Rob

The references to Wyon are in Hocking vol.2 and not vol.1, so he still could have missed it. Just thinking aloud, but it seems to me that with a range of options and views, the most likely one to be correct ought to be the one in the book which has the information sourced from the Mint itself. i.e. Hocking. It's not a guarantee of accuracy, but given that he worked for the Mint Museum and presumably had access to all the available information at any time he liked, then you would expect his account to be the most accurate.

Montagu also states Pistrucci. We know that Peck used Montagu references. It is possible that he took Montagu's statement as gospel without consulting the others. There are no Hocking references that I can think of in Peck.

From Hocking vol.1. Date of Currency Proclamation 14/11/1821 Ref. 1887. Farthing, first issue, 1821. Obv. GEORGIUS IIII DEI GRATIA. Bust laureated, and draped, to left. Rev. BRITANNIAR: REX FID: DEF: Britannia helmeted and draped seated to right, holding in her right habd, which also suports a shield, a laurel branch, and in her left a trident; by her left side a lion couchant,; in the exergue, the date. Plain edge. From Hocking vol.2 ref. 956 Matrix. Obv. (first issue), laureate and draped bust to left; legend, GEORGIUS IIII DEI GRATIA. See coin no. 1887. By W. Wyon ref. 957 Punch obv., as the matrix no. 956 ref.958 Die. obv. as the matrix no. 956 ref. 959. Matrix. Rev. (first issue), 1821. Britannia helmeted and draped seated to right with shield, laurel branch and trident; at her left side a lion couchant; date below: BRITANNIAR: REX FID: DEF: See coin no 1887. By W.Wyon Nothing you didn't know already. Sorry, no biography of Wyon.

Have a word with Paul Withers at Galata. He has/had a collection of them and lists about 30 publications on this topic. He's good for a chat if you want to learn more.

R over A and Y over F I just dont see it, all I see are obvious die flaws!!

The person who made the die by punching in the characters.

Only one character is overstruck. This was done when making the die. The sinker inadvertently used a 5 punch instead of a 3, but realising his error made a correction. Several blows would be required to punch in a character fully, so there was probably only one hammer blow made with the 5.

Laminating flans. i.e. they were there when struck.

I'd agree with most of this. Prices for pre 1797 copper at the top end would be extremely difficult to accurately present. The scarcity of quality early copper gives a lot of scope for variation because the price is determined more by the number of bidders present at sales, these always outnumbering the coins available. Silver from the same period is relatively easier to obtain in high grade and so easier to price.

Michael Gouby notes three types on his site. Long 7, Short 7 and Short over Long 7. I wouldn't think it would make any difference to the price.

With the toning, it's a bit difficult to get a good image because the light needs to come in from all sides. This is about the best I can do.

Where did you get it?

Gilt Proof Twopence? Penny might be more appropriate As far as the pictures allow attribution, I think it is a Peck 1130. If not, it's a current piece (P1133) subsequently gilded.

Has anyone got a Peck 1242 pattern halfpenny they can compare? My ship has 7 raised gunports with an incuse flaw where there would be another. Peck in his description says "about 3 incuse gunports" which suggests that his example may not have been well struck or even a bit worn. The four at the right starting with one on the bow are quite prominent, then there is an irregular incuse flaw followed by 3 less distinct raised ports. Can anyone confirm this or add anything? Everything else agrees with the description of the KH20 reverse, so I suggest this is an inaccuracy.

Not so sure. Could be a rare variety. I don't have an almost unc one that looks like that

Which one or all of them?

It's much more likely to be an imitation half sovereign. The public don't come into contact with patterns, or at least they never used to unlike today's mint output. To pass as a forgery, it has to resemble currency.

It was the B that made me think initially it was triply struck, but the inner circle coincides with the centre line of the B and creates an illusion. If the "middle" B was the top, traces of the serif would still be present but they're not.

It's 23.8-24.6mm diameter, 1.2-1.4 thick on the rims, 1.5mm thick in the centre, wt. 4.75g. I thought initially it was double struck, then triple struck, but then reverted to double struck. It's a bit of a mess.

It's probably easier for them to look at a coin and say that it would probably sell for xxx$s and give a grade accordingly than it is to rack their brains trying to work out what it is they're looking at.

I recall seeing this or something similar too and made a mental note to avoid it. The description and other blurb had to be written by a politician, nobody else would be capable of writing so much drivel.

Peck also mentioned that the rocks could be struck up very weakly. My TB farthing has the tips of the rocks to the left of the lighthouse as found on the BB rev. showing and it looks as if the large rock was cut over these which were weak in order to reinforce the design. There are clear remnants of the two highest rocks sticking above the large rock. Given that I have a reverse showing both features, there is nothing to say that the large rock didn't appear until the beaded border dies were safely under lock and key as we are looking at a short period of time in 1860 when the transition was made. I think it is perfectly feasible that you could find a piece that had been touched up. If I thought everything had been found that there was to find, I'd give up and do something else. Consider the BB 1860 1/2d. It took well over 100 years to realise that there are two reverses. One is short hair/wide date and the other is long hair/narrow date. In the middle of December, Chingford sent me a picture he had for appraisal comparing 2 1860 reverses. The first thing that struck me was the combination of short hair/narrow date which I hadn't seen before. There is always something new to find. Conventional wisdom and statements of fact reflect the conclusions that have been drawn in the past, not what remains to be discovered, so sometimes it is necessary to think outside the box whoever made the statement. Considering the above paragraph and having disproved Peck's statement that a ball on the trident shaft of 1806 halfpennies is an infallible way of identifying proofs, I am more than willing to accept the possibility of an unrecorded reverse design. And would I spend £400 going against conventional wisdom? Yes if I believed I were right when all things were considered.

My initial reaction was it is a beaded border irrespective of the absence of the 3 rocks, but looking again it could be a mixture of beads and teeth although the picture isn't very clear. Ideally it wouldn't be in a slab, but I can see why it must remain in one. Certainly the beads are closer to the rim than on the pieces with the 3 rocks, but some are clearly separated from the rim even given the image quality. I think the reverse was intended to be a beaded border as all the visible dots on the right side are individual circles rather than short teeth although it is unclear at the bottom and left side. How about an old die repaired. If the edge of the die was getting ragged, how about reducing the diameter? (This is what I discovered Taylor had done when making the 1807 proof halfpenny die) This would give you a thicker rim than usual and the gap between rim and beads would be reduced depending on how much it was turned down. Don't know if this is important but there are minute lumps on my TB 1860 corresponding to the position of the rock tips found on the BB How about a different variety of beaded border reverse for the farthing? After all, it took about 140 years to realise there are 2 significantly different BB halfpenny reverses.

I quite agree anyone can get things wrong, we all do it every day. The problem is the high failure rate in providing an accurate grade or attribution. Slabbing businesses are based on their people having special knowledge which no others have and thus guaranteeing a coin is uncirculated for example. An uncirculated coin can't have wear. This isn't negotiable. The end number can indicate the quality of the coin, but you can't call a coin mint state when it is worn. The number of coins given MS63 or better grades that have actual signs of wear is huge. Given the reputations of the various companies are allegedly based on accurate grading and quality control I find the whole thing extremely frustrating. If the whole market is similar to my experiences, then I would say that about a quarter of grades/attributions are wrong. How many manufacturers could get away with a 25% failure rate? Very few if the truth be known. The problem is that coins are always overgraded if incorrect, so their owners are unlikely to object to a bit of useful grade inflation when it translates into hard cash. It's an unholy alliance giving guaranteed customer satisfaction because if you think it could be given a better grade, you just keep resubmitting until the right number appears on the insert. The question of incorrect atttribution can only be down to lack of knowledge and experience regarding British coins. I don't believe they deliberately call it wrong, just that they don't take the necessary amount of time to examine and thus determine what it is they are looking at. I therefore wonder why they risk their reputation by giving grades that are frequently wide of the mark or ignoring the numerous varieties, many of which are impossible to ignore. Or is it simply a case of "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"?

That doesn't bode well for the future.