Leaderboard

I think all these alterations add to the history. A plug means someone thought it interesting enough to use as a medallion or touch piece, then someone later felt it was interesting enough to repair. Engravings are often love tokens or claims to ownership. A split or fragment means it has been in the ground for some time. I think that is why I find perfect proof coins a bit dull.

I brought mine for £63; 8 years ago.

Hi all! I’ve been collecting on and off for a few years but only recently decided to try and take it up seriously. Came across this Henry VII plugged groat at a fair which after some deliberation I decided to buy as apart from the plug I thought was a really nice example but just wondering what people’s views are on plugged coins generally - do other collectors avoid them altogether and do they hold any value? I thought the price was reasonable given the plug but wonder what others views are. Would others buy a plugged coin to fill a gap or go for a lower grade, non-damaged, coin instead? Thanks!

Not the best of pictures but here's the edge. It reads * SERJEANT WILLIAM GRANT , 1ST BAT 92ND HIGHLANDERS. I bought it online from a dealer in Glasgow who had omitted the edge details in the description of sale. I was a bit miffed at first until i did some research. He is Roll number 51 on the Waterloo medal database. He also composed a poem about the battle that was on a manuscript that was sold by Noonans in September 2006 (lot 1100)

some that I have picked up ages ago......

I guess most "serious" collectors would avoid plugged coins, or any other damage. But if that is the only way you can fill a gap within budget, then go for it! I have a number of damaged coins in my collection - some with engravings in the field, some ex-mount, some hammered even missing fragments, but they will fill the gaps until and unless I can afford to replace them with something better. Here, for example, is my William I penny. I would love to have one without the missing chunk, but until one comes along at a price I am happy with, it will stay with me. Your Henry VII, by the way, is a lovely example apart from the plug.

Dont know if this is any interest to anyone. Although i have posted in pennies, it also covers other bronze. These were amendments freeman made after his first bronze book, showing some that he had estimated to be less rare than he originally thought or at the time of print didnt know existed, such as the 1860 Halfpenny mule, 1870 Dot penny etc.

I'd say definitely 1735. This is what the 1733 date looks like:

Get in quick for this one: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/187859014593?itmmeta=01KCWD3RSPGS13XT0BRGS6G0P9&hash=item2bbd4513c1:g:jDsAAeSwnv1pRbEi&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA4FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1fvsd0HwSoi3YVy3fEVKmzOU8EzcZuz8p%2FWljDDMPKaHkCqMoBVOUyU20uY%2Fk16edJXx5F6RDVCUVj8YBpZ0bcKH4TvJgCIt53fO1P%2BB7p7IPC3zyoGCpItoclwOlycCLt6syNuMKQL398SvgN%2FRbMQ5CT6ipDKzZzuKktdX4sH%2B8qBURpxXSMEif7ItzhiHxh%2FixUe1Ps9LJIKs31ia1sUwLyxkzevXuUrmv51nI5KQUj9qzfXRVg2jy%2BvtCqCJgBBXqOe%2Bv5PwAVO1oJdvZ50|tkp%3ABk9SR4aNj43nZg

The manuscript of the poem he wrote was sold at Noonans. https://www.noonans.co.uk/archive/lot-archive/results/131481/

It was the basis of the updates, subject to his future decisions. He later removed the milled penny (that I recently sold) from the catalog after receiving an assessment from the Royal Mint that it was a post mint alteration. Just as his 1970 edition was an extension of his several updated versions of his penny studies expanded to include half pennies, farthings, patterns, trials, etc. There are ALWAYS corrections, updates, modifications, etc to a work of this magnitude. There have been many new discoveries to add to Peck, Braman, Freeman, etc. No guide/catalog is a final authority, it merely contains information known at the time. They grow, mature, learn, make adjustments and corrections, expand as a living being.

Maybe it's me, but it's only a short time ago that members were talking of the lack of activity on the forum, as if it was stagnating, and now we have a pile of new members turn up recently.....good to see....

Hello, I bought this coin and the seller said it was a 1733 farthing, but it doesn't look like 1733, maybe 1735? Can anyone provide some insight?

Ah yes I see it now.

Hey, H, I personally think both the coins are pennies tbh! You have been majorly misled by the idea that one is a farthing, it’s ridiculous! As for myself I feel really uncomfortable with you setting ‘expert’ against ‘expert’ to attain provenance/identity, etc.…it all sits very uncomfortably with me, personally, especially when you can’t even provide a basic weight, at nothing beyond the cost of around £15. Speaking only for myself…I’m looking for your personal, and financially minimal commitment of weight in the future!

I am pleased to discover how scarce the Farthing is too! I have this one in my collection. No idea when or where I picked it up.

This is the Nicholson example, was later in the Pywell-Phillips Spink sale Oct 2018.

Agreed. It is the Anchor mm which is class IIId in the Spink guide. Auction houses are not always correct with their identifications. When i was researching my type IIIa groat i was looking at old sales. I was frequently finding type IIa coins listed as type IIIa & IIIb , the Pansy mintmark was also frequently mistaken for the Cinquefoil mintmark. Edit added information. On the older documents on groats of Henry VII type IIId did not exist. It jumped from IIIc to IV. Its possible the auction has just used the old classification where type IIId was included as IIIc. I am not sure when they created the type IIId class but on older 1960s documents it was not present. That could also be the reason it was listed as IIIc.

Aha... re discovered these....convict coins was mention some years back I believe one is George II 1727-1760 the coin is engraved 1749....the other engraved but unable to decipher any details..... anyone able to offer up more details would be most welcome....

That’s stunning, @Ukstu I’ll try and look the thread out @Sword it was in a conversation about Maundy money, as you guessed.

I'll also take plugged/edge loss etc hammered coins, especially if it makes them affordable (eg my Richard III in the name of Edward IV/V groat), I try to avoid actual holes and coins that have been broken and repaired unless extremely difficult to get otherwise (eg my Matilda 1d). I woudn't take a milled coin with any of these defects, although I've got a couple that have been cleaned/polished.

I don't tend to buy them now but when i first started collecting i bought holed / plugged coins. I have a milled sixpence of Elizabeth I that would of been way out my budget at the time if it wasn't for the plug in it. Don't mind counterstamped stuff so much as it's an interesting field that you can research sometimes. I picked up a cartwheel penny last year that had an edge engraving in the same style as the waterloo medal. When i researched the name on it i found out the guy had actually been at Waterloo. I only paid £10 for it as well so wasn't expensive.

No sorry but they are just scrap. The best thing to do with any Bronze coins post 1901 is to buy the David Groom book " British 20th Century Bronze Coin Varieties ". Its only about £10-£15 posted on Amazon and will help you get familiar with any varieties for Bronze Pennies, Halfpennies and Farthings. There is a seperate one for silver coins also, should you be interested in those.

I suspect so, and while close I don’t think it’s an actual die match with H’s. Potentially a very rare coin, especially as the one illustrated is the best Dave Greenhalgh could find! Jerry

Hi Stu, here is the pic. Very similar crown. Jerry

That very distinctive ‘stalked’ central fleur looks pretty much identical to the illustration of the ‘Edward III Pre Treaty Series E York Episcopal’ Penny on page 70 of ‘The Galata Guide to Mediaeval Pennies Part 1’ though I cannot see a quatrefoil after ‘ANGLIE’ on H’s specimen. It is an interesting coin, and I think Dave Greenhalgh is the man to give an opinion here, if anyone is a contact. Jerry

wow, the penny has been Identified to be .......😲👍 Edward III, York. Quatrefoil in centre of reverse, CIVI TAS EBO RACI

The article mentions "Norman" and "dates to just after the Battle of Hastings" so I'd have thought more likely William I. The few I can read seem to bear the legend +PILLEM, which would indicate that to be the case.

That's not a bad price to be honest. All the Charles III sets seem to be expensive. I'm not sure there's much better available in the UK to be honest. I picked up one for £46 last month, that's the cheapest I could find.

You can view Dalton & Hamer's book online: https://www.scribd.com/document/206664745/The-provincial-token-coinage-of-the-18th-century-illustrated-by-R-Dalton-and-S-H-Hamer

I was going to reply to all these but too many to do - I'll give you the task of finding a D&H. Life is so much simpler with one as all the varieties are illustrated. Punctuation, present or missing is important, as is the position of the legend relative to itself or other features as this will determine the die(s) used and hence the variety. For this piece: Milled edge will be D&H 351 - common. 351a edge reads 'AN ASYLUM .......NATIONS' - Rare 351b edge 'BIRMINGHAM OR SWANSEA' - Very Rare. 351c edge 'PAYABLE AT LONDON LIVERPOOL OR BRISTOL.' - Rare. And for any 19th century tokens you might acquire, a good reference you will find is 19the Century Token Coinage, by W J Davis. Sorry, I will lose the will to live if I do many more. I don't have any copies of either in stock, but do have the references in an emergency and if all else fails will help. Every collector added to the list of known people in a certain field helps.

I thought it worth reviving this one to show another 1698 halfpenny recently acquired. As has been previously mentioned here, these are very difficult to find, particularly in decent grades, having been struck for three months only. It pays to keep one's eyes peeled…

I hope that everyone had a most enjoyable Christmas, I certainly did with the concomitant lashings of Christmas comestibles for which I paid for in a regrettable surfeit of calories and post-festive penitence😂..... Haven't "been on" for a while and noticed this interesting post by Mr. Tye, so I thought I'd have a stab at it... You are quite right to point out that the observed weights of surviving 1351 nobles cluster very closely around what we would now express as c. 120 Troy grains, and that the variation you cite (for example, 7.75 g) is entirely consistent with normal medieval tolerances, including the remedy at the shear. On purely numerical grounds, the metrology is remarkably stable. Where I would differ is not on the arithmetic, but on the historical inference drawn from it. There is no evidence¹ that the Troy weight system as such—that is, explicitly named, formally defined, or administratively adopted—existed in England in 1351 or was used as “Troy” to regulate coin weight. At that date the Tower mint, producing the noble, was still operating explicitly in Tower weight, and continued to do so until its formal replacement by Troy weight in 1527 under Henry VIII. Expressed in Tower-weight terms, a nominal 120 Troy-grain noble corresponds to 112½ Tower grains (120 × 450⁄480), which fits comfortably within contemporary Tower-weight reckoning. What your figures do demonstrate, however, is that the grain employed in England in 1351 is effectively identical to the later Troy grain, and that the regulation of the noble’s weight is entirely consistent with what we would now describe as Troy-grain-based measurement. In that limited, practical sense, the Tower system behaves exactly as Troy would later behave. In this respect, Tower and Troy weights did not derive from one another but descend from a shared metrological ancestry, which is precisely why the English transition from Tower to Troy in 1527 was arithmetically seamless. The difficulty, then, is one of nomenclature rather than metrology. To describe the 1351 standard as “Troy” risks importing a sixteenth-century administrative label into a fourteenth-century context. In short, the numbers are sound; what is at issue is whether it is historically accurate to call them “Troy” before the name, the system, and the administrative framework had yet been adopted in England. ¹Should anyone be aware of a fourteenth-century English mint ordinance that actually uses the word “Troy,” I would be delighted to see it; until then, the numbers seem stubbornly unimpressed by nomenclature. With that, may I wish everyone a very happy New Year. May your grains be stable, your scales honest, your tolerances forgiving, and your anachronisms few — and may 2026 finally deliver that elusive coin we all hope to find. 🥳

In recent years it has been on the 1st of January. I think there may have been some preventative technicality concerning making circulation coins available with a date in the future.

yummy one of the few dates of farthing i want i even have a 1686

Many Thanks, its a nice grade, I have a younger relation who's kinda interested in some Ive shown, passing on to him some of the nicer pennies may inspire him to show more of an interest, once again, many thanks "H"👍

Its OK, the 1947 had a mintage of 52 Million though and common in high grade, selling for about £10 each.

lets hope he never ended up as a pair of falsies

Really interesting - I've added it to my rare penny site with a question mark.

I see London Coins sold this piece below a decade or so ago, concluding it was a doctored piece (is it???) with the H presumably added post-mint. Maybe this is the one Freeman saw and then had second thoughts? Did any forum member buy it, perhaps? Seemed a fair price for such a curio!

Not quite all, though... Eg. the mule 1860 halfpenny listed above as 260A does not appear in the 1986 or subsequent editions, instead there the one given 260A is the missing knot 1*+A, but non-mule, and 260B its proof. Wonder why he never mentioned again such a mule piece? I believe a few are now known?

Yes - 1920 was the last year they only used the deep cut obverse portrait, which 'sucked' metal away from Britannia, and caused a 'ghost' of the portrait outline which you can see clearly in the top example; it's more common to see between 1911 and 1920 than fully struck up reverses. In 1921 about half the pennies use a shallower portrait which partly alleviated the problem, but it wasn't until the Modified Effigy from 1926 that they reduced the effect to small enough not to worry about.

This just sold at auction for 160,000 Swiss Francs, so I guess with commission just over that in pounds...Sorry no pictures here for now. Very rare and right up my alley but WAAAY out of my affordability range. I have the die module/trial for the reverse gotten some years ago but not nearly as exciting as this one.

I'll throw one in a shoe box with my 1933 and 1954 pennies

This is a clear picture of what i believe to be a LARGE 3 i had recently.

Google Lens is good. I use it all the time.

He's also got a "very rare" Churchill Crown! What's especially scary are the prices many sellers are asking for these...

Probably correct for the time, but times change. The Chinese are now the quick witted and the Brits and the West in general are backward and slow in thought. Time to wake up to our selves. The truth always hurts.