Rob

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.

Sorry, I've just realised I didn't put the denomination in the posting you refer to. That's because I know that Peter and Coppers know I collect shillings and halfpennies and I forgot others may also read it. It's far to easy to get absorbed in your own world.

It was lot 2358, listed as a straight 1732 1/2d. There is something special about early copper with copious amounts of lustre that I find difficult to resist.

Peter, you can still get your Anne and 1717 farthings for considerably less than the price of a lottery win. Try London Coins again. 5th March lots 882 and 883. Following on shortly from these two lots there is even a nice run of proof and pattern farthings should you feel the urge to improve standards.

I wouldn't bank on it. Colin may have fully documented and labelled his collection, but we have no means of knowing so. Unless Neil takes a ready made list and uses that for the sale, it would be reasonable to assume that many varieties will be missed because as a dealer he simply doesn't have the time to spend on learning about and correctly identifying 1700 farthings which were ultimately Colin's pet project. A few months ago he was selling some of Peter Jackson's unsolds from the Cheshire Collection and I purchased the 1732 as it was actually a 1732/1. When I pointed this out, he shrugged his shoulders and said he wasn't surprised because PJ as a dealer hasn't the time to check all the coins for overstrikes etc. That is a reasonable argument, and is clearly a common situation because in the last 5 months alone I have acquired 9 or 10 coins at auction or from dealers that were incorrectly described or insufficiently checked to accurately describe the variety. Only 2 of those omissions or incorrect attributions were in my view acceptable, the remainder being down to sloppy work on the part of the vendor or their agent. I have also seen many more that I was not interested in. Therefore, for the more astute observer, opportunities are likely to be there for the taking. Farthing collectors, fill your boots.

Hopefully someone will have the funds to buy it as a complete collection. Pie in the sky I know, but it would be a shame if the full collection were to be dispersed without full documentation of all the varieties. If I won the lottery tonight, I'd offer to buy it intact.

It would depend on the variety and grade. Register and then you can post a picture of both sides..

It's a 1956 halfpenny with obverse 4 (thicker rim and I of GRATIA pointing to right of border dot) and reverse C (L of HALF points between two teeth 1 of date to a tooth). Freeman assigned a rarity of R12 (1001-2000 known) but most people would be lucky to see more than 1 and it's seriously rare in high grade.