Colin G.

The picture in set above 1927 HC2.jpg is a good example of die polish lines, you can see the hairlines in the fields, but the hairlines on the whole do not continue across the raised lettering or the raised parts of the forehead...which would be some very precise cleaning. Therefore logic would indicate that these lines were marks made by polishing the die and therefore the marks would have only been on the fields, because on the die at the time of polishing the raised areas we see on the coin would have actually been incuse. Hopefully that makes sense

Some of those do just look like die polish lines but the ones on the crown and especially the florin look a bit more worrying, wait for some of the others to chip in, have a good look at the hairlines under magnification if they are die polish lines they are theoretically raised on the coins surface so the way the light reflects could also help you determine this. I have an 1839 proof farthing that appears to have hairlines, but they are clearly die polish marks under magnification. As Noodle says at the end of the day you have to be happy with your purchase

Are you sure its cleaned, if you are referring to those hairlines, they appear to only be in the fields which would indicate they are die polishing marks. Otherwise the lines would continue across the raised areas. Edit - Just had a look at all the photos..I see what you mean Oops

Pete I would be happy to take those

Yes the 6 has been recut in that example, but this occurs on a frequent basis with digits with tails, where a slight rotation becomes easily noticeable, therefore it is not something I would include on the website at present.

My first reaction would have been that the light patch was caused by surface damage and therefore the side of the 8 has been squashed. However if you are adamant that it is not damage, then the fat 8 over thin 8 would also be a possibility. The 5 I would suggest is a recut 5, with just the tip of the 5 still evident. Still not convinced on the 5/3 theory, but one which I am literally on the edge of trying to prove/disprove. I have a pool of 1865 coins to study closely to see whether it is even feasible (using overlays) that an 1865/3 could exist. I think it may just be fill on the digit caused by a recut 5. I will try and resolve shortly

Well that snowballed rather quickly Enjoy.....it does look like a nice set

Apples biggest sales boost...Windows 10!! Moved to a Mac after upgrading to Windows 10....thats how bad it was

An area I keep finding myself drawn to as well...I must resist!!

Sorry been away fro the weekend and tried to keep away from the phone When you see the hollow neck example, there will be no mistaking the fact, and I have to admit as a result I have never really gone hunting to see whether there are other indicators relating to this variety

I would have said F over lower F, although the base of the underlying F is not evident this may have been the reason for the recut. Very similar to a lot of farthing recuts noticeably the 1849 4/lower 4 where the base is missing

Very forward thinking by the die sinker.....creating a space shuttle in 1879

Farthings, farthings everywhere

That is not the hollow neck type, see the attached photo which should help

I am hoping to be at the March fair as well

Good luck with the hunt Bob...they are not an easy type to find!!!

I think in many circumstances the buyer would not even be aware if acetone has been used to remove dirt/pvc residue, so in reality I think it may be a case of "if the seller is happy and the buyer can not tell" which may not be what people want to hear but is in all fairness probably what happens

Nooooo don't do it!!!

Now this is where they grey gets really grey, I will not even consider a recut letter/digit, unless it is obvious to the naked eye or again an indisputable/obvious recut.

Put that on eBay as farthing dated 860...it will fly!!! It is such a lengthy topic to discuss... the sort of topic that needs a book

You are asking all the right questions!!! This is one of those questions that will result in a different response depending on who you speak to. For many of the purists such things would not get included in a list of varieties, and it is with good reason, because as Rob Pearce often says you can end up doing a die study if you are not careful and in reality a die study of one date of Victorian farthing would be a quite boring task and would not really fascinate many people. However many people do often get interested in varieties for numerous reasons and the problem then starts when you try to decide upon a set of boundaries for inclusion/exclusion. Design types - are generally accepted as being "intentional" changes in design for numerous reasons (change of monarch, periodic updates, change in design etc) and these can be quite clearly defined although there are some of these that are questionable (as previously mentioned I am still not convinced that the changes to the bronze farthing between Reverse C and D were intentional and are nothing more than the result of polishing of a master die/hub....still mulling this one over. Matrix/master die varieties - Very often/assumed to be unintentional features that repeat over a number of working dies as a result, and are an area where I think there is some merit in study. The stop after F:D shown above is one example. It is my opinion that depending on how the design was put together legend first/bust second or vice versa then a change in legend at this point occurs. This can be determined by noticing that patterns do occur across certain Obverse types and dates, however this can be further complicated by some die sinkers touching up this aspect on some individual working dies. Examples can be found with a single upper stop, a full upper stop and a partial lower stop (assumed to occur when the legend was applied first), or a full colon which almost cuts into the back of the bust (assumed to be due to the fact that the bust was applied first). Another example would be the 1839 farthing where a set combination of legend dots and prong numbers is encountered, which does not indicate progressive die wear (because farthings at stages in between would be encountered), but more an issue when the working die was taken from a master die or when a master die was struck from a matrix. Working die varieties - A variety that occurs on a single working die and as a result can still repeat across numerous coins but is limited to a specific die and therefore date. This is the awkward category because you can often get issues such as progressive deterioration and die fill which can occur and really is no more than a striking flaw....however even so many of these do become collectable varieties. Such as the various "raised dot" varieties across farthing/pennies. What determines which become collectable is pretty much pot luck!! However when cataloguing it is important to have boundaries and stick to them. I have never dismissed die fill because it can be as a result of a master die variety and the only way to determine this is by getting to see how many examples exist and comparing them for signs of flaw progression. The RFG varieties have been included purely because I have encountered several examples that have been consistent in appearance. However whether this is due to grease in the die I don't suppose we will ever really know for certain, and a letter that has the appearance of another will always grab attention. This has been one of the problems with publication, I find I am constantly studying dates/topics which sway my opinion on inclusion, and therefore the goalposts keep moving...I am sure I will just make a decision at some point.......apologies for the essay!!!

I am the same still not convinced, I have a couple of candidates but none of them have ever seemed clear enough to be sure. I meant to do some overlays as well, but never got around to it....perhaps a mini project for this weekend!

Ah that explains it, where does he buy his burgers

No relevance at all but just out of curiosity...I want to see the hamburger button which one is it...I can't find it

I always try and hold off classifying a variety until I get a clear indisputable example. This has been achieved with the 1865/2 and then once you see one of the clear examples, you can pretty much spot a lower grade example with almost certainty.