Colin G.

Crud is clearly visible on the darker coin which is not in the top example which either screams of "at least" one being a fake or the original has been scrubbed

A little late to the discussion.... definitely an area for further investigation. Worth noting the two clear reverse types (http://aboutfarthings.co.uk/catalogue/2016/07/02/copper-farthing-reverses/) for the 1844 and 1845 farthings to ensure you are checking the correct Reverse type (yours is type B ) which will help narrow down the hunt. They need clear distinction, because as with the 1839 farthings some of these faults are clearly present when the die was struck because they are present across a full set of coins without any transitional pieces. Other years this occurs as a result of a progressive filling of the die.

Yes, they are surprisingly hard to find in good condition, which can not be said for many denominations with this date. They are out there...but not as plentiful as many people may expect

I am not convinced Rob, the 5 always seems to have been prone to die cracks across various reigns and denominations. I think what you are seeing is just a diagonal die crack through the 5. The upturned serif was also fairly standard in the George IV reign, so not that unusual to see that feature on a 5 of this period. P.S. Apologies for the slight delay in responding

The farthings can be difficult because the small patches of wear get magnified when blown up on a screen. I agree with John on the 1887 and 1901, although the 1901 could easily be nearly fully lustred, these darkened farthings can be very difficult to grade from just a photo. The 1878 I also think would be a similar grade and it looks like there is traces of lustre in the legends, just some tiny patches of wear. The 1887 is a tougher date than is often appreciated.

Agreed, the underlying letter is often smaller/thinner due to the movement of metal as the recut of the new letter occurs, or potentially it could just be part of the process of being recut, and a single misplaced blow.

The top coin appears to be a Roman coin, although without seeing more detail it would be very difficult to ID unless you find someone familiar with this area of collecting. The text on the Reverse doesn't ring any bells regarding any of the mints, so it may be a copy...but hopefully someone will assist.

You will often find that many earlier copper farthings that show that harsh cleaning appearance, but with good detail are often Thames washed (mudlarking finds).

I have no doubt they are genuine, but none of the photos I have seen yet have convinced me that there is not something wrong with the surface. It is difficult because it is not always apparent until they are in hand, some coins just don't like being photographed and I guess this bunch must be a prime example...(by the way I am not knocking your photography skills either, I know how hard it can be and still am often very disappointed with results I get). I trust the personal opinions of people on here more than the photos....carry on lads fill your boots!!!

Does anyone else suspect that all of these look to have been lightly cleaned? None of the photos appear to show what I would expect to be a natural colour for a coin of this period. If not cleaned perhaps they were stored somewhere very inappropriately, much like the 1846 farthings that Colin Cooke was selling a few years ago which all had a very unnatural tone.

I think it may be slightly doublestruck, but the feature in the crown is also evident on image 3, it is definitely different to the triangular shape in 2 and 4, and looks to be either a flaw or difference in design. Just to be clear I am on about the inside of the crown...the left side of the inside of the crown...I think I may be better marking up an image

7 is around the 2/4 period.... 5 looks to be very early 6 I am struggling to fit into the sequence......what is the feature before the C that seems different

The reasoning why I have put 3 & 1 in a different order is due to the detail within the crown. This would be dependent on whether the feature to the left of the crown is a die flaw in which case I would agree with 1, 3, 4 and 2, however if it is the remainder of the original design I would say it weakens from 3 to 1 and therefore would stand by 3 1 4 2

I was tempted to say 3,1,4,2 I should add, that it is due to the shapes within the crown, the serifs on some letters and the recutting of the B.

I know that feeling, list varieties of encased farthings that I used to get for anything between £1 and £5, they now regularly sell for £20-30 each...one sold yesterday for £70 and another recently jumped above £150!!! Perhaps I should have collected a few more first

Always amazes me how often secure premises get raided!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39409754?SThisFB

It looks like the coin has been subjected to an acid dip to me, the rims are thinner as a result of the edge also being attacked

A bit more practise of uploading photos still required

Did you make the date on that 1849 yourself

I am not as convinced, I think it could have been squashed (hence the flat areas) and had the rims filed off. It is amazing what a difference in thickness occurs if the rims are removed. I have seen a few farthings without rims (post mint damage) and the coins just appear substantially thinner. What convinces you it is on the wrong blank Rob? I admit is does seem slightly off-track on the Obverse, but that could also be due to being squashed.

Peck did say that he was in danger of never getting the publication completed if he started to record such varieties, but did not discount them, and I suppose when you think they would have been across several denominations it would have been a further addition to what was already a mammoth task.

I have always used the phrase "intentional design change" because I think that is where I found myself being led when looking at farthings. There will always be anomalies, but you have to try and least define thresholds for inclusion.

It was just a query from a friend he is having a discussion about the legend and wondered if it was captured in any publication. I agree with your interpretation of the abbreviation...good to get another opinion..thanks

A friend has asked a question and I thought one of you lot must know the answer. On a half Reale coin (1770's to 1820's) the legend reads HISPAN ET IND R M F M. Does anyone know what the abbreviation R M F M is for?

Yes definitely a counterfeit, both designs are incorrect