Coinery

A Blackberry? Why we haven't even had a summer, yet!

I think there were a small number of 1675/3 farthings, but nothing like the numbers of halfpennies. Teg and I spent a considerable amount of time corresponding on this matter about 6 years ago, some of which is discussed in the 1675/3 CRAOLVS thread in the unconfirmed varieties section. Taking the mint figures for the value of copper coins struck in Charles II's reign and the number of examples recorded in a not very rigorous survey as there was no checking for double counting of the farthings, but were reasonably close to the theoretical distribution. The halfpennies which were checked for double counting are way off. This appears to be due to a large number of 1673 coins actually being 5/3. In the sample collected, the 5/3 was equal in rarity to the 1675, but the former were virtually all recorded as straight 1673s. The absolute numbers were only slightly greater for these two compared to the acknowledged rare 1672. Given the number of halfpennies dies recut with the overdate, it would be extremely unlikely that any farthing dies good enough for further use were not similarly recycled. I think that is a 5/3. It always feels a little pathetic to produce nothing other than a single line of thanks for such an indepth and time consuming response, but thank-you! In view of what you have said regarding the unidentified 5/3 half pennies, do you think it could be a similar case with the farthings, that a large number are out there, only they just happen to be sat in trays as 73's?

Yes it does resemble the 5 used on Charles II farthings, there are a few different dies that are recorded as 3/5, see items 712 & 713 http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/ccc_charlesiicurrency.html Thanks, Colin! I tried to view the enlarged images on the site, using my I-phone, but the pop-up image kept jumping below the window of my phone browser, so will check them out tomorrow on the laptop. The back-sweeping top arm of the possible 5 is slightly raised above the level of the underlying raised 'numeral,' though it is not so clear on the photo! I should have tried photographing it with a different light angle...maybe tomorrow, if the overdate grows in possibility iPhone, dear boy, iPhone Should've got myself a Blueberry, so much easier to spell!

Yes it does resemble the 5 used on Charles II farthings, there are a few different dies that are recorded as 3/5, see items 712 & 713 http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/ccc_charlesiicurrency.html Thanks, Colin! I tried to view the enlarged images on the site, using my I-phone, but the pop-up image kept jumping below the window of my phone browser, so will check them out tomorrow on the laptop. The back-sweeping top arm of the possible 5 is slightly raised above the level of the underlying raised 'numeral,' though it is not so clear on the photo! I should have tried photographing it with a different light angle...maybe tomorrow, if the overdate grows in possibility

There's Rob and Clive too: http://www.rpcoins.co.uk/ http://www.historiccoinage.com/index.php

Is this hammered from dies (some of the letters look really sharp), or is this another cast?

If you look on the BUST, you'll see there's TWO, left facing!

Typical TPG mistake. These crop up quite frequently and often present an opportunity. Don't complain, exploit the situation. Forget bust type, that is unknown territory for them - as is identifying the coin on a consistent basis. You eliminate a lot of buying competition from those who have no interest in personally identifying what they are buying, merely relying on what they are told. Just beware of the instances when a rarity is claimed in error, as this can work both ways. No bargains here, unfortunately, the seller is asking over $1000 for this one, he'll/she'll be waiting a long time I reckon! I guess if it WAS a unique Elizabeth 4p with rose, disguised as a sixpence...

Don't think that is a recognised Olympic event. Ahh, you've obviously never seen us plating up a near-full English in our little box, with the challenge being to keep it all hot! Hurdles and javelin come immediately to mind!

The only thing about collecting from change for me, is the absence of history! I can absolutely and fully understand the 'collecting syndrome,' the compilation of hard-won aquisitions of any type but, mystery, romance, and mystic, are where it's at for me! Great story, though, and glad you're enjoying the sport! Do they do vegetarian food?

Yep, take it easy, and good luck!

I'll be taking a look too, Gary! I hope I don't win any, as I'll only be after bargains so, fingers crossed, someone else will win, and you'll get the money you're after! I don't think I'd ever consign a large number of coins to eBay auctions to generate cash, but good luck and fortune!

Continuing from the beginnings of a discussion about apparent rarity, here is an unbarred A's in Maria 1694 farthing, on the usual poor cast flan, added to which is a more than acceptable level of reverse corrosion. The question is: Spink catalogues this unbarred 'A' coin at nearly 3 times the value of the regular barred 'A' issue in Fine. All these unbarred A 'rarities,' William III copper included, seem to be turning up with regularity on the Bay, are they overpriced, are they as rare as thought?

Thanks, Colin, that very much clears the issue up for me!

I've got Peck and Freeman on the shelf! It's the Spink pricing, rather than the ID that intrigued me as, presumeably, these prices have come from actual auction sales of type? I'm always up for viewing die and punch information at a deeper level, so will certainly try and dig out the 51 Will PM later, thanks again! Generally speaking the prices will reflect past sales, but if there isn't a major sale for a while you can get a mismatch between history and reality. Some prices have plummeted in Spink following the realisation that things aren't as rare as previously assumed. If there is no major farthing sale in a London auction, then prices are either going to drift upwards in a percentage increase across the board, or not get revised at all. If there were a couple sales realising below Spink book, the price would probably be revised down, assuming they reviewed it at all. People that know a specific field won't bother with prices anyway. Rarities are instantly recognised for what they are and appropriate bids made. Thanks, Rob! I always assumed they collated figures from a broad auction circuit, rather than just from the specialised sales! The triple quoted figures for unbarred A's in Fine did surprise me, especially when, for other types and varieties, and I use Elizabeth as an example, there appear to be no significant price differences, even for quite obvious variations (busts being an easy one)! It seems to make little difference with an Elizabeth Sixpence whether Liz has a ribbon in her hair, a bowler hat instead of a crown, or even smoking a pipe etc., etc! I just find it odd to see the 17/18C farthings so specifically valued! Not everything is revalued every year. The September sales are a good indicator of what is going to be revised as the next year's edition is only a couple months away from release. Last September was the Brady groats, so groats as a whole were revalued. For the last few years the prices had crept up annually by £25 or £50 in VF, however, a sale with such a comprehensive selection of a single denomination enabled a wholesale revision of prices with the ability to vary them relative to each other as it became obvious what was in demand amongst specific groups. When coins sell for below estimate, either there is something wrong, or it is common and not worth chasing. If one coin goes ballistic, either two people refused to give up, but also it is likely to mean that the coin in question was an unusually good example or rare variety. What you also have to bear in mind is that when a number of varieties are grouped under a single heading, the price is for the commonest variety. Hidden within a nominal price of £50 might be a £1K variety, but unless it is widely collected would not necessarily warrant its own reference. I'm really glad I pursued this thread! Reminds me of moments in education, where a particularly patient and/or persistent teacher would present something a slightly alternative way, and suddenly the penny would drop!

I've got Peck and Freeman on the shelf! It's the Spink pricing, rather than the ID that intrigued me as, presumeably, these prices have come from actual auction sales of type? I'm always up for viewing die and punch information at a deeper level, so will certainly try and dig out the 51 Will PM later, thanks again! Generally speaking the prices will reflect past sales, but if there isn't a major sale for a while you can get a mismatch between history and reality. Some prices have plummeted in Spink following the realisation that things aren't as rare as previously assumed. If there is no major farthing sale in a London auction, then prices are either going to drift upwards in a percentage increase across the board, or not get revised at all. If there were a couple sales realising below Spink book, the price would probably be revised down, assuming they reviewed it at all. People that know a specific field won't bother with prices anyway. Rarities are instantly recognised for what they are and appropriate bids made. Thanks, Rob! I always assumed they collated figures from a broad auction circuit, rather than just from the specialised sales! The triple quoted figures for unbarred A's in Fine did surprise me, especially when, for other types and varieties, and I use Elizabeth as an example, there appear to be no significant price differences, even for quite obvious variations (busts being an easy one)! It seems to make little difference with an Elizabeth Sixpence whether Liz has a ribbon in her hair, a bowler hat instead of a crown, or even smoking a pipe etc., etc! I just find it odd to see the 17/18C farthings so specifically valued!

Colin Goode (Aboutfarthings) has promised a definitive list of 1672-1724 Why wait? Sorted 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724

I've got Peck and Freeman on the shelf! It's the Spink pricing, rather than the ID that intrigued me as, presumeably, these prices have come from actual auction sales of type? I'm always up for viewing die and punch information at a deeper level, so will certainly try and dig out the 51 Will PM later, thanks again!

Colin Goode (Aboutfarthings) has promised a definitive list of 1672-1724 Yes, come along Colin, I can't continue poking around in the dark forever!

Thanks, Peter! Any ideas where I'd get a list 51? Do similar studies exist for the William III copper?

You certainly cast a very wide net, Dave! Where on earth do you start with paper money? I basically got it for its history. Its an operation Bernhard forgery and the serial was'nt noted for this date. It has been now. Just missed an original white isse Tenner in an auction from 1935, bugger!!!!! All totally over my head! Though I did once, a long time ago, decide if Ed7 had any notes, I would collect them! I still don't know to this day whether he did or not?

That's really worrying as the number is still coming up invalid for me on both coins! I've emailed them for advice. Doubly annoying as they were both great buys! Had a prompt reply from NGC saying there had been a glitche in the system over the weekend!

Just run the number of this coin through NGC as I was hoping for a bargain, and it came back on two attempts as invalid! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1821-GEORGE-1V-GOLD-SOVEREIGN-/200774678002?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item2ebf1a75f2