Peckris

[rant] Unfortunately, you've posted the picture in photobucket, where the picture is the same size as the thumbnail here, and zooming in just doesn't work. Far better if you post the picture here (easy now we have a 500k limit) or else use one of photobucket's direct html links so the picture appears here without us having to actually go to that awful site. [/rant] Anyway, you've got two main options, one slow, one quick. The slow is to immerse the coin in olive oil for months, changing the oil now and then; that might or might not help. The quick is to immerse the coin in good quality vinegar - e.g. balsamic - overnight then rinse thoroughly. The verdigris will change to an inert dark patch, but the rest of the coin will lighten quite a bit. You pays yer money...

Sorry Dave - even if I was interested in medieval hammered, I don't buy holed.

I'd go along with the CCGB book too - it goes back to 1797 for copper and 1816 for silver. You can always buy other books if your interest begins to reach back to early milled or earlier.

What he actually says is : "Only one specimen found, well circulated, and with the area of the mintmark obscured. It is therefore not known if this reverse occurs with 'H' below the date, when accompanied by Obverse 9" so he did find one but it was too worn? is that what he means by obscured? He means you can't see if it's an H penny or not

The edge dinks don't help, but I can't see a UK dealer selling it much less than £100.

I'll have to have a look at my 1870, my interest is piqued by there being rare examples! I wouldn't agree it is common - I think no bun date after 1863 and before 1874 is an easy date, especially in higher grades. It's commoner than 1868 certainly, but scarcer than 1872, 1873, 1866 I would say. Probably on a par with 1865, perhaps scarcer?

No predecimal UK bronze has circulated since 1971 (halfpennies since 1969, farthings since 1960).

What he actually says is : "Only one specimen found, well circulated, and with the area of the mintmark obscured. It is therefore not known if this reverse occurs with 'H' below the date, when accompanied by Obverse 9"

Is this the old dear who had all that nice Gold Declan? Did she ever sell it? No - it's a different old dear! I've known her for years but she only told me the other day who her Dad was. No idea, of course, how important his collection was. For most of his life, his family didn't even know he collected coins. And no, she's still got the gold - she got quite interested in it after all that. She may even end up buying some more....! She only needs to sell the single most valuable coin and she could afford lots more!

Freeman doesn't list the variety, only the rarity for the 1870 as a whole: R6 which = 30,000 - 50,000 (i.e. not that rare). You'd have to consult Gouby for the rarity of the variety.

Hi Cathrine, I think Dave meant "what was it graded as by the seller"?

Freeman doesn't list a variety, just 6+G. For wear I'd grade it just about EF but there are one or two strange deformities.

That IS satire! The first comment says it all...

They're still worth having - I've tentatively valued mine (conservatively?) at around a quarter of book price.

Yes, I have two George IV first issue farthings, both in high grade, but both artificially gilded. One is a flat yellow colour, the other is rather attractively 'lustred' with the 'lustre' wearing away. Either they are contemporary which means an attempt to pass them off as half sovs, or else they are more modern in an effort to convince collectors they are rare gilded proofs. Waste of a good coin, is my opinion.

I think you'll find that was a 1919KN - but yes, it went for a ridiculous price just because it was off-metal, and had been reported in some wretched tabloid.

Beautiful, Cathrine! I can only lust...

Very poor pictures so unable to see if it's one of the 1820 varieties. It would sell (by a dealer) between £100 and £200 depending on which variety it is. It's around VF.

Agreed. Certainly 1953 farthings are very common. I bought more than a dozen UNC 1+A specimens for a quid the lot at the Midland about 15 years ago.

It's possible that Coincraft took their mintage figures directly from a RM source? it's known that pre-Liz II mintages only state how many coins were minted IN THAT YEAR, and not what date was on them. It's entirely possible - probable, in fact - that those 116,497 florins were minted in 1927 but carried the date of 1926. What's interesting though, is that ESC has a break in its numbering system : 1926 florins are 945 while 1927 proofs are 947.

Perhaps he means he wants to meet for a drugs share??

This, from http://www.dutycalculator.com/dc/102145330/antiques-collectibles/coins-stamps/investment-gold-coins/import-duty-rate-for-importing-gold-sovereign-coin-uk-from-united-states-to-united-kingdom-is-0/ "Import duty & taxes for Gold sovereign coin UK The import duty rate for importing Gold sovereign coin UK into United Kingdom is 0% , the import VAT is 20%, when classified under Business & Industrial → Precious Metals & Stones → Investment Gold Coins with HS commodity code 9705.00.0090"

Although it didn't have a noticeable effect on the market, I do remember at W&W in the 90s when a lot came up that featured an 'accumulation' of UNC 1950s coins that had obviously been put aside at the time. Among it there were quite a lot of 1958 sixpences and 1958E shillings, and half a tray of 1957 halfpennies ... all 'calm sea' variety!

When was it recognised as a vairety. If it was sometime after demonetisation, the plastic set would have been saved but little else. As collectors we obviously come across bucket loads of farthings but compared to the mintages it's really a piddling amount. I'd say it was recognised quite late I think (no earlier than Freeman). However, see my reply above re. surviving quantities - yes, I think a lot would have been melted but the numbers that didn't probably far exceeds the number of collectors (many times over, I'd guess?). From that, I'd have to say that - unlike KN pennies and 1949 threepences etc - the varieties weren't siphoned off, and therefore the ratio of 2+A's to the common varieties is roughly equivalent to what they would have been when first issued.

It's not true ghosting (where the actual metal deforms) - it's what you might call 'ghost ghosting' where only the lustre is affected; once the lustre has worn off you don't see any.