Teg

Thanks for the reply Red Riley. The Heaton mint did produce did produce coppers 1853 - 1855. About 500 tonnes worth. Before this they were supplying Cu blanks to the mint. As you say in the 1870's when Heaton produced bronze they put a H under the date to differentiate them. They also produced bronze 1860 - 1863, as discussed by Michael in his book. The fact that they did not put an obvious mark - like H in 1853 - 1855 made me wonder if design changes like a plain rather than ornamental trident on the pennys, was a private distinguishing mark. Why for instance would the farthing change in 1853 to obverse 3 with ww incuse instead of raised? If not to differentiate between Mint and Heaton production in that year. During this period about 1/4 of the total copper production was by Heaton - and most of it was sent to alleviate a copper shortage in Ireland. Does any Irish based collector have any ideas on local relative rarity of different types during these years? Obviously a lot of this is not very clear cut. Plenty more work to be done on it - which was the main reason for asking here if it had been explored before. Thanks Teg

Hi, Before I try and look into this theory more closely:- 1D ornamental trident. 1/2 D Rev B (tenuous) 1/4 D Obv 3 - ww incuse could all have been introduced to differentiate production from the Heaton mint. Has this been done before - and if so does anyone have any references? Thanks Teg

Thanks Rob and Hussulo - I see what you mean about the doubling, I sure you are correct. The 'trial farthing' date seems to be the same as my 1838 farthings- and pictures that I can find of 1838 sovereigns. No surprise really as this must have been struck from a positive patrix (or working punch), that was then used to produce negative coining dies (that would look exactly like your trial). This I assume was a test that the positive patrix was OK. It would have been wasteful - and unnecessary to produce this in gold - when the copper blanks were available. So the fact that it is copper does not mean its a farthing!?. As much, if not more, of a sovereign trial as a farthing trial I would think. Double cool. Teg

One last question - your avatar, why is it a farthing die trial, not a sovereign die? Thanks Teg

It's 23.8-24.6mm diameter, 1.2-1.4 thick on the rims, 1.5mm thick in the centre, wt. 4.75g. I thought initially it was double struck, then triple struck, but then reverted to double struck. It's a bit of a mess. Hmm, Thanks for that. For that diameter, and that thickness it's not that heavy - but definitely in the regal range. I can only explain the B in Britannia as a triple strike. I have seen a similar 1724 double strike, these tend to look similar to the 'manufactured' bouncers of George III counterfeits. The date doubling seems almost too good. Mint employees fooling about? Damn nice coin whatever it is! Teg

Hi, some nice coins there! I like the farthing and am trying to understand how these happened. It's triple not double struck isn't it? Do you have the size and weight of the coin? One last question - your avatar, why is it a farthing die trial, not a sovereign die? Thanks Teg

I have not given this a lot of thought -as it hardly effects farthings. Often I find that looking at contemporary counterfeits gives a good idea about what happens with low weight blanks / poor striking. The few counterfeits of Boulton's coinage I have seen all looked good. I have attached a late 18th century ctft 1/2d. This is thought to show metal loss due to, "not enough metal to fill the die". Bit of another red herring, as it is obviously not struck in a collar. Any thoughts? Teg

I'm open to persuasion given the right side of the obverse matching with the reverse, although the large depression on the left obverse has no corresponding weakness on the reverse assuming the die axis is properly inverted. For what it is worth, my 8 Soho halfpennies with this feature are as follows. 3 have a depression on one side only (all reverses), 3 on both sides but not matching and 2 matching. On none of them is there any notable degradation of the edge or rim including the recessed security edge detail which I would possibly expect if it is a flow problem. All are in top grade with wear and mishandling eliminated although none of them are particularly badly affected which may be significant. Of these 8, 3 are 1799 and 5 are 1806, so I assume that the problem being known about long before the time the 1806's were struck would have resulted in better quality control of the blanks. Thinking along the lines of metal flow, how about slightly undersized flans? It's a pity these are Soho products. If they had been Royal Mint products it would have been possible to examine the dies. Hmm, Peck makes the point that when the currency dies were used for restrikes the weak or blurred legends do not appear. That led him to the conclusion that it was the mass production - rather than the dies that were to blame. What would happen to a few drops of oil on the blank (within the raised rims) if the die / blank made a perfect seal when striking? Are your 1/2d examples all average weight? Teg

Hi, Being ignorant about a topic has never stopped me in the past so why should it now! Do these gouges always occur in matched obv. / rev. pairs like this coin? If so metal build up seems less likely. A characteristic of metal build up and metal cuds in letters is that they fall off at some time – and leave an impression on another coin. Does this happen? Not that I have a much better solution. Cooper “The Art and Craft of COINMAKING†“The automatic coining presses with their accurately machined collars and die necks required a correctly sized blank. ….. the technique of striking in a collar was different from that of striking without one. In the latter case the metal had been allowed to flow radially outwards in an unconstrained manner which had resulted in better struck coin centres, but a collar constrained the flow of metal between the dies. It was found that by rimming, thickening or rolling the edge of the blank to give it an accurate diameter, a better coin could be struck, particularly at the edges. There can be little doubt that Boulton rimmed his heavy copper blanks with their thick edges to produce the 1797 penny and twopenny pieces, otherwise he would have had difficulty in striking the excellent edges of these coins.†Has this penny been struck from a non or lightly rimmed blank? Is it therefore a metal flow problem? Teg

Hi, Colin's tin farthing collection was unbelivable. You can see Colin's Peck 533 on his web site. GVF with lots of lustre, so yes he may have passed over this coin for his collection. Still a mighty fine coin. My gripe is grading "for the issue", for early farthings the best known grade can be GF. Do we want to manipulate that to be EF? Should scarcety affect grade? Teg

Hi Jeff, As you say tricky to grade. The auction claims EF. I go for NVF. Others? Teg

Many thanks for the endorsement - another gap in my collection filled. Only a 1684 James II to go!! DaveG38 ONLY A 1684 James II to go ! Wow - I still have a number of gaps. BTW Hussulo, that 1687 is a 1/2d - though they do have some top farthings in that sale. Teg

Thanks for the photo. I would say genuine - from that picture. Very nice. Teg

Very Good catch - any chance of a picture? No edge varieties in Peck - or from any other source. BMC 538. NVMMORVM * FAMVLVS * 1685 * (5 pointed mullets). Montagu writing in 1885 said "In the cabinet of Mr R.A.Hoblyn, is one (farthing) dated 1685, which is probably one of the many forgeries of the period, seeing that the King died on the 6th of January 1685 - this according to the old style then in force, being in the year 1684." (topical as new years day used to be 25th March - not tomorrow!) If you look at Colin Cooke's collection on his site you will see the Ex Parsons specimen. Peck states that it is definitely genuine - as are the Baldwin and British Museum pieces.) Peck did not trace the Hoblyn coin - but said it was probably genuine. Colin Cooke sold the Hoblyn coin from list 8 as GVF (and genuine). Contemporary forgeries also exist - and Peck shows an example in his book. Teg

Hi, As this is a random sample I admit to about 2,500 bronze farthings. A few points. In 1960 the Mint thought there were about 200 million farthings in circulation - the other 550 million since 1860 - they did not know! (see attachment from 1960 times). From 1860 on a fair few coppers went to Ireland and the colonies - you would need to factor that in - but I doubt it's a major figure. Teg

Does this help -- not really my area! Coins: Corinth Excavations, 1977, Forum Southwest, by Joan E. Fisher Hesperia © 1984 Teg

Hi, "The Art and Craft of COINMAKING a History of Minting Technology" by Denis R Cooper Spink and Son Ltd 1988 ISBN 0907 605 27 3 Is a great book, I paid about £ 30 for it. (but have seen it for much more) Denis was Chief Engineer in the Royal Mint Detailed guide to coining technology: techniques, machines, tools, procedures, etc. from the middle ages to the present. Teg

No raised edge like the tin pieces, so the same as the Anne double obverse patterns which at 2.3mm thickness at the rim is a bit less than the 1694. The tin pieces are typically a bit thicker than 2.5mm say 2.8mm and the raised line is very thin so could be the reason why it is not present. Hi Rob, I do find edge engraving interesting - I am off to Zimbabwe for 3 weeks tomorrow - so will have to rejoin this thread later. Have you tried the bevelled mirror technique for photographing coin edges? Hell of a palaver, but great when it works. If you could do this with your coin - and a tin coin you would see what matched. Teg

Peck wrote the bible for British base metal currency and is called English Copper, Tin and Bronze Coins in the British Museum 1558-1958, first published in 1960. Gregory parts 1 & 2 was the Baldwin auction on 2nd May last and is the next Baldwin sale on 25th September. Interesting coin Rob. I have a few Cu 1/4ds that, if they were tin, I would be trying to decifer the edges. A copper 1/4d pattern - plain edge in the BMC had this "ghost" letters look. Edge rimming more likely than a collar I would have thought - is there a raised line on the edge like the tin issues? Aidan. Rob is being very polite and diplomatic with you. Which is good as this is a friendly forum - and it's great to see you making a contribution! This is an odd forum for the interwebby thing. For bronze/copper UK coins I would take advice from the regulars here above Spink / Peck etc. Perhaps do what I try - learn from these people - and give advice to the newcomers. If you want to put people in thier place "collars not invented" try to give your reseach - what makes you think that? Collars were probably being used in Europe from 1550 - at least for trials. Teg

Hi, I also have the 2nd edition. He describes the different types of William and Mary medalets. These are still known by their 'Montagu' numbers. eg M19. So useful just for that! Teg

Following on from another post ! - and Grades and comments? Teg

Hi, The first coin - 1 over 0 was bought from Colin Cooke as VF. (I was visiting Colin so saw the coin in hand before buying). At the time I thought GF or NVF. I have it listed in my collection as GF. On the other hand Colin was very strict in his grading - so perhaps I am being harsh. The second coin is the variety with the stop after GEORIVS coming before the wreath - scarce, and again GF probably GF. Yes VF GI are rare. Teg

I'll comment on the grades in a while - the 821 is indeed nice - but I paid more for the second variety. Teg

Hi, Auction is still going - I got emails most of last week telling me I had been outbid - and did I want to bid more. One coin still going up! My bids were all on William III and earlier - so the prices for Vics are not my fault! Teg

My guess :- HENRY VIII Halfpenny. These often mistaken for farthings because of their size "10 - 13mm". The legend would be something like - hxDxGxROS/\xSIExSPIN/\ on the obverse CIVI T/\S LON DON on the reverse Where I have typed /\ should be an A but with the bar on the top. Teg