Rob

Are these RFG's genuine F's or just blocked E's?

A picture would be nice

An unrecorded variety of 1795 pattern halfpenny of type KH4 as confirmed by the rust spots between the knees of Britannia and on the rim. Struck in silver, this die combination was only recorded by Peck in copper (cf. BMC 1044). Struck on a 2.5mm thick flan and weighs 17.32g.

Hrmm, hrmm. Steady on old chap. Only within reason.

It's not a proof. Look at the rims.

Looks like a lot of people were sensibly suspicious of this being a proof. Methinks someone might have an unpleasant shock when they come to recoup their "investment" costs.

As long as there are 2 people chasing one piece there is always scope for disappointment because I know their pockets are deeper than mine

I followed it on the internet. Prices were more rational than of late. The few pieces went significantly over estimate, but there were a lot a passes and around or below estimates. I lost the plot (or perhaps I should say two others did) on the EF elephant halfpenny lot 344 which sold for £7000 hammer against an estimate of £1000-1200. I wonder if they where Americans? was this coin the same as, or similar to thier colonial token. If I am correct it is has the same elephant on it as their colonial elephant token minted probably in London and issued in 1694. They are now know as the Carolina, and the New England, Elephant tokens. Are those pictures your coin? If so, you are in the money.

I followed it on the internet. Prices were more rational than of late. The few pieces went significantly over estimate, but there were a lot a passes and around or below estimates. I lost the plot (or perhaps I should say two others did) on the EF elephant halfpenny lot 344 which sold for £7000 hammer against an estimate of £1000-1200.

Personally, I would have expected good hair detail on an EF or nearly so - yet another example of a seller hyping up a lower grade coin. Good value at $56 though. The slab grade doesn't look too far adrift for once.

It's called image and personal ego. There will always be people who will feel the need to pay vast sums of money for that "special" grade of slabbed coin just as there will always be people who feel it necessary to have £100Ks worth of cars sitting in front of their house whilst having nothing in the bank, or to have the latest technological development irrespective of whether they already have an existing piece doing the job adequately.

I once questioned a collector of milled shillings why he started at Anne and finished at Victoria, pointing out that a small extension at either end of the time scale would have given a complete run. The reply was that if he were logical, then surely he would not pay vast sums of money for little discs of metal only to stick them out of sight in a box. Any collecting habits are always going to be a bit odd to someone, so should we really be criticising those chasing MS68-70 pieces, or die numbers or date runs. My MS65 & MS66 or unslabbed coins are safe from the first group of people yet I can search and acquire from their pool of supplies, I have coins which don't have die numbers and people who collect date runs must by definition typically not acquire the rare varieties, leaving these to the specialist. There is enough to go around for every collector providing we don't all want the numismatic flavour of the month. If your chosen area gets too expensive, collect something else or alternatively run 2 or 3 different collections in parallel.

Does anyone on this forum have or know of anything similar to this enigmatic piece of mine? Vital statistics are 28.5mm dia. 2.5mm thick and weighs in at 13.47g or about 208 grains ie. nearly 15% above the upper weight limit in Peck. As you can see from the picture the edge is very sharp which raised the possibility of some form of collar being used, but I have dismissed this due to parts looking too uneven. The puzzle is that there appears to be traces of edge lettering albeit very faint which I can't image using the scanner. According to Peck, there were no examples of edge legend used between the tin issues and the Anne patterns yet this appears to have a trace of parts of a NVMMORVM FAMVLVS edge. Given that the facilities would still be present and being only 2 years after the cessation of tin currency production, the possibility exists of an experiment with the edging equipment using copper flans. Possibly significantly, the thickness of the flan is the same as the edge inscribed tin issue. Occasionally you find thick raised lines going across the edge of halfpennies, presumably from when the blanks were cut out of the sheet, but if this is the answer then they have conveniently joined to form consecutive letters. Has anyone got something similar?

The reverse looks squashed, but the obverse seems to have retained its shape well to the extent of the border teeth not looking deformed despite the obvious adjacent rim deformation. The question of how well the design is struck up can also be a bit uncertain. Don't forget you have numerous instances of incomplete legend which is usually put down to grease blocking the die and so not imparting a full strike. On occasions this can result in a perfectly flat flan surface where there should be raised features, so therefore anything between no detail and full detail is a possibility. You really need to get it in the hand to properly assess it.

Bizarre. The rim is obviously thicker than normal, but is the rest of the coin thicker? Can you get a micrometer on it? Finally, is the weight abnormal? It looks as if it has been struck in a loose collar.

No raised edge like the tin pieces, so the same as the Anne double obverse patterns which at 2.3mm thickness at the rim is a bit less than the 1694. The tin pieces are typically a bit thicker than 2.5mm say 2.8mm and the raised line is very thin so could be the reason why it is not present.

Yes

Hi Hus. The coin looks to be nearly EF based on the amount of wear to Britannia's left bust. The wear to the laurel leaf is difficult to assess. The statement by Peck on page 375 in note 3 to the reverses that the ball below the trident prongs is an infallible means of identifying proofs I have shown to be wrong with the piece I listed in the unrecorded varieties section where there is a currency piece with the ball in the appropriate place. Also, the two proof types KH42 and KH43 were struck from current dies (the latter having two long flaws on the reverse) and so are also mising this feature. The same applies to the restrikes by Taylor, but these have a plain edge. To distinguish proofs from currency pieces you usually only need to look at the die axis because the proofs are en-medaille (same way up) whilst the currency pieces have an inverted die axis ie if you turn the coin over sideways, the reverse is inverted. The exceptions to this are as above. Picture of current 1806 halfpenny attached together with a P1364 and one of the current pieces with a similar ball. You will see from the images that the proof letters are of much higher quality. The weakness in the legend on currency pieces is common to the extent of almost being normal.

Peck wrote the bible for British base metal currency and is called English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the British Museum 1558-1958, first published in 1960. Gregory parts 1 & 2 was the Baldwin auction on 2nd May last and is the next Baldwin sale on 25th September.

Aidan. I am fully aware that there is normally no edge inscription on any currrency copper W+M piece and this is why I started this thread. I have examples of most Peck numbers from 602-607 except for the unbarred A's (P604) and no reverse stop (P605) varieties because I haven't found a gVF or better example of either to say unambiguously that they are not due to infilled dies. I also have other unrecorded varieties such as the GV/B featured on Colin Cooke's website a couple of years ago. I also have most designs of Anne patterns. Unfortunately, Spink is useless when it comes to proofs or patterns and Coincraft although it mentions proofs, usually has a note saying that varieties exist. Therefore it is necessary to refer to Peck for detailed info regarding these pieces. It is fair to say that there are more obvious traces of letters on this piece than on my plain edge P712 Anne double obv. which is filed and on a similar type Anne pattern, Gregory lot 509, which also had traces of letters despite of the filing and was noted as such in the catalogue.

Hi Aiden. The piece in question was struck from an obverse die very much like Nicholson 075 which was 0.04g heavier than this piece at 13.51g and also struck on a thick flan but there are slight differences to the obverse in the positioning of the stops after ET and MARIA compared to this piece. The final stop is notably further away from the bust although the letter alignment compares well. I spent a good 20 minutes comparing the two. The Nicholson piece also didn't have any traces of letters. The traces of lettering that are present are very weak, but sufficiently clear to say that it would be a remarkable coincidence to have spurious edge marks with the correct spacing to read M VS* for example. I had a discussion with Colin Cooke about this at the time who was dismissive because it is accepted that they didn't use collars in this period, but I note they did have an edging machine which was subsequently used for the Anne pattern 1/2ds. It therefore remains quite possible that this is genuinely edge inscribed, but as always requires a better example to confirm.

The diameter of halfpennies before the use of steam driven machinery in 1797 varies even for the same date because they were produced on a fly press without a collar. This means there was no constraint on how much the flan spread when the coin was struck. The flans for the George 1st 2nd issue vary (according to Peck) between 27.5 & 30mm diameter so your coin at 29mm diameter is within the normal range for this issue. The other parameter that needs to be considered therefore is the weight. Peck quotes a range of 144 -160 grains or about 9.3 - 10.4grams. As Peck cannot have seen every example in existence, this is the approximate range for a normal piece so it is probably wise to allow a margin of 5-10% either side of this before considering a coin to be particularly heavy or light. Anything significantly outside these limits warrants further examination. The figure of 27 mm is too small for the second issue. All of my 2nd issue pieces are 28mm or greater with the exception of a very worn brockage which comes in at 27.4mm ie. it was almost certainly within the lower 27.5mm limit when struck. All of these measurements should be viewed as applicable to an unworn coin.

1856 PT pennies are scarce but not rare

The weight quoted in Peck would bring the thickness down to less than 1mm, but we don't know the condition of it. If it were worn, then it is possible the thickness was originally 1mm or so thick which is at the bottom end of the farthing flan thickness. It is quite possible that halfpenny sized flans were punched out of a farthing thickness sheet of metal. The thin flan farthing in the Gregory pt.1 sale weighed 3.00g as opposed to a normal piece weighing say 4.75g ish. On this basis, the definition of a very thin flan is therefore approximately 60% of normal. A slightly related piece of info worth noting is as follows. The P778 (1718) silver 1/2d in the May Baldwins sale is 1.5mm thick as opposed to the normal thickness of 2-2.25mm and this is in line with silver proof farthings which are also struck on a thinner flan. For the record, I think the weight given in BMC for the Peck P778 of 157.3 grains is probably a typographical error. The description of the coin ie. worn with 2 file marks fits it as does the diameter. The actual weight is about 7.45-6g or 115 and a bit grains. Given that only a couple of pieces have ever been recorded, it is highly likely that this is the "P" piece. The 1 of the footnote is probably part of the weight that should have been printed, the decimal point having been moved to accommodate the obvious error of 15.73 grains. Just a thought.

Slightly detached from reality 1817 shilling