I guess 'eye appeal' is everything nowadays ...

[TomGoodheart]

I keep returning to look at this:

In theory it has quite a bit going for it. Scarce (I know of 12 examples). With a decent provenance; ex Michael Sharp (and used by him as a example of the type in his BNJ paper (Vol 47, 1977, Plate vi #32)) subsequently bought by John Brooker (Brooker 485 and illustrated in SCBI 33 Plate XLVII) and then owned by Alan Morris (via Mark Senior).

And yet it's not sold in over 2½ years and despite a price reduction ...

Why? I can only assume because it's just not a very attractive coin. I find that interesting. And I suppose I feel a little sorry for the poor old thing, that it appears to have gone out of fashion, too!

.

Edited May 27, 2015 by TomGoodheart

[azda]

Much is that Richard?

[TomGoodheart]

£160 from Lloyd.

.

[Nicholas]

I just love any hammered coins with some sharpness still left in the strike, but IMO Tom it's all about the portrait. There isn't any facial details and so the coins loses character and therefore appeal..

[TomGoodheart]

I just love any hammered coins with some sharpness still left in the strike, but IMO Tom it's all about the portrait. There isn't any facial details and so the coins loses character and therefore appeal..

Oh, I admit I agree Nicholas. Otherwise I guess I would have bought it myself!

For me, the idea coin will be full and round with a clear design and decent toning, but so few within my budget (or in some cases at all) are like that, it's a balance of features I like and others I can live with. But somewhere in that balance I certainly aim for a pleasing portrait.

Yes, I have a few coins I bought for some other feature; the reverse design, the mint mark, provenance or that, overall, it appealed to me at the time. But there are very few in that category I wouldn't upgrade in an instant if I could find the key feature with a better portrait!

.

[Coinery]

All that aside, I'm still staggered to find a shilling of that heritage and rarity, just sitting around at £160!

I'm not a big admirer of the mostly only average looking C1 shillings, but for a fan of the series it would seem a must-have to me?

I'm genuinely surprised!

[Paulus]

I'm surprised too, I'd have thought there were plenty of completists out there who would snap it up!

[Paulus]

An hour and a half to go for any hammered collectors with a yawning Richard III sized gap in their collection

link

wrong thread, sorry!

Edited May 27, 2015 by Paulus

[TomGoodheart]

An hour and a half to go for any hammered collectors with a yawning Richard III sized gap in their collection

link

wrong thread, sorry!

LOL

.

[azda]

All that aside, I'm still staggered to find a shilling of that heritage and rarity, just sitting around at £160!

I'm not a big admirer of the mostly only average looking C1 shillings, but for a fan of the series it would seem a must-have to me?

I'm genuinely surprised!

You may have Hit the nail on the Head Stewie (average) it seems Charles I collectors may also be seeking asthetically pleasing coins also. If i were to want a Lizzie halfcrown for example there's plenty of worn ones out there for several hundred, but why settle for that when you'll only try and upgrade eventually?

Edited May 28, 2015 by azda

[Coinery]

All that aside, I'm still staggered to find a shilling of that heritage and rarity, just sitting around at £160!

I'm not a big admirer of the mostly only average looking C1 shillings, but for a fan of the series it would seem a must-have to me?

I'm genuinely surprised!

You may have Hit the nail on the Head Stewie (average) it seems Charles I collectors may also be seeking asthetically pleasing coins also. If i were to want a Lizzie halfcrown for example there's plenty of worn ones out there for several hundred, but why settle for that when you'll only try and upgrade eventually?

Ah, yes, but when you are dedicatedly collecting a very specific series, where parts of that series are only existing in single figures, it just won't do not to have an example. Especially of a variety rare enough to have attracted the attention of some very prominent collectors!

I see your Chas collecting in a different way to TGs, as you appear to me to be collecting across a very wide parameter, and probably have no intention of collecting an example of every Sharp number? Whereas TG I see as someone committed to that goal, which would mean he has to occasionally trade eye-appeal for rarity to achieve that aim?

There would be a few examples of this in Liz too, particularly with some of the early-bust shillings, but fortunately there is plenty of other material to collect in the meantime.

As a disclaimer, I must add that I have noticed TG change direction slightly, and more recently focus his attention upon upgrades ahead of rarity.

Maybe this is happening across all areas, which is why the OP coin is a sobering warning for stock buyers and/or investors?

I'm still surprised there isn't a completionist out there who wants it, though?

[azda]

I think the shift of "any coin will do" has become more apparent in the last 12-18 months. Charles I reign is IMO one of the most important in Terms of history, but i believe TG is one of the "old school" collectors but unlike Brooker etc there was much more material avaliable at that time, trying to find and buy it now is a much more unenviable task

[TomGoodheart]

... collecting an example of every Sharp number? Whereas TG I see as someone committed to that goal, which would mean he has to occasionally trade eye-appeal for rarity to achieve that aim?

As a disclaimer, I must add that I have noticed TG change direction slightly, and more recently focus his attention upon upgrades ahead of rarity.

Yes. When I first started I intended to try to find an example of each Sharp combination if I could. My 'ideal' was to find as good as, if not better than, the Brooker coin where possible and used him as my benchmark.

Of course my budget was never sufficient to match Brooker. He collected legend variations and mint marks as well as by type. A type collection was enough for me.

To work within my budget I never bought a duplicate. Either I upgraded and sold on the original coin or if it had different but equal qualities I passed.

But more recently I have stopped worrying about filling gaps. In fact there are quite a few coins I bought for that purpose that I would happily be rid of now. Although, unlike perhaps in the US with more modern issues, it's not really possible to state for certain how many individual examples exist of a particular variety it's certainly likely that, as Stuart says, some are down to single figures. Consequently you have to compromise on quality if you want one. And I have moved away from that completest view of late.

I am, I realise, a collector not a numismatist. And a collector with quite strong aesthetic views. I want a collection I get pleasure from and for me that means enjoying looking at my coins. The mere fact that a coin is rare no longer 'does it' the way it once did.

The trouble is, non-specialist collectors also generally want a coin that is pleasing to look at.

The number of serious collectors of Charles I Tower shillings is, I suspect, quite small. And relatively speaking, the number of coins available, large. Most of the people I know will have an example of the Sharp D6/1 I originally posted already in that there are 12+ coins and 6+ collectors.

Will we ever return to the days of collectors like Brooker or Osborne? Probably not as it requires more funds (relatively) than it used to. But also I suspect because non-specialists are more interested in the better grade end of the market, making it harder to find pleasing examples ... of course Rob might say 't'was ever thus' ... who knows. Just giving my perspective here!

[pokal02]

I tend to look for better examples of common coins eg Edward VI 3rd issue shilling I'd want an AVF whereas a rarer/more expensive one eg Richard III groat I'll settle for GF at best. So I can see that a relatively cheap/common coin in F might be relatively unwanted. I'm not well up on Chas I 1/-'s but if I collected them, and the coin in question is a rare variety needed to fill a gap, I'd definitely have had it (it's a difficult one to grade - Lloyd Bennett usually suggests a grade but doesn't appear to have done so here).

[sound]

I think Tom's point of view is interesting on a number of points. Tom you are far too self deprecating. If you are not a numismatist then I'm not sure one exists. You would be my first point of call on C1.

What I think is happening is that Tom as a collector is reflecting the market. In the last ten years money has rushed in and with the shortage of rarities these have been pushed up in price.

Now eye appeal is everything or nearly so. This is a point that Spink catalogue introductions have been banging on about for some time. You know what, their right.

Actually I think its rather healthy. For George V and later where there are more coins available at realistic prices with good eye appeal. Of course that will change as they are chased.

There not bad from C1 to GV in a couple of sentences.

Mark

[azda]

I'm not so sure prices for GV will change drastically as the mintages were in the millions whereas how many C1 ahillings do we see in good grades (or should i say, with eye appeal)

Of course there is collectors out there for GV but i'd rather be chasing a good Chas 1 or Liz shilling than a relatively modern coin

[coin watch]

I take the Spink guide with a 'pinch of salt' these days, to me they seem to pick the prices out of the sky! not all "rarities" have gone up equally over time, for example how can one type increase in value and another stay stagnant when both have not seen a sale in the same time frame?........Eye appeal is the key these days, and rightly so I think as a top grade common coin is just as rare as the 'book rarity' in most cases. Having said that I still like to think like an old fashioned collector and rate rarity as equal as condition!!....it's what makes me tick!

[coin watch]

BTW, I have seen the starting thread coin (This Brooker D6) in the hand and it's pretty rough! but really so are some of those American and Australian 'scarce' coins that go for a small fortune, all it takes is a larger following!!

[sound]

Hi Dave,

Yes I take the point about GV being in the millions. However there is defiantly a hardening of prices imo of the highest grades. Also of course a lot more people collect them.

Mark

Edited May 30, 2015 by sound

[hazelman]

What an interesting topic. I am one of the more recent collectors focusing mainly on coins post 1837. This is my interest as a collector and is equal to any other period. My outlook is that we each have a desire to build a collection and for me the period is irrelavant as we build our collections based on many factors.

these include:

Finances

Period of interest

Investment value and many other factors.

I for one started by collecting anything and everything. I eventually fell in love with "Bun Head" pennies. In my attempt to complete the set , i attempted to collect each year ( a very basic collection) as that grew i then started looking at collecting the variety's. I have not completed either challenge i set myself (still looking for an UNC 1869 - as well as others) However i have no intention of being a date filler, i want quality over quantity.

The point im making is that as collectors we each have different perspectives, desires, preferences etc . What we have in common is the desire to hold a piece of history in the form of these beauties.

[Peter]

Like you Hazelman I started by amassing everything.

I still collect everything but my standards have risen.

Sometimes when I get my coins out I will cherry pick ones to sell (apart from my farthings)

Date runs are a thing of the past.

Eye appeal is important to me.

[TomGoodheart]

Yes, I guess the theme of this thread applies not just to hammered coins. And as Mark says, Spink have been saying pretty much this same thing for many years.

I'm not sure if that means that I have followed the market ,or if as one matures as a collector then the less nice looking pieces lose a bit of their appeal? And of course there are still many collectors out there who revel in finding a scarce variety providing the key features are clear enough to allow identification.

I do think the 'investor set' has influenced things. If you can afford a Picasso, why not pick one that is nice to look at? And if you can have your pick of nice ones then choosing one that has been owned by a Rockefeller or Chrysler can't do any harm, surely? Same with coins. Particularly if you know little about the things. The reassurance an earlier collector has seen fit to give space to an object or that everyone that sees it goes 'oooh!' must make a difference.

For me I guess it's that nice examples show off the die engraver's art more effectively. The fact that a coin will prove easier to sell later on makes no difference at all really. Well, OK, maybe it does a bit..

.

[pokal02]

...but there must still be a lot of 'date runners' out there, or a 1665 crown would cost the same as a 1668 in the same grade!

[DaveG38]

...but there must still be a lot of 'date runners' out there, or a 1665 crown would cost the same as a 1668 in the same grade!

Well, I'm one for a start - that's all denominations apart from gold!! The latter is too expensive and to be honest rather boring, especially the George and Dragon Reverse, used for so many years (or is it centuries?).