Ian Calvert

Member
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sadly my coin photography is nowhere near up to the task : I did try. In particular to capture some of Boulton's detailed search for design excellence, to complement steam power in production but without success. One example, is the progression from 1775 halfpennies and farthings starting with the 1788 Droz patterns and then numerous prototype patterns before the 1799 currency coins . This involved significant evolution in the representation and thence understanding of Brittania . Thanks for your many wise words. They should probably end these "NGC census and Rarity" posts I also "enjoy the scientific, social, artistic, and economic history of the Soho Mint".
  2. Agree about DH-11 . Based on NGC Census, for my three coins, P962, 965 and 966, two of which are NGC rated, the Very Scarce rarity rating from Peck seems to overstate their rarity. Have only been collecting for a handful of years, although 67. I have put comments on a few of my NGC Registry coins , all Soho or vaguely related, with more comments to come . I have not yet mastered moving material from the NGC Registry to here, if appropriate. Happy to give my Registry read access to you and indeed anyone interested, if that is NGC possible: my slight difficulty is understanding what "more interesting " coins, medals and tokens means : I am a Ph.D mathematician. My "coin" interest is centred on the steam powered Soho Mint ,entrepreneur and FRS Matthew Boulton and the Industrial Revolution alongside shiny twentieth century coins.
  3. D'oh, the 1797 in paragraph 3 of my 1136 Post should be 1799.
  4. Thanks very much for your interesting , scholarly and authoritative post and the registry set material. In parts, I think it complements Doty's book on the Soho Mint. One very minor point, I was slightly surprised at the, at first reading, absence of reference to Sierra Leone (Company) coinage. However it will take me some weeks , to make time, to fully assimilate it all. Your comments are very insightful : i agree about Peck generally. I try to respond to your questions and comments with brief descriptions of my experience on just the Peck 1788 -1799 coins below. I aim to collect Early and Late Soho coins of Peck's C 1(a) and C2 (a) - (n) excluding (b) and (k) in different metals. Gaps are sometimes filled with Taylor restrikes. My comments on the NGC census were based on 37 coins of 1788-1797 of which 11 were PCGS graded and required some classification input from me. On your 1 , labelling and mis - labelling is an issue: a notable current mis-labelling example is a Pr68 1799 halfpenny , in a Heritage August auction, labelled as a farthing, corrected by Heritage. On 2, nice to read this , I agree, but NGC is not immune either. On 3, I agree about UK (Europe). but relative rarity for coins TPG rated 60 or above (say) may give some useful partial information about relative rarity your P-965 is a very good example but so is P-966 in Brown Gilt.
  5. For most collectors coin rarity may not be a problem but it is sometimes for me . My central difficulty is seeing rarity as a stock size measure as well as a sale transaction one. In our information age , available information on grade or grades, detailed auction house transaction information sometimes complemented by mintage numbers may well be sufficient for many collectors and collections. My collection of Great Britain, George III coins is centred on the small but historically important, copper coinage of the Matthew Boulton’s Soho Mint together with many associated pattern coins mostly in Copper, Bronzed Copper and Gilt Copper . In this post ,from now on, my comments only refer to coins graded 60 or above. Moreover colour for copper coins and cameo status for gilt ones are not problematic , for me, if treated with care. so are not referred to. In the late twentieth century the rarity of many coins was described by reference to some scale. One such scale was that of Peck’s 1970 authoritative book on English copper coins 1558-1958. The book includes an assessment of the rarity of each such coin and associated patterns on an 11 point scale. The rarity is Peck’s judgment based on the aggregated stock of coins in specified UK public and private collections but centred on the British Museum collection. He includes, his carefully worded, comments on rarity at pages xiii -xiv In my sub-collection of 1788- 1799 Soho, English Coins included in Peck the coins are covered by just two NGC Census sub-censuses : the Great Britain-1707-1815 and Great Britain - Patterns, Restrikes and Off Metal coins. The coins of my collection are covered by 8 points on the Peck scale. I have found the NGC census information a useful addition to Peck for example the 1797 Twopenny piece , P1077, might well be assessed as Common rather than Scarce. On the other hand for Very Rare coins the NGC Census samples seem too small to be useful . I hope there will be comments from others on the issues here and related USA or World coin series.