Rob

Blame the penny people for the initial duplication of threads. They were the ones who felt they needed their own.

Why would anyone want to collect anoraks? Coins are much more interesting.

I'm not convinced it is entirely feasible as a project as there are many unique or nearly so die pairs which reside in museums, so material is always a problem. Unfortunately I only have limited resources here now as I thinned out the patterns over the past decade to leave myself with a single example where possible of each Peck type - KH1, KH2 etc, and there is a large number of gaps which may or may not be possible to fill. The only reason I kept the 5 R42s was because of the glaring inconsistencies when comparing the coins with the references. Peck's work is a very good attempt at establishing the chronology, but does have a few things I can't reconcile. Unfortunately his collection which provided much material for the book now resides in Birmingham museum, and I don't live in Birmingham.

The trouble is there isn't a sufficient number of people to do this. Bronze pennies aside, there are never more than one or two that take a serious interest in other specific topics. As for the surfaces, I was looking for die polishing lines. As these are random, any identical lines found on a different die provide the link you are seeking.

That narrows it down to a few dozen possibilities. You will have to post a picture to get an idea what it is. If a Peck 1161, then these were one of the first restrikes made before the dies had any remedial work done with the entire surface of both dies covered in rust. Is it as rusty as the attached? The bronzing was a bit hit and miss too.

Depends on where you are. There are monthly fairs at Wakefield on the last Sunday of each month at the Cedar Court Hotel off jcn 39 of the M1 and the Midland fair at the Motor Cycle Museum on the second Sunday of each month. Both open at 9:30. York fair, at the Racecourse is on the 3rd Friday and Saturday of January and July. London fairs, or anything down south I will leave to the locals.

Good news. 10+ years after I posed the question regarding the filled curls, I have now resolved the conundrum having committed myself to giving a talk about the chronology of the subject matter to the South Manchester - which was done a fortnight ago. It also conveniently helped to sort out the order of the strikings in various metals. First of all, talking only about Kuchler's pattern halfpennies and the restrikes with at least one 1795 die, the original early Soho strikings KH1 & 2 were the first issue as they are rust free. According to Peck, KH3 (1797/1795) is also rust free as it is the same reverse die as KH2 and therefore likely to be struck in 1797 (I don't have an example). The two late Soho strikings on account of rust spots, KH4 & KH5, are reversed in chronological terms as both the KH2 & KH5 have clean fields, whereas the KH4 die has developed a rust spot under the first A of BRITANNIA. This is supported by the degree to which the reverse die has been polished. Every time the die is polished you may possibly see some reduction in relief or a thinning of a piece of detail. This enables one to sort out the order in which the various types were made. The relief of the pointing finger and hand provide the evidence for placing KH5 before KH4. The copper KH2, P1042 has the fattest finger, whereas the other two are somewhat thinned. The KH5, P1046 bent finger is however in higher relief compared to the KH4, P-. So the KH4 must post-date the other two. Moving to the coin which was responsible for the question (see above), the difficulty was in solving whether the curls were filled in from the R41 die (see above), or not, and where the coins fitted in the order. Using the amount of field due to polishing seen within the tie knot area on obverse dies of various R42s, an order of Gilt (P1052), Brass (P1055) followed by the Bronzed (P1053), of which 3 examples were used. Somewhat surprisingly, the R40 (P1051) obverse die is not the same as that used for the Soho strikings, and is in fact a completely different die. This can be established by the presence on both early Soho dies and the latest restrikes, a series of polishing lines on the cheek and neck and a flaw which are consistent in their relative positions on all the KH & R42 dies, but not the R41 obverse which is heavily rusted. It would be virtually impossible to clear the rust off a KH die without changing the detail, and in any case there is a hair curl which crosses the truncation at a different point on the two dies. The R41 reverse has the rust spot seen on the KH4 in a more developed state, and the flaw under the T on the rim has now appeared. As Britannia's neck and associated curls is fully struck up on the R41 compared to the R42, this must be the earlier strike. A surprising find was that the earliest of the three bronzed examples was ex Boulton family collection, so it appears that Matthew Piers Watt Boulton was involved with Taylor from a relatively early point in time, and may well have been inspirational in producing different varieties. The bronzed R42 was clearly a staple output of Taylor's, as appendix 10d in Peck lists 50 of these in the consignment of 804 pieces recorded leaving Taylor's workshop on 29th June 1880. The coin with the filled curls below the truncation post-dates the ex Boulton coin and shows a considerable amount of die polishing resulting in more exposed field. It also shows a filled curl resembling the profile of that on the P1051, but not the hair crossing the truncation. As the R41 (P1051) obverse is a different die to the R42, we can only speculate as to the reason for engraving this curl. My suspicions are that the R41 obverse die broke, and this was an attempt by Taylor to reconstruct the die in order to expand his product line, but for whatever reason decided to revert to the typical R42 design. The filled curls were subsequently obliterated by further die polishing. As the recut S shaped curl is narrower on the filled curl coin than those struck prior to this, I believe we have a case for making this an R42A A further piece of the jigsaw fell into place with my R44 silver 1790 pattern (the heavily toned piece) which uses the 1795 obverse die. Based on the thinning seen in the tie knot area, it can be placed between the Brass P1055, and the ex Boulton 1053. It is however quite rusty suggesting the die had a period out of use following the gilt & brass strikings. Coupled with other evidence such as the 1807 proof halfpenny, the esoteric pieces such as gold, silver and gilt were struck early on, with the bronzed pieces coming out when production was in full swing. I know it isn't a penny, but thoughts, opinions, criticism, contributions etc. please.

They weren't all identical. We discussed this at the time if I recall.

I'm more inclined to think they might be making digital scans and creating the dies that way, as when you make a cast and produce the design from it, there is a gradual thickening of the detail and loss of the finer points as the naturally irregular surfaces are incompletely copied.

I think in the case of the triple F, repairing hardened dies is always going to be a bit problematic as you run the risk of shattering the die as well as getting a clean repair entered perpendicular to the face. Any entry not perfectly aligned would be liable to cause a slightly displaced repair as the punch slips and cuts as opposed to just cutting into softer metal. Not the same era, I know, but this is a James I halfgroat with a saltire replaced with a spur rowel. Although dies were made with the saltire mark, no silver was struck in this period due to the market price of silver being above face, so no silver was brought in to be coined. Under a loupe there were at least 3 or 4 blows made to enter the spur rowel, all slightly displaced and not as deep as the original saltire. This modified 2nd coinage die is the reason for the entry against S2671 (3rd coinage halfgroat, no rev. stops) which notes mm.24 with reverse stops (2nd coinage) known. Dies for other silver denominations are also known with the saltire overmarked.

It looks good to me too, but the die axis and weight are a worry as we know there are Chinese copies with the inverted die axis. I think the check that needs to be made is the milling count. That's the one thing that can't be checked from pictures and the edge is something the Chinese tend to be sloppy on.

Coppers forgeries weren't punishable by death, only silver and gold.

I'm not convinced it is a beard from the image. The nose and forehead look reasonable, but the mushy centre could indicate die blockage or damage

If 20mm dia then it is a farthing, not a halfpenny. There are no bearded coins, but a better picture would help establish what you have. If it is really a beard then it would have to be a forgery (there were many around in the 1770s), however, the reverse lettering doesn't look bad from the (too small) image. A picture as close to 500kB as possible would be good.

Clearly with your wallet.

You looked at it a month or so ago, but here it is anyway. https://www.rpcoins.co.uk/

As for the verdigris, I would personally bin it given the number of scratches from previous attempts to remove the mess and upgrade to one that's only a midge's off unc from yours truly

To test out the die - presumably before they are hardened as they are almost invariably uniface. I means you can see what it looks like in real life as opposed to a mirror image. It is also easier to examine the detail in relief compared to incuse.

Yes, there are two 9/8 dies if I remember correctly

In the Spink catalogue of the sale. It should be on their website. 23rd July 2003 lot 365.

The field is polished, but the frosting is on the incuse detail. If you have a proof issue such as the 1970 with multiple dies used it would be easy to get one worn out/broken die replaced with the other worn but serviceable. We all know that frosting requires sharp fresh dies and the level of frosting decreases with use, so loss of this feature is not surprising, nor is the existence of frosting on one side only.

I know marketing is a tough game, but the following phrase 'Spink 2017 values at £375 in UNC condition no value given for Choice UNC-BU' is drivel. Spink don't list a value for choice unc-BU because there is no column with said description against which to post a value, and in any case, one man's choice BU is another man's ok or even a dog. The world expends and wastes vast amounts of energy trying to polish turds. Cut it out and you could reduce global warming.

Only ships within the US. Phew. A somewhat rhetorical question, but why do so many descriptions contain both the phrases 'We are not experts, so don't ask any technical questions' and 'Choice Uncirculated' ? A description of British coin - denomination and date would be far more accurate.

The portrait looks to be cameo, but as has been said before, it is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. It isn't beyond the wit of man (or the collector) to make that attribution personally and accordingly pay what he or she thinks is a reasonable price. After all, every collector does an eye-appeal appraisal before making a purchase whether raw or slabbed, even when it is so rare that buying is a no-brainer in any grade. I personally think the need for a comforting label is superfluous, whether it is a cameo designation, or a grade as this is ultimately the decision of an individual on the day. There is a greater case to be made for authentication given the diarrhoeic output of copies from China particularly, but to focus solely on that would be very detrimental to the TPGs' business models, so ain't gonna happen.

Hi all. I've had an enquiry for 100 1938 farthings. Don't have to be mint state. Any squirrels with a significant number please PM me. Ta.