Leaderboard

By way of introducing myself let me tell you about my favorite coin in my collection. I had been collecting bronze penny coins since I was a young boy. Then, in 1975 I rode my brand new motorbike the nine miles to the Somerset town of Frome. In a junk shop on Catherine’s Hill I saw two coins displayed in the window. I thought that the smaller one looked like an old penny. I did not know what the larger coin was as I had never seen the like before. They were offered as two Victoria copper coins from 1858. They were priced at £6.50 and £7.50 respectively, a lot of money in those days. I decided to buy the smaller, cheaper penny sized coin. When I got home I looked it up in my 'Check Your Change’ book and found that at 28.4 mm in diameter the coin was in fact a half penny. I got straight back on my bike and returned to Frome for the other coin which proved to be a penny at 34mm diameter. On closer inspection I realised that the number 8 was struck over a number 7. At the time I thought that I had discovered something special. It turns out that I had not. They were very nice coins though, and kindled my interest in copper pennies, halfpennies and farthings.

A well known variety. See screenshot from Michael Gouby's website below. Typically a master die in the Victorian period had just the 18.. pre-entered on it, and from that working dies were made that then had the last 2 digits hand entered. (This is behind all the date width varieties for example on Victorian bun pennies). For 1857 shillings, one working die had the last two digits entered with numeral punches from the wrong font thus causing the example above.

I picked up this interesting piece of information from a local historian. He is a buff on the Fortescue family of Castle Hill North Devon, and when he heard I was into coins he was keen to tell me that one of the Fortescue family was used as the model for Britannia on the Edward VII Florins and British Trade Dollars. He has now provided me with a copy of a talk he gave on the subject. I attach a screen shot of the relevant paragraph, but if anyone wants the full talk, PM me and I can send it in .pdf format. Of course I only have his word for it! If anyone knows any different, please let me know.

The 'ribbon' on this 1859 is die clashing, explained on Gouby's website, where he now also references Peck 404. The 'overlay' picture below also highlights the 'clash' area.

Bawbees are notorious for having circulated deep into the 18th century by which time they were barely identifiable - so this rather decent 1679 example is an exception to the beater bawbee rule.

Favorites are a fun thing. Mine is very likely my 1818 Crown. Bit of rim damage (ex jewelry?) but that kept the price where I liked it.

Agreed. That was one of the first things i noticed about it. The full one i bought just arrived today. The portrait is a bit scuffed but i can't complain as it was cheap. Looks like a match with my half. Slevin 1a5 / Brand 1050. Stu.

Four Pence Victorian 1840 & 1877 (Maundy) Delving through the hoard today...... and these two I though were worth a show as they are in incredible condition.... which is a bit of a rarity amongst my lot.... 😲

It is rough but i think there is enough information to identify it. I can read VND + PIE i think. Which would make it Pieres at London Mint. Spink guide shows Pieres & Pieres M minting at London during class 1 under Henry II. Stu.

"So what's King Kenny all about???" For some obscure reason my friends called me that when I was at Chippenham College in the early 1970's. My first name is Kenneth but I prefer Ken. Not very interesting but hope this helps.

Here is my best example of the later Vic florins - 1852 - for comparison. Shame about the scratches due some previous owner's over zealous cleaning. As is so often the case, they are far less visible in hand - the camera seems to pick them up.

My favourite coin in my collection would be the Gothic Crown, but I have posted that many times before. Second favourite is much more difficult as there are many candidates, but this one is high on the list - 1723 SSC Crown. You see the shillings all the time, but the Crowns are much scarcer.

No. All have the same size font digits. What you might be getting confused about is that some 1849 specimens (not yours above) have the small WW initials next to the date obliterated by the linear circle. These ones are taken from an 184(8) pattern matrix which has had the linear circle re-engraved (and the 9 added), thus obscuring the original WW initials. Or possibly a confusion with 1849 halfcrowns, which are indeed known with both normal and smaller date digits (latter is rarer).

The reverse lis and lions sit distinctively high in their respective quarters…I did find this, which belongs to an anchor obverse. I guess we’ll have to wait and see!

I particularly like the 1860/59 tie ribbons (plural)............always present in same place + further clashing under Victoria's chin.

I don’t like using proprietary products because I don’t know what’s in them, and I believe VerdiCare is difficult to obtain in the UK anyway. After some research on what the British Museum used to use to treat bronze disease and verdigris on large objects, like cannon, I tried the technique for myself on this battered 1799 half-penny. For anyone interested, the treatment was 100 minutes at 90°C in a 2% w/w solution of sodium sesquicarbonate in chlorine-free water. Followed by a rinse in chlorine-free water to remove the chemical and then a rinse in acetone to remove the water. The heat is needed as the reaction is impossibly slow at room temperature.

It's exactly the same - they haven't changed a thing.

1861 Freeman 28 5+G Managed to pick this one up recently , in not to bad a condition and its an upgrade for me . A devil of type to find in high grade !!! 😊

I would say Poor/NF The reason it's so worn is that no silver was struck for currency between 1758 and 1816 (you can forget rarities like the Northumberland shilling, and the 1787 shillings and sixpences were special issues for certain banks customers which is why so many exist in high grade as they mostly didn't circulate). So the poor old George II shillings got so much use before 1816 that it's no wonder they got worn!

I would probably grade it as poor/ fair.

Looks like an Edward I or II farthing to me, of the later classes (e.g. 10).

I can assure you I was not being patronising and was definitely not accusing you of being evil, stupid or trying to avoid tax; I was genuinely curious about your question regarding CGT and wondered if you belived (or knew) of a legal workaround that could be beneficial to others. If you look at my posting record I have always been welcoming to newcomers and have tried to help them with their questions. I have never been rude to anyone and don't intend to start now. But whatever, I'll refrain from replying to this thread again.

That could be a good shout. My 1723 shilling has damage just at the critical point, but here is the 3 from my much better half crown. I can see that the sixpence 3 appearance could be due to a chunk missing.

a early Florin minted only for 1848-1849... unfortunately its not in the best of condition, rubbed with a gash 😟 I did read some of these have smaller numbers... I take it this is the large numbers ?

Mine

Sifting through my bits and bobs and came across this one. Not listed in any books that i can find so one to mark down. Maybe a complete example will turn up one day who knows. Its a 1a4 obverse with the Seriffed X and a 1a3 reverse with a nice square E. Hvnfrei at York mint.

So the reason of asking is if a coin is rare its condition goes by the side a little... this crown although its seen circulation is in quite good condition.... details are legible and minor rubbing... where would this Crown sit on the grade scale?

I agree that halfs and quarters are often in almost perfect condition because they were easily lost soon after they entered circulation. I too look for nice examples, scarcer mints, errors, etc. and enjoy the challenge of identifying them. This is one of my favourites. Walter (Waltier error) on Northampton, square E's on obverse (round on reverse), class 1a2/1a5 mule, possibly Mass 148, although the X looks different.

In my experience there are 4 different obverse dies which have been altered to 1848/7. These are illustrated in the pictures below. Whilst Bramah does not have any pictures to illustrate his type 10b, he says the following in his 1929 book:- "The die has been altered from 1847. The 7 shows very plainly beneath the 8, its up-stroke dividing the lower loop of 8 into two unequal parts, that on the left being much the smaller." Interestingly, I have found two different obverse dies which fit Bramah's 10b description. These are the top two pictures shown below. Surprisingly, these Bramah 10b types do not appear on Gouby’s website. Bramah 10c / Gouby C (bottom left) is probably the most common of the 8/7’s Gouby D (bottom right), with the 7 at back of bottom loop of the 8, I think is the rarest type……and probably why Bramah has missed this variety. Gouby Ca and Cb are doubled examples of his variety C I believe his Da is simply a worn example of his type D. He actually remarks upon this himself i.e. "Possibly a worn version of D !?" If anyone wishes to see additional detailed legend pictures to support any of the above then please feel free to contact me.

Forgetting the grade, the good thing about it for me is that there are no major digs or edge knocks/bruises, etc., making it a collectable fine too. Potentially your most valuable coin to-date?

Another unlisted one. Sadly it's in sold listings on ebay. But worth noting down for reference if you like that sort of thing Reads Her instead of Hen on the obverse. Think its class 1b1 Rodbert at Winchester.

Today more sorting out and I found a shilling its dated 1857, on magnifying it highlighted that the numbers were different sizes the 7 has a few blobs deformation to it as well ... possibly done at the mint with numbers changed as worn out?

It's definitely a London coin, but not class 1 or Henry II because the N and D are ligated (joined together). If memory serves me right that feature first occurred on class IVa, which was issued under Richard I, but the lettering style isn't right for that. My guess would be class V or VI (so John or Henry III) and judging by the position of the O of ON probably a moneyer with five letters in his name. A bit more research could probably tie the class and maybe even the moneyer down a bit. Edit: you beat me to it Ukstu; I was glancing through my copies of Mass and Slevin for inspiration, but we seem to broadly agree on class 5 or 6.

Obviously this bawbee from King William III from 1697 circulated as a halfpenny deep into the 18th century given it's wear pattern

Not the best example but an unusual pairing. Withers 411 Bradford Workhouse counterstamp on a Samuel Fereday Bilston token.

The verdigris may not show very well in the photo. Below is another "before" photo under different light. Work is in progress on coins with more obvious/stubborn verdigris. I will report back!

Hello all. I am having some difficulties with this halved short cross penny. Specifically I am finding it hard to distinguish between early Class 1 of Henry II and early Class 5 of John. Both have the stop after the S of hENRICVS and a similar portrait structure. The poor condition of the piece doesn't help as it makes the hair not possible to see. I was wondering if anyone here could help to push me in the right direction. Thank you.

Thanks. Your latest pictures are much better, and I'd say your coin is not a problem - it's struck slightly off centre, but that's not unusual for early milled.

I agree - it looks kosher so probably a misdiagnosed denomination. But I'd say $150 is still B bit on the steep side for the most common 2/6 in the series.

There is a part of me that thinks that buying a fake - from someone selling them as reproductions - for space fillers for something like, say the 1798 Dorrien Magers shilling that only 20 still exist - is fine. Pay $5 since I'll never probably even see a real one and concentrate on spending good money for the real ones like the 1787 I got recently. But no sympathy for anyone trying to pass a fake as real.

My fav at the moment a 1902 crown will put pic on soon

Spotted this on Ebay. It was in the sold listings. Its got the 1 3 5 crown and reversed N we see on Rhuddlan coins but i cannot match the reverse. It's probably a mistrike of some sort but interesting enough to keep a note of.

I’ll give you this much, you’re quite the detective. Your knowledge of these little details is very impressive. I do get the thrill, though, especially on those occasions where you’re seeking out (or waiting for) a complete example to finish the puzzle. Great stuff!

many thanks for looking into this, the previous owner was a long time ago before I would have got it circa 1990's so Its great to finally have these looked and corrected, as all that I now have identified live in a page with others and I retain all of the information with the coins...albeit parts of coins .... very well done and much appreciated 🙏

Heres my 1799 a lovely example bought recently at least EF with lustre and no problems only £20 I wish i had a 1806 and 1807 is similar grade

Definitely different coins. A complaint is certainly in order, and negative feedback. I would point out to the vendor that the coin is still legally yours, and that it has unique features that make it identifiable in the future. However sadly legal action , even should the opportunity arise, would likely be prohibitively expensive. No harm in publicising the vendor if you don’t get redress. Jerry

I think people get a bit worked up over the question of cleaning as the topic is somewhat nuanced. Every coin in circulation showing signs of wear has effectively been cleaned because the act of circulation ensures that contact is made with other surfaces which rub against each other. i.e. nothing different to taking a the use of chemical cloth to a coin and rubbing. That just speeds up the process. The only thing that is offensive in the eyes of most collectors is a case of a polished coin, with or without the use of chemical substances. Personally I love toning for the fact it gives added confidence that the surfaces have not been messed about with, but even that has a few caveats because silver dip will leave a residue on the coin which over time will give the piece in question a typically pinkish hue. Any coin in someone's pocket will end up from friction with lots of faint parallel lines, because they were there. Without polishing chemically, I defy anyone to see the difference between pocket rub and a soft cloth, though clearly it would be possible in the case of demonetised coins to use your loaf and conclude that not being in circulation any more, the only option left is deliberate. In the case of the Morgan above, if the surfaces aren't reflective, probably not other than 'cleaning' from circulation, because there is clearly wear to the high points.