Leaderboard

So do I. It will get the wife off my back telling me to stop doing all the things I enjoy. Rest assured all will be fine. I'm not giving up the ghost yet. I haven't yet created a box for Rob Pearce 1958-2026 to tick yet. Eventually it will be filled, but family history suggests I might be around for a while yet. My father's eldest sister was 96 when she died. Never married, ran a smallholding on her own, then had a sweet shop in Wells, rode a motor bike until she was 70 and refused to go into a home to the day she died on the grounds they were full of old people. The interesting bit was the bike. At 5'3" and weighing 5 &1/2 stone, one that she rode was an Ariel square 4. I guess she didn't want to conform to the insecure female model. By the time she stopped after coming off on ice one night, she was down to a 250, but was collecting her pension. I liked visiting her sweet shop.

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

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?

It just seemed bit of a sweeping statement and reflected the personal searches of 2 people for different varieties. Had it been a survey of 30 or 40 collectors, all searching with the same level of intensity, either statement would have had more supporting evidence behind it. Both are unquestionably less than common, but I wouldn't like to assign a rarity of one relative to the other because I haven't done the spadework. My NGC MS65 1673 halfpenny was in a 65 slab when I bought it in 2006 and did so because I could see without a glass that it was actually a 5/3. To me that was obvious. Thanks to the work done by Nicholson identifying the various 5 over 3 dies with their different styles, I was then able to say that the majority of 1675 halfpennies were actually 5/3 and the straight, clear 5 from new dies was the rare type. At this point the yearly mintages fell into place, because if you believe the mint output figures, 1673 and 1675 were not particularly different and certainly not as rare as the 1672 in the case of 1675, yet listings in past catalogues suggested they were much on a par with far more 1673s than the figures suggested. That was my 3rd unassigned 5/3 to go in the collection, none of which was in less than a 63 slab. And all now out. Add the identifiable dates from images rather than cataloguers opinions and you arrive at not dissimilar numbers of 1673s and 1675s, and 1672 then becomes much rarer relatively. Which is what the mint said. Consequently I am happy with my analysis. This study also showed the existence of a doubly cut overdate, when close examination of my 5/3 showed it in fact to be 5 over 3 over 2. Totally unambiguous if you look at the pictures in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. It ain't going anywhere soon, but my sketches do allow others to identify the reverse die involved. Nobody would have considered it likely prior to my discovery due to the propensity of the mint to use dies to extinction.

I'd not call it professional but for my three main obsessions, er, collections (shilling date run 1663-1970, Irish coins 1928-2000 & French 3rd through 5th Republics) I have a four ring binder and bunches of coin safe plastic sheets that hold anywhere from 42 (shilling sized) to 30 (half crown sized) or 12 (1870's 5 franc sized) and that suits me nicely. It's easy to show them to friends and easy to take it along when I go to coin shops or shows. Easy to find on Amazon, couldn't tell you elsewhere. Hope this is of some use.

I have a rather nice 1736, 3 over 5. These are much harder to find.

Thank you Stuart. All in all it has been passable here, but a few incidents have caused a bit of grief. I have had ongoing issues with a few external adjustments made when sitting at Birmingham since the middle of the summer. Trying to upgrade the website at the moment. A few changes to stock that I honestly believed had gone through due to the reply received from the platform, had not in fact, leaving me selling most of the desirable coins for a second time. It has happened to a few people that are regular customers who are more forgiving than new ones. The second set are less forgiving because they don't know you. Accordingly, I have had to make orders manually processable only. A pain in the ass, but at least it eliminates me having to incur a second set of full fees just to refund the customer. Makes me look a twat, and I never see them again. All is explained in the message on the landing page. The question is, can you see it or would you move past the front page too quickly to register the message? Anybody interested, have a look and give me some suggestions for a revamped layout. Website landing page Doesn't rain, only pours. Next problem. In addition to the above site issues, on Boxing day the CH boiler broke down and leaked it's contents everywhere. I have now informed myself by experiment that the new trainers my wife bought me a few months ago, are in fact waterproof as claimed. A quick check suggests the volume they can hold is in excess of 1 litre, but, it's a write off. Ideal boilers have shown themselves to be less than so. All the HE series units have a manifold that consistently breaks and they have done so on this boiler at least 3 or 4 times on several occasions since 2004. It's plastic, but rather than make a replacement that will last, they are offering a full boiler brand replacement. That's shit. I like to buy something that can be repaired with the least landfill possible. I am going for a Vaillant this time. Next problem. I've not been in the best of health for the past couple months. I'm not sleeping at all. The wife thinks I'm slowly going off my trolley due to lack of sleep and generally ignoring any potential health issues. Pointing out that my basic health figures are better than hers, she chooses to ignore my comments. She swims 4 or 5 times a week and does other exercises but has high blood pressure, nearly 200 over whatever. I do sweet f a and have excellent numbers - 120 over 85. Probably because I also smoke too much (she doesn't), drink too much (she doesn't) and don't try to pretend I'm in my youth (she doesn't either, but instead spends most of her time worrying about me not being so). To sum it all up. In the lead up to Christmas she got totally p'd off getting no sleep due to me coughing and keeping her awake. I've been banished to the sofa, and now sleep when I feel like it. She also booked me into the quacks and worse still managed to impress on him her concerns, much to my consternation. I now have a prostate exam for Friday. A senility test for alzheimers on the 8th. A new CH boiler being fitted on the 9th, and a lung cancer check in a mobile scanner on the 15th. This is apparently going to appear in Tesco's car park as part of the national screening program for smokers and ex-smokers. All is capped off by a consultation with a sleep specialist on the 21st. Apparently there is a program for that too. Anyway, enough of my woes. Downstairs for a quick cigar and see who is wandering around the garden followed by a quick whisky. One thing my family has got right is that a bottle of Linkwood is a regular in my Christmas stocking. :) Happy Days. Please look at the current website layout and give me some ideas about what would make it work better for you. More drop downs? More info? Ease of use? It is currently 03:30 on the 1st Jan 2026 and I don't feel at all tired.

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 think you need to Scale your image down rather than just crop it, so we can see the whole coin. As to whether that Nickel has been cleaned - difficult to say from that pic. It would not be surprising if it has. There is quite a lot of wear, but equally Nickel doesn't tarnish so the surfaces are likely to remain quite bright.

I love crowns as their large size allows you to see so much details and admire the engraver's art. Pistrucci's St George and the dragon design wouldn't work on a small coin like a threepence for example. But high grade pre 1887 examples are very / too expensive for me. Worn examples lose their appeal as the intricate details are gone. I have got some of the common ones in high grade and had to settle for a nice VF+ Victoria VH. If I ever come into money one day (fat chance!), then I would like to get a GVF Charles II crown. When I visit the Ashmolean Museum, I always see and admire the Charles I Oxford crown. Then I moved on to the smaller halfcrowns, florins, shillings, etc. as they are more affordable. I buy very little these days and don't have a tick list.

As the label says. Good luck to all

I advise that you should not store your copper or bronze coins in anything that resembles plastic, such as plastic pockets. The coins will sweat and get verdigris.

I do also really like the Shilling but my favourite British silver coin is the crown.

will do

Anything anyone finds at the first or second time of looking immediately becomes easy and not an issue in terms of acquisition, and immediately reduces the rarity in their eyes. Oh that life were that simple. The entire essence of collecting anything is serendipity. Right place, right time and you are on a roll. Miss out on something you could have bought with one more bid and you are forever cursing yourself. There are so many could have, should haves out there I've stopped counting. Don't forget every missed opportunity creates the funds for the next one. Win every one and your issue becomes funding, because you are likely to have overpaid at some point just to have it and I can confidently say you don't have unlimited funds. I wanted one of the the Henry VII sovereigns in Carrington recently, so made sure the money was on standby and placed a bid. I was one bid short, or rather David Guest was the person who outbid me on the day in the room. Dragon marked sovereigns aren't difficult to find, but the price makes them appear so. This one ticked the trade off boxes just right. Not buying that meant the remainder of the auction was now up for grabs. I bought the type 1 Mary Angel and the Triple Unite instead. Not what I wanted that day, but both ticked boxes and I was happy with that. And it left me with cash to spare.

Tins are very tricky! I have a few, but most are near impossible to make out from photos. This is probably my best farthing 1684:

I don't have a cabinet myself for several reasons. One being that I haven't collected in a systematic way, and don't have enough good pieces to justify having a cabinet. Another is that I like to look at both sides of my coins easily. Quandrum works well for the number of pieces I have and make handling easy. Like you, I do appreciate the craftsmanship of a good cabinet. BTW, I like your shilling album pages. The pockets are just the right size to reduce the amount of rotation. When I first started "collecting" as a teenager, I also focused on shillings.

Oh I know that and I won't be changing what I have. If I could afford that, I'd be a very different kind of collector than I am. I enjoy what I am doing though that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the aesthetic joy of that design.

Saving for a new front door is indeed practical 😀 Seriously, I think it depends very much on the number, grade and value of the coins you intend to collect. If it is say a date run collection of UNC-EF 18 /19 century halfcrowns, then they would look fantastic in a quality cabinet. But if the priority is to make date runs of lower grade or common coins, then an album / flips/ 2x2 coin holders /quadrums would be much more practical.

A 1754 4 over 0 is even rarer it took me years to find a decent one

Thanks Bill. Rob

Welcome to the forum! Storing a growing collection is always a headache and largely done to personal preference. I have a very similar target collection to yours and have kept mine in a growing number of the WH Smith's "Magpie" albums, which are reasonably cheap and secure. The double action ensures coins do not slip out, and the plastic is coin safe. They are not good for display and the folders gradually fail under the weight of coins. The range of Lindner coin trays are another alternative. They are good for display and very adaptable, but each tray is expensive. Many new collectors start with coin flips and long boxes, which is simple and practical, but viewing your coins becomes tedious. Traditionally the serious collector would use the custom made coin cabinets. Others may be able to point you to current suppliers, or you can keep an eye on the auctions. These are much better for display and the cabinets look appealing, but the coins are more open to the environment, and they can become inflexible as your collection expands. Of course if you are following the American trend towards graded and encapsulated coins, you need an entirely different approach and I have no idea how they tackle that. P

nice obverse paddy

No, it’s definitely CIVI TAS, the AS is very clear and there are four characters beginning with C in the CIVI quarter. Always worth looking out for spelling and positional errors though, I’ve got a Henry III penny of Hereford reading HENRICS , also a known variety. Jerry

H, Obviously I don't know what type of scales you have but "1 gram each" sounds a bit rounded to me and could mean anything from 0.50 to 1.49g. . Do your scales not display 100ths of a gram? BTW, diameters are also important for aiding ID, preferably in tenths of a mm. For reference my Edward pennies weigh between 1.24 and 1.43g each and have diameters of 17.8 to 20.4 mm. With Short cross pennies a cut half could weigh 0.53g (so 1 gram) and a full coin 1.43g (also 1 gram). You'd be surpised what we could come up with given as much infomation as possible, some of which cannot be gleaned from a photo. Steve

PS sorry about the rant, H, I love your enthusiasm, you’ve woken the forum up a bit…but PLEASE buy some scales, they cost pennies and halve the effort required in identifying your coins.

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. 🥳

The second coin reads ‘CIVI TAS LON DON’ not ‘ LONDONIENSIS’ and judging by its size is probably a halfpenny not a farthing. Have you bought a suitable scales yet? Jerry

Both types of farthing are pretty rare as well , your coin above is just superb , suitable for basil nicholsons collection

Similar for me. And if you live within an hour or two of Galata's address, have a day out walking in the area and pick them up. You will probably be offered a cup of tea and a slice of cake. Paul and Bente are nice people.

I have a Royal Mint issue mint collection with 1, 2,5,10,50 cent plus 1dollar . These are in a Royal Mint illustrated folder . Any interest in acquiring these . Dave Allan UK

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.