Colin G.

Me too, very nice...in my watch list!!

I have not yet examined a clear enough example to be confident regarding the underlying letter. I can see what Peck is mentioning, but other images I have do not show this feature so it may just be this image. I can see why gets referred to as G/O, although it could just be a con-incidental flaw caused by a flake of metal breaking away from the die. Colin Cooke was convinced enough to refer to it as a G/O, so I will continue to classify it as such until I get to handle an example that allows me to study in more detail.

Rob I know the farthings are unrelated, but there are a mix of Reverse types on the 1860 copper farthings. An example is found with what I class as Reverse type B which was used from 1843-1859, the proofs of 1853 also conform to this type, yet examples of the 1860 copper farthing exist with Reverse A which was used for currency pieces between 1838 and 1845, and also the 1839 and 1841? proof examples. Why would they use two distinct Reverse types, one of which had not been utilised since 1845? For such a small number of pieces, this implies they were not all struck at the same time.

I have just overlaid the images and gradually adjusted the opacity, whilst there is the weakness in the hair, other aspects of the design do not lose detail. The line to the second fillet could well be present on the right hand piece just not visible in the photo. There is no real difference in the flaws/clash which I would have expected if one was cast from a similar piece, I would have expected the copy to have a slightly shallower clash and marginal difference in dimension. I can understand the scepticism due to the cleaned appearance which I suppose is the ideal way to hide a counterfeit copper coin tone. I will see if I can video the transition and upload a link.

I agree, I am just saying that there is inevitably a financial benefit to a slabbed coin being finest known, even if it is a CGS finest known of only a handful of slabbed examples. I was just using it as an example of how a conflict could be perceived to exist.

Worth noting that there is a slightly misaligned tooth above the R in Victoria, even on the one with the thicker teeth this would seem to be the case, so it may just be planchet thickness or grease causing the tooth anomaly

Paulus that is one area where I agree there is a perceived conflict. If your coin and their coin achieve similar grade, they have a financial incentive for theirs to take the spot as finest known. I am in no way suggesting this would happen, but it is a perception that clearly exists

That's what I use, great piece of kit!!!

There appear to be two die combinations for the farthings, with different Reverse designs. I have not yet looked through all the library images I have, to confirm or check ratios, however I am fairly confident from the images that there are two clear Reverse types.

Very nice Dave

Agree

Be interesting to see clearer pictures...I have PM'd you

A proof coin of this era is generally an "official" issue struck from specially prepared dies by the Soho Mint, they were distributed for numerous reasons at the time (advertising, samples, gifts etc) the proof is a copper issue, so has been struck on a copper blank. Whereas restrikes, were coins that were struck "unofficially" from genuine dies at a later date. A die sinker Taylor bought some scrap from the Soho mint in the mid 1840's and included were a number of the original dies. These dies were then re-used to strike further examples. The restrike you have linked is Bronzed, and is therefore a "bronzed" copper restrike. Struck on a specially prepared blank that had been bronzed prior to striking. Peck contains a wealth of information on this subject, it is a fascinating read!!

Probably too large for a farthing then, more likely to be a halfpenny as Clive says.

The tops of the numerals and bases of the lettering do seem to indicate metal flow outwards at the time of striking, so it may have been struck without a collar, or there was a fault with the collar. I would have expected other parts of the design to have suffered if it had been in a vice unless carefully done just to the perimeter. The metal flow would indicate a collar issue to me, weight is mid range so definitely not a planchet issue.

You do have to remember that at the time, there had been a big change in the currency that was being issued, and it was probably an easier time to fool someone who may have been unfamiliar with the newer currency. However I believe that most of these were just done as experimentation, curiosity, craft etc.

With the 1953 farthing being a low value coin generally, it is reasonable to assume that many people will just not have taken the time to try and sift these varieties out. They are definitely becoming more widely known, but I would guess that a thorough search of a decent number of 1953 circulation farthings may prove fruitful. Not all Obverse 1 farthings are from specimen sets, there are also currency examples, it is just the fact that some 1B's can be found in specimen sets.

It does look like it was struck on a different blank, remember that it is likely that the blank could be for currency from a different country/contract.

The other thing is that it is quite conceivable that there could be a roll or two or a bag out there of 2A's just waiting to be found which could also change market value quite a bit

I have a copy and have had a look through, certainly no illustrated or single lots, the only reference I can see to any Charles I shillings is a single example in a bulk lot

I have seen older copper coins with similar features when placed in a roller or excessively rolled. This would explain the smoother corners and the fact that excess material is started to lap predominantly over the corners

In response to an earlier question you raised, flips can fit into album pages, Chris used to offer the Lighthouse range and their Optima albums used to have an option for pages to hold flips. This is what I use for my lower/average grade coins. I have found that in his current range there is a similar product. I don't know if there is a larger version that holds more than 9 flips. http://www.predecimal.com/single-pages-karat-coin-album-lindner-p-18017.html

It is the 1A farthings that are believed to have only come from specimen sets, I would take an educated guess on the rarity ratings (based on Freeman ratings) of 1953 farthings as: 1A - N 1B - R4 2A - R6 2A Proof - R10 2B - C 2B Proof - R6 However for the reasons mentioned above many people prefer to limit collecting to circulation issues, so whilst the proofs may have a lower mintage, the target market is substantially reduced. Does anyone have any definitive data on the number of specimen sets issued?

I sold a solid EF with lustre traces earlier this year for £30, also the thing to bear in mind is that I would expect not too many people would slab such a modern coin of that type of value.

I think the perception on scarcity for these has changed over recent years. The proofs have obviously been sifted out because they are readily available, whilst trying to get hold of a fully lustred currency is quite a challenge.