CoinKing

Hi Bob, There is no dispute that these are different dies. 130 beads and 3 rocks identifies a specific die; 136 "things" and a single rock identify another specific; other dies may have more or fewer beads or teeth. The value of any die derives from its rarity. The borders on both coins consist of beads. On the preferred variety, the beads are separated from the border. On the PCGS coin, some beads are separated, many touch the edge, and some are embedded in the edge. But they are not teeth, or denticles, or anything toothlike. The only reason to call them "teeth" is to protect the traditional variety. In U.S. coins, we have many varieties that are similar, with one worth a significant premium over the others. A good example is the 1922 "Plain" Lincoln Cent, where we have varieties that show ghosts of the mintmark (very little collector value), others that show no mintmark whatsoever (good value), and one specific die variety that is the most desirable and valuable by far. In fact, the parallels are important because the 1922 "Plain" Cent was struck from a worn die in which the mintmark filled with dirt. My observation of the traditional "Beaded" variety is that it was struck from lapped dies. The polishing of the die face reduced the size of the beads and separated them from the edges. This also accounts for the loss of the shallowest detail in and around Brtitannia. To me, the traditional Toothed/Beaded designations are inappropriate. If the specific dies have been standardized (i.e. Obverse A, Reverse 1), then that's the way they should be designated to eliminate any confusion. Best wishes, Ron Guth

Dear Muygrandeoso, My point is that the long-accepted designations are wrong if any reasonable person looks at a coin and says "Those are beads" or "Those are tooth-like denticles" yet the designation says otherwise. At the risk of sounding sarcastic, we don't have the room to put on our insert "Beaded border, but not the one that everyone pays a premium for, so we'll call it a Toothed Border." PCGS appreciates and knows varieties...we recognize all varieties on all US coins from 1793-1838 plus all subsequent major varieties. If someone can come up with a standardized numbering scheme (as I proposed in an earlier post), PCGS will support it. That way, everyone will have a clear understanding that the Variety 1A Farthing of 1860 is the most desirable and valuable variety of the year.

Hi Teq, Thanks for the welcome. IMO, the confusion was caused by Peck et al when they called a reverse with beads a "toothed" border, which it clearly is not. Again, I totally agree that the die on the PCGS coin is different from Reverse 1. However, I cannot speak to relative rarity because I am not as well-versed as you on the known populations. If there is general agreement to differentiate between the dies, PCGS is certainly willing to go along with any scheme that eliminates the confusion we have here. It could be as simple as enumerating the die combination (for example, Obv A/Rev 1 or Obv C/Rev 2)...a similar scheme is used on the 1916 20 Hellers of German East Africa (Tanzania). By the way, the examples posted by you and Bob C. appear to be the result of a lapped die, which would explain why the beads are so tiny and why the rocks to the left of the lighthouse are so faint. Is the crack that connects the 6th bead (using your numbers) to Britannia's shield diagnostic for the die?

PCGS has graded two examples so far: 1 in MS-63 RB and 1 in MS-64 RB

Gentlemen and Gentleladies, After having taken a close look at all of the images of the 1860 Farthings on Colin Goode’s website, the images from Gary Schindler, and from having personally examined the coin PCGS certified as a Toothed Border/Beaded Border mule, here are some observations. The reverse of the PCGS-graded mule appears to be a different die from either Reverse 1 or Reverse 2 displayed by Goode. The inner circle on the PCGS coin appears to have been crudely drawn above the H, I, and G of FARTHING. On the PCGS coin, the T of FARTHING is connected to the circle, but that might be explained by a late state of the die. The border of the PCGS coin consists clearly of beads, some of which are fully rounded and clearly visible (especially from 4 to 5 o’clock), some of which merge with the outer edge. I have no argument that this is different from Die 1, but to call it anything other than “beaded†is to deny what your eyes are telling you. Further, a direct comparison between the obverse and reverse borders of the PCGS coin shows a distinct difference. The obverse border of the PCGS coin shows clear elongation of the “teeth†or “denticlesâ€, completely unlike that on the reverse. I can’t tell with certainty, but it appears to me as though Reverse 2 might also be made up of beads. If that were true, there would be no such thing as a mule…they would all be Beaded Reverses. Either way, the question becomes one of semantics and value. You can have two mules, one of which is more desirable than the other. Figure out a way to designate the two (or however many), then let the marketplace decide the values. But, call them what they really are. In the meantime, that’s what PCGS is going to do. We stand by our designation. Ron Guth President Professional Coin Grading Service www.pcgs.com