Rob

The question of altered characters always seems to invoke a lot of debate. The common thread running through all of the 5/3s is the 3 dimensional aspect of the character. The only unambiguous 3s I have seen are the thin line ones. These have rounded backs to the two loops but the angle of the left hand points of the 3 vary from punch to punch. Sometimes the top and middle points are raised, sometimes the middle and bottom points droop. The 3 dimensional relief of the digit is consistent. All of what I would consider to be 5/3 have the underlying thin 3 in its various forms, but there is always the vertical stroke to the 5 and top bar with approximately twice the relief height of the underlying 3 components. The bottom loop of the 5 invariably follows the bottom loop of the 3, sometimes with slight displacement and with a degree of bulging resulting from this. It seems unlikely to me that the top bar of the 3 would vary in relief consistently at the point where the left hand side of the vertical joins it. It also coincides with a change in direction of the top line of the top bar of the 3 - always in the pieces I have seen. If the 3 was punched in with a numeral punch I find it hard to believe that no punches had a straight top. To my mind the 3 would be curved or straight but not consistently bent. If the 3 was made up from individual cuts using straight and curved punches as opposed to a digit punch I would expect to see a straight top and not one composed of 2 separate and significantly different depth strikes. What is clear is that the vertical and right hand side of the digit is at the same relief height and given the consistency of relief, part of the same punch action. The 3 points on the left are always lower relief. I have previously listed this on eBaywhere you can see what I mean. The coin is not badly worn and the difference in relief of the overstrike clear. I also have the attached picture which is from a virtually mint state 1675/3 and the best Charles II halfpenny I have ever seen with a hint of cabinet friction only to a couple points of both sides and good lustre. Clearly different dies and which incidentally was also slabbed as a 1673.

Correct, it should get better. Even though I don't collect farthings, I'll still get a couple for posterity to fill gaps where I don't have an example of that type. Get a first class piece and you won't go far wrong.

I might try to negotiate free postage

A tad optimistic 1862 halfpenny

Most 20th century currency halfpennies are only worth something if they are in mint condition. If you take these then the value will vary from 20-30p up to about £40 if they are as struck with full lustre. Generally for the above condition, Edward VII are £20-40, George V £15-40, George VI £5-10 and Elizabeth II up to £10. With the exception of 1956 which has 3 rarer varieties being the wide rim obverse which has the I of Gratia pointing to the right of a border dot and I of DEI between 2 dots coupled with the 2 types of reverse and the third type is the narrow rim obverse where the I of GRATIA points to a dot and the reverse has the L of HALF pointing directly to a border tooth. All these three are rare, the wide rim obverse and L pointing between teeth particularly so. Condition would determine the price. There are two scarcer varieties of 1940 and the calm sea 1957 but these are only slightly more valuable than the regular varieties. Almost mint state early 20th century pieces will also have some value. You may find there are proofs from the sets issued in 1937, 1950, 1951 and 1953 if you are lucky. There are proofs for most years from 1926 onwards, but it would be amazing if one of those turned up as all are extremely rare and have always been in collections rather than circulation. Other than this, they are unlikely to have any value to collectors. i.e. pence - if you could find a buyer. There is another thread on this site which has images of 1956 halfpennies.

Thanks Geordie. I'm trying not to get a book because I can't afford to collect Romans as well. Once you have a book and can identify coins you are suddenly awash with prospective purchases and we all know what happens when tempted by something attractive.

Finally, something dire. Base metal, weighs 1.68g and is 16-18mm wide. It appears to be Tetricvs with Spes holding a something on the reverse. Any info on any of these 4 would be appreciated. Thanks.

Third is not so good. I think it is a denarius of Severus Alexander weighing 2.98g and approx. 17-18mm diameter.

Similar request for the second. I presume is an Aurelian antoninianus with Sol to left between two captives and I think Spink 569. Approx. 20-22mm diameter and weighs 4.80g.

Can anyone add any references and/or provide an alternative id to the following 4 Romans. The first I presume is a Probus antoninianus with SOL INVICTO & Sol driving a 4 horse chariot on the reverse. Approx. 21mm diameter and weighs 3.81g.

1856 halfpenny with the 6 struck over a larger underlying 6. Presumably a penny punch 6 although not all 1856 pennies have large digits, my P1511 digits being the same size as the picture

OR of GEORGIVS struck over a misplaced O on a 1773 halfpenny

C over another C 120 degrees out in CAROLVS 1680 3d

1914 and 1922 seem to be the most difficult years to obtain in top grade. In low grades, there are no rarities. 1919 -1922 are quite difficult in full lustre, frequently they have streaky lustre in unc.

In that case Peter, keep your back covered in case you get surprised by 5th column patterns masquerading as currency pieces such as this Peck 606 If you are not careful, you may accidentally acquire one.

Another defining feature if present is the edge milling. Again a comparison between an uncirculated currency coin and a proof (both 1887 JH 6d's) shows how much the quality can degenerate. The proof on the right has very sharp milling by comparison.

While we are on the subject of proofs, it might be worthwhile to identify a few points which would determine whether a coin is a proof or not. Proofs will usually have a sharp rim/edge angle. Occasionally this is not quite perfect, but almost without exception results in no excess metal to the rims. In the picture the top coin is obviously the proof, the currency piece has excess metal. Both are uncirculated.

Yes please.

I see the link to another posting on this forum hasn't worked very well. The image I was trying to show was the picture with the 2 1876s. One was the proof and one a currency coin. The sharp angles on the numbers can easily be seen.

On a proof, the fields (the empty bits between the design) will be mirror like. The legend will be composed of letters with sharp angles rather than rounded edges like this. The design will often be "frosted" and not reflective at all like the picture below where the one on the left is a proof, the one on the right a currency piece with the same design. The currency piece is prooflike, but not a proof. The best way to interpret the picture is to view it as a reflectivity picture. The dark areas are the most reflective. You will see that the range of reflectivity is much less on the currency piece despite both pieces shown having full lustre. The prooflike nature also shows on the currency piece. A fully lustred coin without prooflike features will be fairly even in terms of reflectivity. Other features are also notable. The rims will usually form a sharp angle with the edge on a proof. If the edge is milled (not in the case of a 1901 penny) the milling will be much sharper, sometimes to the point where it almost cuts your finger) if you grip the edge. I will add, it is something that many people have difficulty identifying because full lustre does not constitute a proof. Post a picture and it will be easier to decide if it is a proof. If it is a proof, don't leave it in plastic as this will cause it to chemically react and also dont touch anything other than the edge with your fingers.

Should the 1843 description not read "Good flat flan with high points visible on inspection"?

I believe the fakes are thicker than the genuine item. That's only what I've been told though, I've never seen one.

Here are the two things to look for. On the obverse (heads side) the cross points between border dots and on the reverse, the I of farthing also points between border dots.

Assuming all are currency coins, they will be worth a couple pounds each at most if in perfect condition. If they are not in mint state, they are likely to be of no value (or a few pence at most) to a collector being very common. The only exception to this would be a particular variety of 1953 which is quite rare. To determine which type of 1953 you have it will be necessary to post a picture. To do this, you have to register.

No. I do have one in indifferent condition just as a representative piece, but prefer to direct my attention to the official mint output together with certain patterns from selected sources. If I found a perfect one I would be tempted though as they have a place in the numismatic history of this country.