Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3186968, member: 19463&quot;]Many thanks to all.&nbsp; I will be starting other threads as questions arise but this one does have a spin off.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Repeating the image to avoid scrolling:</p><p><img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/ch17-41x-jpg.821637/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>The one thing I thought was obvious was that a coin 30mm in diameter would be a &#039;Large Coin&#039; by Hartill&#039;s terms and this one does lay down exactly covering his H16.303 illustration.&nbsp; This one he calls &quot;Small size&quot; under the heading &quot;Large coins&quot; which seems like the old term &quot;Jumbo shrimp&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;Smallish double&quot; would seem to apply to the coin as I see it and fits Hartill&#039;s Small Large description.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>That leads to the question of how significant are the weights and sizes of these coins?&nbsp; Obviously there are periods recorded in the catalogs as coming in various sizes and coins that were issued over long periods that would be expected to vary a lot but how consistent are the coins made on the same day at the same furnace or even on the same tree?&nbsp; I note rather few references to weight in catalogs.&nbsp; Is, then, weight not a valuable tool in studying these coins?&nbsp; I posted more digits than would seem significant.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in