Rob

First of all it is a Scottish Unit produced from 1637-42 by Nicholas Briot. The size is correct for a unite and the weight seems about right for a Scottish Unit. Spinks 2nd edition gives a price in VF of £1500, but that was 2003 and prices have increased since then. Coincraft gave a figure of £2400 in 1999. The picture isn't good enough to establish how much wear there actually is, but it certainly is VF and probably good VF so will be worth in excess of £2000. An example of this coin sold at DNW on 28/9/06 lot 986 for £2200 + premium of 17.625%. It was about extremely fine, but had been cleaned at some time and had scratches. This therefore seems a reasonable ballpark figure. I don't have exact figures for purity, but it will be about .915, i.e. 91.5% gold with the balance made up of most likely copper or silver. All of this comes with the caveat that first of all, it would be necessary to establish that it is genuine

It's a crown (5 shillings).

She should have accepted the money. It's a reasonable price for a coin that doesn't quite make fine and judging by the marks on the rim has previously been mounted. The price in the current Spink for an 1845 is £50 in fine for both varieties of edge, but the mounting marks will reduce the value. She certainly wasn't being ripped off.

Coming your way shortly.

I'm inclined to lean towards a very good forgery. All of the detail appears to be slightly thicker in appearance, including that which isn't at the high points which is what you would get from a casting. i.e. the original design at just about the same size as the genuine thing, but tooling in the detail to give a sharply defined design would increase the thickness of most lines. The Britannia punch with the blobs for leaves would almost certainly not be blobs on the original punch. The ties are slightly thicker on the suspect one as are the lines in the hair, even allowing for wear.

Talking like that, they'll all look broad rimmed. Another drink anyone

Picture?

It looks like a broad rim. The reference is Davies 2412 which is a smaller reverse design (19.5mm) where he notes it has a broad rim. It certainly looks broader than normal. Davies prices it at x3 the normal variety, suggesting it is not that scarce.

I don't know about farthings, but there are a range of 1 types on halfpennies. A J, Roman I with wide and narrow serifs, top right, bottom left serifs both upright and slanting right, farthing size and bifurcated tops plus probably a few I haven't seen. You name it, there's probably one out there. Regards letter shapes, in the case of halfpennies just about every letter is overstruck somewhere and most letters with angular features are used to recut the legend. I suspect it is probably the same for farthings. A lot of letters were corrected using two part cuts e.g. a vertical in the form of an I plus a short cut for the horizontal features. Don't know if it helps, but should muddy the waters a bit.

These are double cuts on the various digits, not double struck. If they were double struck, the rest of the detail would be doubled too. It may be done to reinforce a weak letter on an old die or may be the result of successive punch actions imperfectly superimposed on a new die. In the case of the former, it is almost certain that the punch used to reinforce the character will not have precisely the same footprint.

Is this description any better? thought this 1690 hand is king william and a very must have to collection is beating silver collecters very dated and featured silver crown piece thought this is any coin on collecters silver coin and is coin

It looks like a filled die. There appears to be a slightly raised lump at approximately the same distance as the gap between the inner foot serifs where they join the main verticals on the A on a level just above an extension of the crossbar of the A. Play about with the contrast and brightness of the image and it you can see it. Weak or missing stops due to die fill are common.

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.

Not recorded anywhere else to my knowledge. Clearly a die sinker's error as opposed to a reused die.

Where did you get it?