speak about the bits I haven't looked at, but the English collection selling on Monday is going to find a distinct lack of interest unless there are a lot of very patient potential bidders. There are a large number of Charles I halfcrowns and shillings which are essentially listed in random order. Because both Lockdales and London Coins list things by denomination rather than chronologically (which p's me off no end) there is little continuity in the list. This sale has compounded the problem by listing ........under Parliament, followed by ........... under the King on the grounds that 'the' is later than 'Parliament' alphabetically. The mint marks appear to be random too, so that finding a particular issue is well nigh impossible. I've given up because there are easier catalogues to read and I'm only a couple of decades away from the end of my likely life span. Could be some bargains for those with patience, but bids have to be in by tomorrow and the quality on the whole is, well .......

Both LC and Lockdales list hammered things by ruler's name, so it is quite normal to find a Byzantine coin followed by a Charles II followed by a sceat. It's completely unworkable for those of limited attention span such as myself. Am I the only one who finds this frustrating?

[DaveG38]

This weekend is Lockdales sale over 3 days. I can't speak about the bits I haven't looked at, but the English collection selling on Monday is going to find a distinct lack of interest unless there are a lot of very patient potential bidders. There are a large number of Charles I halfcrowns and shillings which are essentially listed in random order. Because both Lockdales and London Coins list things by denomination rather than chronologically (which p's me off no end) there is little continuity in the list. This sale has compounded the problem by listing ........under Parliament, followed by ........... under the King on the grounds that 'the' is later than 'Parliament' alphabetically. The mint marks appear to be random too, so that finding a particular issue is well nigh impossible. I've given up because there are easier catalogues to read and I'm only a couple of decades away from the end of my likely life span. Could be some bargains for those with patience, but bids have to be in by tomorrow and the quality on the whole is, well .......

Both LC and Lockdales list hammered things by ruler's name, so it is quite normal to find a Byzantine coin followed by a Charles II followed by a sceat. It's completely unworkable for those of limited attention span such as myself. Am I the only one who finds this frustrating?

Sorry, but no. I have no problem whatsover with it. Suits me fine. Personally, I'm not that keen on lists that go by reign, since it means I have to scan through each reign (e.g. Corbetts latest) to find out whether there is anything that I might want, rather than look for the denomination that maybe interests me. Perhaps we could suggest that Lockdales and others build their websites so that we could choose the layout that best suits us for examing the lots (obviously, the actual order on the auction date would have to be fixed).

[Rob]

OK, I can accept that everyone has their own personal preferences, but at least they usually list the denominations in date order.

Any semblance of order has been thrown out the window here. Take shillings for example. It kicks off with a Group A, type 1, bust 2 mint mark cross calvary which is the second type issued as described, but the image is a group B, first bust - so the description is wrong. It dates to 1625-6. Next up is a group F, mm.(P) dates to 1643-4. Then a ® of the same issue dates to 1644-5, then back to a Group D, Tower under the King with a crown mark (1635-6), then forward to Star (1640), back to Tun (1636-8), forward to Star again, back to Rose (1631-2). Briot coinage and Exeter issues are incorporated somewhere in the middle of this mess. There is a first issue coin after 40 lots or so, but that's 20 lots after an example of the last mark issued during the reign which post-dates the first by over 20 years. They haven't kept coins with the same marks together either which is as good as ordering the list by drawing the lots out of a hat. But at least the second shilling from last (of over 100 in total) is from the second type issued, so at least we have a correlated use of the word 'second'. It's a complete and utter waste of time and the cataloguer should be shot forthwith.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Rob

[TomGoodheart]

It's odd, because they surely have the time to organise it all better. It's as if there are half a dozen compilers one of whom things a coin should be listed under "Shilling, Charles I" another "Charles I, shilling" and another "A coin". I agree it's a mess and no order, or more importantly consistency. However there is a search function online.

But generally, it could be better and I don't know why it is the way it is.

[Rob]

It's odd, because they surely have the time to organise it all better. It's as if there are half a dozen compilers one of whom things a coin should be listed under "Shilling, Charles I" another "Charles I, shilling" and another "A coin". I agree it's a mess and no order, or more importantly consistency. However there is a search function online.

But generally, it could be better and I don't know why it is the way it is.

I think they have probably ordered them on the computer using an ascending or descending sort function because 'Charles I, silver halcrown (sic), Oxford Mint' comes before 'Charles I, silver halfcrown, Bristol Mint'. Some of the others I'm struggling to see why they are as listed. Whatever, it's a simple case of crap quality control and indifference to accuracy because there are a lot of mis-atttributions too.

[coin watch]

I have to agree this catalogue is all over the place, but then it's probably more geared up for on-line bidding. I can't imagine there being many people left on day 3 especially with many lots looking like ebay fodder!!....maybe 1 or 2 potential good buys with other lots really quite laughable!!....I quite like the Lockdales though, always worth a look.

[HistoricCoinage]

I agree with you, Rob. Collecting solely English hammered means that this catalogue gives me a headache. Without it being chronologically ordered I'm bombarded with stuff earlier and later than what I actually want.

[Peter]

The catalogue is far easier on the eye than some.

They are quite local to me but the choice of copper isn't the best.

I do love flintlock and percussion pistols.Quite honestly I prefer the Midland and seat of the pants

bartering.I won't name any dealers but a couple know Bu**er all about copper and I always look at their latest trays.

Never had a bad day there.

I would love to see Ebay reduce the nr of coins listed to 10 per week from the same seller with a minimum listing fee of £1.

Out of 56,000 British coins listed approx 50,000 are complete TAT.

[argentumandcoins]

Lockdales is okay for me I am fairly disorganised myself (office like a bombsite) so the random placing doesn't stress me out.

[Paulus]

The catalogue is far easier on the eye than some.

They are quite local to me but the choice of copper isn't the best.

I do love flintlock and percussion pistols.Quite honestly I prefer the Midland and seat of the pants

bartering.I won't name any dealers but a couple know Bu**er all about copper and I always look at their latest trays.

Never had a bad day there.

I would love to see Ebay reduce the nr of coins listed to 10 per week from the same seller with a minimum listing fee of £1.

Out of 56,000 British coins listed approx 50,000 are complete TAT.

Agreed, and thanks for counting them! Seem to only get some decent ones on Sundays!

[Peter]

The catalogue is far easier on the eye than some.

They are quite local to me but the choice of copper isn't the best.

I do love flintlock and percussion pistols.Quite honestly I prefer the Midland and seat of the pants

bartering.I won't name any dealers but a couple know Bu**er all about copper and I always look at their latest trays.

Never had a bad day there.

I would love to see Ebay reduce the nr of coins listed to 10 per week from the same seller with a minimum listing fee of £1.

Out of 56,000 British coins listed approx 50,000 are complete TAT.

Agreed, and thanks for counting them! Seem to only get some decent ones on Sundays!

That is probably you have eaten a good Sunday roast and drunk a bucket of Vino The coin glasses come out .

I never sell on a Sunday because too many coins go through per minute.I've seen top dealers slaughtered.

I now sell Tuesday to Thursday after 7pm and before 9pm....but hey mine are all real coins

[Peckris]

This weekend is Lockdales sale over 3 days. I can't speak about the bits I haven't looked at, but the English collection selling on Monday is going to find a distinct lack of interest unless there are a lot of very patient potential bidders. There are a large number of Charles I halfcrowns and shillings which are essentially listed in random order. Because both Lockdales and London Coins list things by denomination rather than chronologically (which p's me off no end) there is little continuity in the list. This sale has compounded the problem by listing ........under Parliament, followed by ........... under the King on the grounds that 'the' is later than 'Parliament' alphabetically. The mint marks appear to be random too, so that finding a particular issue is well nigh impossible. I've given up because there are easier catalogues to read and I'm only a couple of decades away from the end of my likely life span. Could be some bargains for those with patience, but bids have to be in by tomorrow and the quality on the whole is, well .......

I find it incredibly annoying too. The link is Stephen Lockett of course, but he may not be responsible for the website layout(s).

[Accumulator]

This weekend is Lockdales sale over 3 days. I can't speak about the bits I haven't looked at, but the English collection selling on Monday is going to find a distinct lack of interest unless there are a lot of very patient potential bidders. There are a large number of Charles I halfcrowns and shillings which are essentially listed in random order. Because both Lockdales and London Coins list things by denomination rather than chronologically (which p's me off no end) there is little continuity in the list. This sale has compounded the problem by listing ........under Parliament, followed by ........... under the King on the grounds that 'the' is later than 'Parliament' alphabetically. The mint marks appear to be random too, so that finding a particular issue is well nigh impossible. I've given up because there are easier catalogues to read and I'm only a couple of decades away from the end of my likely life span. Could be some bargains for those with patience, but bids have to be in by tomorrow and the quality on the whole is, well .......

I find it incredibly annoying too. The link is Stephen Lockett of course, but he may not be responsible for the website layout(s).

I can see both sides. Whatever sorting method is used, the coins have to be listed in lot order otherwise there would be untold confusion. Given that necessity, it surely makes sense to list by denomination as this must be the most common theme by which coins are collected? Listing purely by date would mean that, say, a halfcrown collector would need to attend the entire sale (possibly over a couple of days) for the lots he/she is interested in. Having said this, an overall category separation between ancient/hammered/milled does make sense.

My big gripe is, at least by London Coins, the separation of slabbed from other coins. At all of the last few sales there have been examples of near identical coins, one of which happens to be slabbed, selling on different days! This can't make sense. A coin is a coin, whether slabbed or not, and they should be sold together in my opinion.

[Rob]

I think we all agree you need some semblance of order, and yes, the separation of raw and slabbed coins to different sections of the catalogue is another gripe here too.

Steve, you collect pennies which for whatever reason they have decided to list in date order - quite sensible. I bet that if you wanted to find a 1873 penny, you would look down the list until you came to those beginning 187 and finish once you had passed the date. The bone of contention in the hammered section and the collection is that once a coin becomes undated there is no attention paid to the order in which they are listed. Just as penny collectors would look for different dates, bust types or reverses, so would a hammered shilling collector for the individual bust or reverse types, initial marks or overmarks. Those busts come in a strict listed order as do the initial marks employed. It is simply chronology without the date. The catalogue only manages to sort the lots into the collection or other properties which isn't a very sensible search parameter.

If they could sort it by pyx period dates that would help.

[choolie]

Has anyone told lockdales of these complaints? maybe they will take the feedback on board. Just sending a link to this thread might be enough.

[Peckris]

Has anyone told lockdales of these complaints? maybe they will take the feedback on board. Just sending a link to this thread might be enough.

Lockdales being a smaller and more provincial operation, they're a better bet than London Coins, that's for sure.