Rob

Brilliant. I like it - a lot.

Here are the Coinage figures, taken from “A New History of the Royal Mint” edited by C.E.Challis. 1992. page 368 Table 46, - The Coinage of Halfpence and Farthings, 1672 – 1676 [March 1679]. Source PRO. E351/2122,2123,2124; CSP Domestic 1676-7; CTB, 1676-9, 1266-7. £ s d total d 10/08/1672 25/01/1673 10,928 14 11.75 2,622,900 10/02/1673 12/04/1673 1,654 8 7.75 397,064 13/04/1673 19/04/1673 47 7 2.5 11,367 20/04/1673 20/07/1674 10,821 2 5.25 2,597,069 21/07/1674 22/02/1676 16,801 3 7.75 4,032,284 March 1679 1,409 338,160 Totals 9,998,843 This was part of a conversation I had with a former member (Teg) when we were discussing mintages of Charles II coppers. I also made a list of clearly identifiable coins taken from catalogues at the time to analyse the date distribution. I don't have a copy of the book, though others do. There might be further mintage figures listed. Using these figures inconjunction with other musings such as the info that there were 5 presses and by extension 1 striking halfpennies and 4 farthing, it was possible to produce a reasonable guesstimate of mintages.

Good news. They aren't that sharp. Seem to be getting daily calls from someone purporting to be from BT requesting email contact detail about the internet connection, which we don't have. Gave them another daily spammer's contact details info@kffln.com and Judith Carey if anyone can use them for wasting their time

And the reverse. There is a clear ermine under the acorn on this side. There is also a curve behind the top half of the 3 better seen in hand, which was a good match for a 1572 reverse die. Unfortunately that was 6 or 7 years ago and I've no idea where the pictures are now. I'm not referring to the area to the right of the 3 which looks like a 2, but is a rotated shield top and something else. If you want an alternative image it is Bole 1471, DNW 89, 29/9/2010.

Excuse the bits - colour picture, hopefully better for checking. Acorn over ermine on the reverse only.

That certainly dispels any idea of the crossbar being added after, and the two types are sufficiently different to say they are not related. The no bearing comment was a reflection of the fact that the 4 is only used on this year, so there is no crossover from the previous or to the next year unless anybody has sequenced obverse dies to establish the order in which the reverses were used? Yes? No? Ideally we need to identify an obverse used on 31/12/1863 or 1/1/1865 that is also seen on an 1864 to settle this. Whatever the outcome, at least we have generated a discussion

Certainly a different profile to the two I attached earlier, but given all three show degradation to the area in question, I'm not sure it answers the question. All three coins are high grade.

A plus for the 1864 is that there are a lot of coins with one or both dies flawed. That helps with both the chronology and identification. I suspect more people look at 1864s than 1844s, though whether they can be a***d to do any studies is a different matter.

Close, but no cigar, so one die eliminated.

The Freeman/Peck/Gouby etc reference number has no bearing on the chronology unless a clearly identifiable derivative sequence can be established. That is why I raised the possibility of the crossbar being added separately. If it can be shown that the serif is a flawed plain 4, and the crosslet is a plain 4 with the bar added, then it will be possible using the obverse die to place it in the sequence chronologically. There is a real possibility of resolving this given the relatively few dies involved. I don't have many 1864 images at my disposal, but I'm certain there are a few here who do. I don't think the mint would care whether it had a crossbar or serif, and certainly not if it was the result of wear and tear. That could be wasted time IMO

I know what you are saying, as I have seen this too, but there are a few possibilities here. If you enlarge an image of the 'upper serif', it is clearly not a cleanly cut feature, hence the question. We know that the last digit (and sometimes the 3rd) was entered by hand at this time, so we are looking at the profile of the 4 punch used. Was the crossbar on the crosslet 4 entered separately after the 'plain' 4 to create the variety? This should be verifiable if the crossbar appears at various vertical angles or lateral positions. Alternatively, was the 4 punch originally employed equipped with the cross bar, but subsequently broke to produce the 'upper serif' 4? Looking at the two 4s below, the second has a flaw developing from the 'serif' end, suggesting a plain 4 or broken crosslet 4 punch explanation. I see nothing in the LCA image to change that view. All the upper serifs I have seen are ill-defined and clearly of variable length. Not what you would expect from a punched character.

A question that needs to be answered as follows. People use the terms plain 4/upper serif 4 and crosslet 4. The latter is clearly different and unambiguous, but the former requires clarification. Is it a plain 4 with a sharp end that subsequently develops a flaw in the form of an upper serif, or an upper serif 4 that subsequently gets blocked? i.e does anybody have either a perfectly formed upper serif with a sharp cut, or a perfectly formed chisel ended plain 4? In the nerdy world of varieties, this matters.

It depends how you define a mule. Rarity shouldn't come into it. In the case of currency coins, traditionally a mule is a combination of dies, one of which is either obsolete or shouldn't be used for the issue in the first place. e.g the undated 2008 20p, where clearly it was the intention to date every coin, or say the groats in the last DNW sale which had a 3d obverse paired with a 4d reverse. So the question arises whether one or the other of the dies has clearly been superseded at an earlier date making its use anachronistic. Using this definition the answer has to be no because you have F528 to F530 using obverse 3 and F531 to F541 using obverse 5, F528 uses reverse B which was the normal one since 1860 (1874 excepted, but this say the introduction of the Heaton coins) and F529 to F540A uses reverse C. Clearly this was a changeover from one design to a slightly modified version of both obverse and reverse, but dies being used to destruction requires some overlap. To expand. ESC lists the 1711 shilling with the third bust as 'probably a mule'. This is reasonable as there is a distinct issue of 4th bust shillings dated 1710, but the R2 rating indicates a fairly rare item, so it is not clear whether the 3rd bust die was resurrected or if it was part of the natural changeover pattern.

The plain 4 looks like a blocked upper serif 4 to me.

I have and have seen many with crosses before the bust. Pointedly they are usually early issues, so there is certainly a case to be made for their defacement being a political statement. You don't see so many James third coinage with this mark. The earliest I have seen are Elizabeth shillings, so maybe they were a catholic thing started after the demise of Mary? Although the Civil War is regularly promoted as a War between the King with his 'Catholic' tendencies and the Puritan parliament, you don't see the King's face defaced very often, which given the divisive nature of war is surprising.

Who conveniently only strikes at Rhuddlan - one of the more expensive mints. And they are from the same dies with the same weakness on the inner circle below the M. Remarkable. I wish I was that lucky. My Rhuddlan from the same moneyer cost me over £600 and there are two here for a quid!

Probably because it is the commonest year for 'NEW PENCE'

The funds went to a good cause. Having established that the best one of this die combination on my list of acceptable and available examples was in fact bought by Exeter Museum in the Willis sale (1991), I acquired the second best D17 on the list as my example - ex P W P Carlyon-Britton, H W Morrieson, E E Yates, H M Lingford & A Barr

I've got one more (gVF) if anybody needs one.

I had a pleasant few minutes the other day discussing irony with Peter of India, who very politely informed me (half a dozen times), that he was not selling anything, but instead could he ask a few questions to pin down my lifestyle and buying habits in order to reduce the number of unwanted cold calls. After a fairly convoluted discussion and at the sixth time of asking, he also enquired whether I was going to answer any of his questions. My reply enabled him to close the case from his side. Shame his name wasn't Clive, or there would have been a bit more mileage in it.

1300 hammer

They aren't that difficult to find, though specific varieties are usually rare. James II halfpennies are a lot scarcer.

Correct If you don't want others to know something, you had best confide in ............. Damn, I forgot their name.

I don't know what has happened to it since I saw it and can only go on what I'm told. Maybe it has been looked at and condemned and maybe not. The person concerned wasn't short of a bob or two, nor do they collect anything in depth, so it would fit into a random selection quite easily. Maybe they kept it and wanted to stay below the radar. Maybe they sold it. Who knows? We all know there are many things that specialist collectors would like to know exist, but the knowledge is kept close to the owner's chest for whatever reason.

That would have potential if there was some way of tying current coinage to face value transactions only, but I can't see one at present. Actively removing misrepresented items would go a long way, but as John points out, it aint gonna happen if it costs eBay