Rob

Depends on the years. Early G5 have well struck up noses in general, but during WW1 until the end of the first series you rarely find a well struck nose. The next series tend to be well struck again. I've always put it down to a combination of weaker strike to get more life out of the dies and possible blockage as a result of prolonged die use. The flat noses seen on otherwise minty looking coins produced during the war years can't be due to wear because all the other dates outside this period are frequently encountered with well struck noses despite often having much lower mintages.

If this reference to Spink in 1912 applies, he might have a point. But I bet you would beat him hands down with your knowledge of penny farthings.

This one's briliant. A VF G3 halfpenny described as aUNC for £165.99 all in. Described as dark copper (gilt?) 'Unfortunately with a slide die of the press new system', for which read hefty edge knock and buggered rims. I despair. Perhaps I should send him a few scans of a higher/lower grade gVF (depending on viewpoint) and explain the difference between visible laurel detail and flat surfaces. This guy is a complete tool, and consistently so. Maybe a picture of a gilt coin or two would put him right on both fronts. I'm also blind as I can't see SOHO on the trancation (sic)

Hi les occ, There are in fact 8 different varieties of 1900 penny, all based on the shape of the '9' in the date and the position of it's foot, coupled with the spacing/orientation of the '0's. There are also reports of two other types, one where the '9' is over a border tooth and the second where the designer's initials are missing from under the bust. Sorry to bring this post back, I find it important that other people contribute to the author’s finds. I did find 8 different date varieties of 1900 penny. The rarest in my sample was the date having 10 1/2 tooth spacing with an open and skinny 9. I was suprised to see this many variations since I did not find any date spacing differences for 1901 using a similar sample size! What happened? Hocking doesn't shed any light on this listing nothing for 1901 pennies. As a suggestion, it is possible that the entire master design was engraved including date prior to reduction. We know that some matrices in the RM are noted as being without date for the veiled head issue and so this would be rational for the dates where spacing varities occur. A consistent date spacing without varieties would suggest the date was not added as required. Just a thought.

That's the trouble with all these arty types - always reading something into an object that isn't. Looks like a winged willy to me. Just an observation.

Hi les occ, There are in fact 8 different varieties of 1900 penny, all based on the shape of the '9' in the date and the position of it's foot, coupled with the spacing/orientation of the '0's. There are also reports of two other types, one where the '9' is over a border tooth and the second where the designer's initials are missing from under the bust. Sorry to bring this post back, I find it important that other people contribute to the author’s finds. I did find 8 different date varieties of 1900 penny. The rarest in my sample was the date having 10 1/2 tooth spacing with an open and skinny 9. I was suprised to see this many variations since I did not find any date spacing differences for 1901 using a similar sample size! What happened? You Freeman and Gouby should be shot I don't need more varieties Imagine that, if all the Victoria pennies could be sub-divided again by 10? Time to remortgage, Peter! The exponential expansion in the number of varieties categorised only by minescule differences in tooth pointings etc was a primary factor in my decision to refocus. I'm sure most denomination collectors feel compelled to find as many varieties as have been categorised by all writers. If someone says the gap in the border teeth can be x or y microns wide and there is a definitive reference published, someone will collect both. But as always it is each to their own.

Queen Anne 1711 Sixpence Terrible grading Blimey, that's shocking. Just had a look at his feedback - look at the state of the obverse of the 1917 florin he claimed was FDC. The 1818 sixpence was worse. That made nearly £200 as opposed to just over £100 for the florin. I need to find these buyers and strategically place my bucket to catch all the money they are p***ing away.

The also buy for inclusion in their own sales. Some of the higher estimates will fall into that category.

Similar problem. 4 years only with even fewer varieties unless you expand the criteria to include patterns, in which case the numbers are nearly the same as the BoE tokens.

20-30% off book price is about right for a nice example. I sold a stunning 1814 1/6d for £180 a year or so ago, so UNC makes EF prices, and I've just sold a 3/- in a CGS 85 slab for just over £250. Part of the problem might be that Spink only list currency up to EF which is surprising for relatively modern milled whereas the proofs usually make book which is priced for FDC. The only currency to consistently sell for book is the 1816 3/- which is rare. Never seen a mint state one. The ex-Lingford coin which went through London Coins 2 or 3 years ago quite patently wasn't UNC, irrespective of the catalogue description.

i didnt know that............why so? They are unconventional denominations and the series is not extensive enough to make an interesting collection. You are restricted to two basic obverses and reverse types in three denominations including the 9d patterns, all within a 6 year period. You could expand it with the varieties of the number of acorns and leaf positions as listed by Davis, but even allowing for all the proofs in the different metals, you only have about 3 dozen coins. A shame really because some of them are quite rare.

This is as normal as evenly spaced digits. The last digit was entered manually on the die and so can vary considerably in position. For a similar thing on an 1862 halfpenny, post #18 refers. Here

Haha. Grossly overrated year, common as muck! Everyone apparently kept them at the time as it was the last year, and BU multiples were offered in the late 60s. Not sure Britannia was ever a goddess, even in her Roman incarnation. Never under estimate the humble farthing....I do prefer pre 1936 what other coin could you get 960 for £1. I love them By definition none, surely. If you got 960 halfpennies for £1, alarm bells ought to ring.

Sad news but inevitable. I was told he asked to be discharged from hospital in Feb after a 3 week stay as there wasn't anything more that could be done.

I don't have any figures for halfpenny weight distributions, but a few years ago when discussing as to whether you could differentiate between metals in the case of wren farthings, the sample I checked had a mean weight of 2.82g and a distribution of 0.36g around this mean, but I can't remember if the sample size was big enough to be statistically significant. The figure suggested somewhat in excess of 10% variation, i.e +/-5-6%. This compares well with the range quoted in Peck and the official weight which was 40 pence per pound or 87.5 grains. Halfpennies were also struck to the same standard, i.e. an official weight of 5.6699 grams, but the range quoted by Peck is only about 5% (+/-2.5%). Accordingly, your halfpenny would be outside these limits at just over 8% underweight. Possibly a wrong flan, but inconclusively so unless you can find a type struck at the mint in 1903 to this weight.

Ouch

Neither the penny nor the farthing are proofs in my opinion. The penny looks to be P1132 and the farthing P1279. Although there is a large dot in the middle of the lowest shoulder drapery corresponding to KF6, the reverse is incompatible. The easiest check is the edge. Proofs will be grained, whilst the currency pieces will have a grained edge but in a deep groove. See attached for the two types.

Be grateful, you might suffer undue stress trying to decipher the reply.

Yes,we are interested in the coins value. The was the first G. Britain/UK coin that we have actually owned. We have collected US coins for decades and was just a bit confused as to why a coin listed in one of ESC/Seaby catalog as an R4 with about 11-20 examples known to exist was valued at basically the same price as an 1850, an R3 "extremly rare". NGC referred us to Krause (Standard Catalog of World Coins) who told us they recently removed 50/46 and replaced it with 50/49 and then it all began! We went back through our communications and found the one from Spink that they sent us after the examined the coin. We sent it to London for them to examine. As follows: They (Spink) thanked us for sending the coin to them that they were now able to examine. He stated that there no doubt in his mind that this is 1850/49 not 46. He said that he examined it under high magnification and the numeral under the 0 has a shadow between 270 and 90 degrees as well as a downward curve angled curve within the 0. And that this all supports this being the 1850-49 variety. He said that was possible in the past that some have been judged to be 1850/46 as it is not easy to see without good light and high magnification. Rather than the more obvious 1850/50 which amended a die used at the end of the previous year. He said it is still a very rare coin and he would grade this in UK terms as nearly very fine as the obverse is quite worn. We may return to NGC with Spink's results to see if they concur. The R3/R4 etc rarities are to be taken with a pinch of salt in the case of currency items. The rarities were set down when the internet didn't exist and as a result there was relatively little access to collections compared to today. Most of the currency rarities in ESC need to be revised downwards as there are examples where Rayner states 1 or 2 known where the population is into double figures. Conversely, a few supposedly relatively common coins with a rating of R-R3 are virtually undocumented in sales and not found even when hoovering up many bulk lots of a number of years - all of which suggests the rating is too slack or whether it exists at all. A rare coin is always going to be a rare coin irrespective of the R number. Collectors know which coins are rare because they nearly all need one! In that grade it doesn't really matter whether it is slabbed or not because those collectors who chase the high numbers on slabs for registry sets would mostly not be interested. Therefore, what NGC think won't matter. It will find a buyer whatever.

Corroded? If so the fabric of the coin has probably been attacked under acidic conditions. Value negligible, i.e. scrap.

Tricky one here. The long tail on the 4 punch used on the 1846 probably got damaged as there is a trace of the serif on my former 1849. Unfortunately the void in the (5)0 is narrow, which is similar to the width of the void of the 9 on my 1849 whereas the 1846 appears to be a different font style and has a wider loop. As the last two digits were added later to the die by hand, you can't rely on the positions of these two numbers to make an appraisal. The 5 in the 1850 is wide enough to just about cover the 4 and you have to bear in mind that the 4 will have been filled prior to entering the 5, so there need not be any trace of the tail if this was done well. Just because the bottom of the 4 is clear, it doesn't follow that the rest has to be. It is possible that a defective 0 was punched in giving the messy top of the 0. On balance I would be tempted to say 1850/49, but better clarity is required. 1846 was the year prior to 1849 that there was a significant output of shillings, so any left over dies are likely to be either date. 1845 also saw a large shilling output - again, this can't be excluded because the side of the 0 has a straight line from 9-11 o'clock as well as 9-7 o'clock. The middle crossbar of either a 6 or 9 would be good if you could identify it as the curve ought to be either a hump in the case of a 6, or a dip or straight line for a 9. Having said all that, the undulating surface seen on the 0 could easily be an underlying 8 as an alternative. There can also be no cast iron assumption the underlying character is a number. A wrong punch can be anything. 1850 shillings come up rarely, so any prices are likely to be a reflection of a single sale result. Don't worry about whether 50/46 is more or less valuable than 50/49 or even a plain boring old 50. Most collectors will bite your hand off for any of them. Short answer is I don't know, and getting enough examples for research is problematic for anyone.

The Watt family connection was sold through Morton & Eden in 2002. The Boulton family coins were sold via Tim Millett over the next few years. This info is as on the copper corner site, though there may be a few more coins to come out. The section of the copper corner site dedicated to the coins makes no mention of the close working relationship between Matthew Piers Watt Boulton (d.1912) and W J Taylor. Matthew Boulton's grandson was in it up to his eyeballs with Taylor and the coins recently released onto the market are almost exclusively restrikes. The 2006 update on the copper corner site was essentially rationalised by Teg and myself as the site owner didn't appreciate the full extent of the co-operation between the two men, nor could he explain other evidence provided by the coins - I guess a little acknowledgement for the verbatim rationalisation wouldn't have gone amiss. Taylor was in Australia throughout the 1850s and the restrikes are generally considered to have appeared from 1862 onwards. Taylor made relatively few copper restrikes, most being bronzed as this helped to camouflage the extensive repair work done to the dies.

This is a complicated business. That looks bronzed, but whether it is post-mint or not I wouldn't like to say. There are original Soho strikes and Taylor restrikes which are not always easy to distinguish unless Taylor's repair work is apparent. Both copper and bronzed exist for most types. i.e. if ESC says copper or bronzed only, then assume that the other probably exists as ESC is less than complete. As a rule of thumb, most restrikes are bronzed, but the bronzing isn't as good as that of Soho pieces tending to be a lighter tone and slightly uneven.

I'm thinking probably not! Any ideas on the 'irregularity' running from the harp and through the central crossbar? Well, any raised areas on the coin will be down to marks on the die, so maybe a dint or damage there? Eventually dies were hammered so much that they would crack, you can occasionlly see at least the start of that on coins. I'm thinking in this case, something was dropped on the die causing a cut. Interestingly your coin is from a different die from other coins I've seen with contraction marks used instead of stops on the reverse. I had assumed there would be only one, but apparently not .. curious. I really haven't read enough C1 literature to competently comment. I have to confess though I'm really surprised to hear the thoughts were just for a single reverse die for contraction marks! Now I'm curious, too! Does Bull cover shillings too, or am I just looking at Morrieson for the next level read? I'm wondering if the plethora of stop variations has any connection to the person who cut the die. I've noticed a strong connection between engravers in the W/SA series, and Bristol also appears to have links to specific people. As it is unlikely that a strict controll would be introduced under wartime conditions, we should probably assume that the indicators were present before the onset of the Civil War. Groups of pellets, pellets in the field, unusual stops etc. may well have a hidden meaning.

And the last given Rayner is no more.