Coinery

I managed to get a look on a grown-up computer today, rather than an 'iphone' (thanks Peck ), and this particular 5/3 looks different again to both coins on Colin's site, guess that's at least 3 reverse dies then? Getting to be more and more common all the time!

Keep it coming, Pies, you'll come upon it before me at this rate! Adjustment marks were made on the planchets/flans before hammering/milling, so were typically/mostly squeezed out by the manufacturing process (except where you see adjustment marks, of course)! The marks we regularly see on these coins are post production, so get your thinking cap on!

Bugger!

I've had a further photographic attempt at the 5/3, trying to use added lighting to replicate what I can so much more easily percieve by rocking the coin back and forth. The top tail of the 5 does seem to be clear, stretching much further back than the arm of any three would likely do!

Many have assumed they were made as a mark of protest against the monarch, but that doesn't explain why the fields are always defaced and not the bust itself. If the bust had been defaced I would say it was on religious grounds as this was the political hot potato of the day - catholicism vs the various forms of the protestant religion that were followed in northern Europe. I don't have a satisfactory answer. I don't have any definitive figures for percentage distribution, but can say that 1B is rare, 3A is quite rare, 3B less so and I don't know anyone who has a 3J. When I was actively seeking a 3A and 3B about 8 years ago, only one or two 3A coins came up on ebay over a 12 month period and probably no more than 5 for both busts, suggesting the bulk of the cross crosslet shillings are 1A and 3C with a guestimiate of say 1:3 or 4. But don't hold me to that. Thanks, Rob, all makes perfect sense! I won't hold you to it, though I'm confident it would be incontestable!

I guess that's likely as an easy way to spot most counterfeit coins. However there's also the possibility that some marks were made for identification or accounting purpose. This would mean a mess of lines across all denominations, though, wouldn't it? Also, thinking suspiciously, as I'm inclined to do, I'd never have taken receipt of a 'scratched' coin in that period, thinking hmmm, 'two lines,' must be safe, someone else has already checked it? I'd be thinking 'that's just what I'd be doing to any fake produced'! With the accounting possibility, I know notes are marked in banks, but generally the top note, which can be conveniently banded to the top of the pile...how would that work in the medieval realm? Interesting point, though, would love to have a definative answer!

Possibly, pies, it had crossed my mind, but this would mean ALL the silver hammered coins of the period would be a mess of cross-hatching, and this doesn't seem to be the case? Also, as Rob has said, it is unlikely to be political/religeous defacing, as people would be much more inclined to vent their aggression upon the portrait itself. It's a consistent activity, usually 2 lines only, and of the same width/gauge, so probably scratched with the same type of impliment (knife probably?), would be good to get to the bottom of it!

Following an email from NGC the other day, explaining 'there were gliches in the system' preventing me from accessing the verification details of a couple of coins, I've been checking other coins to see if the verification remains intact. Anyway, I came across this one, that has been described as a 4p http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/CertResults.aspx?CertNumber=3625167-001 now they either meant BUST 4B, in which case it's still an error, or they've got the denomination wrong...not good whichever! So, am I missing something obvious here, or is it a boob?

I've just had a read of the above mentioned thread, your drawings are a useful example. I'm going to try and take some angle-lit shots tomorrow (today), to try and get a full 3D view of it!

Man after my own heart, then!

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?