Teg

Hi Colin, As you say the K can be very hard to spot. On by best 1806 you can only see it if the angle of light is absolutely correct. The die used for your coin seems quite worn. There is a flaw on the drapery coming down from the brooch. I think I would want to see an Unc specimen from sharp dies before calling it a variety. Have a look at the brooch, currency farthings have 7 jewels. Some appear to have less, and others have a very small, weak top jewel. I almost persuaded myself that this was a design type. On further reflection probably not. Lastly, do you see any variations with the ship on the Rev? TEG

" The 1844 N over E half farthing has always baffled me. It is definitely the N that is struck over the E and this raises more questions. If the E was becoming worn, was there an intent to use the N to try and improve the appearance (if this was the reason it was a bizarre choice!!) Was it the fact that the N in REGINA required repunching and the worker stamped the last but 1 letter in REGINA when reversed leading to the mistake. A more likely theory I believe. Or was it just a complete foul up by the worker repunching the wrong letter in the wrong place" Have a look at this from SPINK, Numismatic Circular Oct 1971. Fairly comprehensive! Teg

Hi again Colin G. Quite right - not enough farthing posts on here recently. Looking at your coin I would guess that there has been no re-punching. It is just a die that has become very worn / clogged / filled. This has more effect on some parts of the die than others - and yours shows plenty of weak areas. In general, pre 1800s (for farthings) the Mint had the kings head, and Britannia on separate punches. The letters and date were then added for each working die. Subsequently the lettering (and perhaps the first 2 numerals of the date) were combined with the portrait before producing the working dies. The last date numerals were then added. When dies became weak they would re-punch individual letters or numerals. Dies were expensive. There are numerous combinations to explore - at what stage in the process was a particular letter re-cut? When making the original die - or as a repair? Below is another 1840 farthing, apologies for the large size - but you need it to see the detail. Most of this is all but invisible to the naked eye. Obverse legend all letters doubled. Makes me think that it has to be die-doubling. For me by far the most interesting part, W.W. (William Wyon) doubled on truncation. The date, Vic portrait and rev. do not seem doubled - in hand (even if the pics suggest it). Perhaps interesting to note that many Vic Cu farthings used the 'worn' obverse from the sovereign. There were no 1840 sovereigns - so perhaps standards were allowed to slip. Teg

Hi, scans sent. I don't think much is happening under the N of BRITANNIA. Rob, thanks for the thoughts. BTW The 'regal' one is 4.28 grams, and the disputed one is 4.86 grams. Pecks lower limit is 4.33, average 4.93. It would certainly be the best quality counterfeit farthing I have seen. On the other hand as any better would be classified as regal perhaps that means little. The better quality ctfts tend to be 1/2ds, and underweight. Perhaps they are both ctft! For people who don't know, the ctfts are worth as much - if not more than the regals. I wonder if we will ever know. Teg

Hi, I think scottishmoney is right on all counts. Dalton and Hamer Middlesex SPENCE'S 691 or 691a Obverse Bust facing left T SPENCE 7 MONTHS IMPRISON'D FOR HIGH TREASON under the bust artist's name of JAMES 1794 Reverse A soldier shaking hands with two citizens. WE ALSO ARE THE PEOPLE 1796. I believe it's rare - so great shame about the condition. Teg

Hi, The variety of 1771 - 1775 that I find most interesting is:- Bramah 1774 9a "R - Two additional leaves have been introduced into the spray,one on each side; that on the left side rests on the fingers and has no stalk, that on the right side has a stalk which touches the thumb." Britannia looks to be holding a branch from an apple - rather than olive tree. Colin Cooke had not seen one, when he did he thought it had to be a contemporary counterfeit. His reasoning was that the design was too crude for a Mint issue. The weight is fine and as far as either of us could tell the rest of the coin is identical to Mint issues. "I am only interested in genuine coins and not the contemporary counterfeits." I think for this series you have to take some interest in ctfts, I have seen one slabbed by a major grading company - and it was said at the time that even Mint employees could not be sure if some coins were genuine or not. It is a bit of a myth that all ctfts were produced worn and underweight, many were some were not. So Bramah thought Regal, Peck did not include it. Colin thought counterfeit. I thought Regal. What do you think? PS a Regal to follow shortly. Teg A Regal (I assume!) for comparison. Teg

Hi, Many 1694 farthings have weak (or seemingly non existent) diagonal bars on the 4. On good specimens you can often see a faint trace of the bar. On others you can't. Unsurprisingly these are sometimes known as crosses. Is your coin single or double exergue line? Looks a bit single from you fragment. Teg

I bought my NVF from a well respected dealer that is why I gave this one GF. It is apparent most people over grade early copper. Nice examples are fairly rare. Hi, Nice examples are very scarce, especially W&M and William III. I will compromise with a Bold GF if you like. Do you have a picture of your W&M? I always like to see a quality farthing. Teg This one certainly has eye appeal.

Thats OK, are you the seller of this eBay coin - or a buyer? Teg

Peter is correct, the first coin is a forgery of a queen Anne farthing. The Anne farthing was never released for circulation - so all the genuine ones are patterns - or prototypes. Cast forgeries like this never look as sharp as properly struck coins. There is a market for them, the genuine are very expensive, so some people are happy with a fake to "fill the hole". When Colin Cooke was alive he used to buy fakes to remove them from the market - he had over a 100. One of his party tricks was to put a genuine Queen Anne farthing in with the fakes. He would then tell visitors that they could have the genuine coin IF they could identify which one it was.! Second coin is a normal George IIII farthing. Values Queen Anne (assuming I am correct that it is a forgery) £20 or so. George IIII farthing, £4 -£5. Teg

Yes it is an evasion 1/2d. Most of these produced around 1800 - they deliberately have different legends to the currency 1/2ds - so that the makers could claim that they were not counterfeits. This seems to be Aikins no. 305. Obverse King looks to left (as for the earlier George II) Obverse GOD SAVE THE KING. Reverse BRITAN NIA, date 1771. Teg

Hi, nice coin, as said - William and Mary farthing, Peck, B.M. 619 Single exergue line. Spink is way to high for W&M farthings. I have no idea why, it's annoying because it distorts the market. Yours would normally be described (by reputable dealers) as NVF (Near Very Fine). A fair eBay price would be £50 -£60 more on a good day, but I have seen many worse coins offered for twice that - and not sell. I have 15 of these - mostly different varieties. I like them but no way are they as rare as most guides claim. Teg

It is a very clear overstrike. As for value, very little if any difference in low grade. Few dealers would think it notable, so few would charge extra. In high grade maybe a premium if you sold to a very specialist audience. I paid £16 for mine, about 4 years ago - without really seeking one out. Teg

Hi, I recently acquired another William III 1700 farthing (variety no. 12), and am trying to work out if it is important or not. As usual with William III farthings a rough coin! Next post a normal 1700 Teg This is about as normal as basic 1700 Peck 667 gets:- Not a specimen but OK. Next post the differences!

Hmm, I made separate posts because of the limit on attachment size - but they seem to have joined!? Any way onward. There are two interesting features on my new coin. 1) The type of letter L in GVLIELMVS on the obverse is from 1699, very rare to see it on 1700. 2) More importantly the date - and this is where I need help. It looks like a 1 as a J date - ie with a top left serif. This is the type of date on Anne and later farthings. From what I can see this change happened in the silver coinage from 1701. Again from what I can see 1701 1/2ds do not have a new 1 shape. So is this a real J for 1 variety? I would be happier to claim it if I could say that the 17 was from a sixpence die, but I can't.

Hi, thanks for adding the photos Coins4u. I agree with Colin G. If it is 1825, which I doubt, it must be 1825 / 1823. I will keep an eye out for a clear specimen. Keep these varieties coming Coins4u - always good to look again at these. Thanks Teg

Colin, you are right about Mr. Cooke. He first listed one on List 15, then the same coin on List 20 (Allerton). Peter Lawrence had one - sold of List 51 to our own MasterJmd - he has a picture in his gallery on this site. (Colin sold, and MasterJmd describes as "either a 5 or a 3") I have examined the coin - and it is not clear. Colin did not keep this for his collection (sold for "just" £12.50), and he had no other example. When asked Colin thought that it was very likely 5/5, but would prefer to see a high grade one. Back to the original post, could it be a slightly beat up 1823? Teg

Hi, that's neat - I had not seen one before, a picture of the whole coin / date would be good. Colin, I don't think 5 / 3 exists. Teg

Hello, does anyone have either the Hocking catalogue of the R.M. museum, or the biog. of Wyon? I am interested in what they might say about the dies for the 1821 farthing. Thanks Teg

Henry also states Benedetto Pistrucci. Of course Montague's story about Pistrucci falls a little flat if it was Wyon. Peck has Hocking's vol 1 in his Bibliography - though as a lesser work. He quotes a mistake of Snelling - copied by Hocking, in a footnote about GI halfpennies. This note after another, debating who engraved the halfpenny reverse! My best guess is Obv. designed by Pistrucci engraved by Wyon. Rev. designed and engraved by Wyon. (which would make Coincraft's comment "His treatment(B.P.) of Britannia was little better, cumbersome and pretentious...etc, etc" a bit rich.) Still working on this, will let you know any outcome. Teg

Just to clarify, Peck states that the Obv. is by Pistrucci. Ruding (and now Hocking) say Wyon. Unlike Peck to "correct" Ruding and Hocking - without comment. Teg

1793 DH North Wales 2C Does anyone know what the RNG cypher on the reverse means? Teg

From Hocking vol.1. Date of Currency Proclamation 14/11/1821 Ref. 1887. Farthing, first issue, 1821. Obv. GEORGIUS IIII DEI GRATIA. Bust laureated, and draped, to left. Rev. BRITANNIAR: REX FID: DEF: Britannia helmeted and draped seated to right, holding in her right habd, which also suports a shield, a laurel branch, and in her left a trident; by her left side a lion couchant,; in the exergue, the date. Plain edge. From Hocking vol.2 ref. 956 Matrix. Obv. (first issue), laureate and draped bust to left; legend, GEORGIUS IIII DEI GRATIA. See coin no. 1887. By W. Wyon ref. 957 Punch obv., as the matrix no. 956 ref.958 Die. obv. as the matrix no. 956 ref. 959. Matrix. Rev. (first issue), 1821. Britannia helmeted and draped seated to right with shield, laurel branch and trident; at her left side a lion couchant; date below: BRITANNIAR: REX FID: DEF: See coin no 1887. By W.Wyon Nothing you didn't know already. Sorry, no biography of Wyon. Rob, thanks a lot, that is spot on! Peck missed a lot with his 'trial pieces' for GIV farthings. A Pistrucci Obv. and Wyon Rev. was always going to be interesting. Lots of room for speculation. I must try and arrange a visit to the Mint Museum. Thanks again for the info! Teg

Hi, Peck did an amazing job on the copper series. He gave a framework for the SOHO series; differentiated between patterns and medalets; described virtually every variation in design for the whole series and cleared many errors. He had to limit his book to what he thought was numismatically important - and what was achievable. His book is 650 odd pages, imagine the size and cost if he had listed every currency die variation. However these things change, not many of us can afford to be general collectors - a run of sovereigns, a run of crowns etc. So we specialise more than previous collectors. I know I do. I would think that our Mint records compare quite favourably with most countries, what sort of things did you have in mind? I am fond of Bramah's little book, but apart from some fairly spurious Vic colon 'varieties' he seems to me to have far fewer varieties than Peck. Did you mean Batty, or have I missed something? One day I am sure we will have most of the copper series by die variety. Computer imaging and recognition is probably the way forward. Teg

Well in defence of Wyon, have you seen Pistrucci's Coronation Medal of 1838? A good looking woman, and described by someone at the time as a 'speaking resemblance'. For me Pistrucci greater still - both artistically and technically. It seems almost accepted reason that the king did not like Pistrucci's portraits - and that this benefited Wyon. I can't find contemporary evidence to support this, does anyone know of any? Teg