Colin G.

I would have also had a go at these....but I don't know the next time I would be in London with the car.

This is one area where provenance can relax you somewhat. If you can identify a coin with provenance that has images, it would be almost impossible to match the coin including toning, surface marks etc. There seem to be specific coins that have been targeted to date, it is not a common issue that affects all denominations/dates and therefore is not a substantial issue...yet

The trouble is that whether or not a particular variety gets included or classified as a design type, is inevitably up for interpretation. Unless you drop back to the most basic of design types or go in the opposite direction and classify every working die. Inevitably we as collectors will sit somewhere in between the two extremes. Given the fact that we can't agree on a grade for a coin I think there is little chance of there being someone who produces a system that satisfies everyone ....or even a majority. I have a set of thresholds that determine whether a variety gets included, but even I think it is flawed to some extent and have to continually review what I consider to be reasonable and relevant. We all like a finite number of choices...but just let that OCD slide and realise it is never going to happen

Wishing a speedy recovery to you both, I think the frontline service when you get there is very good and is often superb in quality. It is my opinion that the administration side of things seems too cumbersome and as an indirect result affects the treatment of patients. I recently lost a close friend to a brain tumour, and some of the situations he encountered within the system were appalling, however it was more often that not a result of the administration behind the treatment. He found out he actually had cancer by receiving a referral letter to see an oncologist through the post prior to seeing the consultant for the results of his brain scan....mistakes like this just should not be allowed to happen in a modern system. In addition the care aspect of people who have to endure stays in hospital appears to be slipping, often due to reduced numbers, it is not the physical treatment that appears to be the issue, but the care aspect that is suffering. I also find it interesting to note that you mentioned private care, and inevitably this seems to be a benefit being taken up by a lot more people including where offered through the corporate companies etc. This must remove some people out of the system for routine treatment but yet does not seem to be making any difference in terms of burden on the system. The politicising of this system is painful and an issue that needs to be resolved, but I do fear that that the alternative will inevitably just breed more bureaucracy into the system.

I think it very much depends on your collecting habits, whilst Freeman numbers may work for the bronze penny series, which have now been quite thoroughly studied, this is definitely not the case for other periods/denominations. I am amazed that the BMC references have held up as well as they have but I assume this is due to the fact that this was a monumental task executed with thoroughness. However certain sections such as the Farthing Tokens of James I and Charles I would now be substantially different following their study by Tim Everson. This is an aspect that I have reviewed quite thoroughly whilst cataloguing farthing varieties, and it becomes quite obvious at an early stage that you either would have to leave your numbering until the latest opportunity...and even then it would need amending the following day or you commence with a system that can incorporate amendments which is inevitably more cumbersome. The more cumbersome the numbering system the less memorable it becomes. I have settled on a system which uses Date - MonarchType - Obverse Type (Obverse variety) / Reverse Type (Reverse Variety) - Where Required a shortened description is then used to pick up Die Rotation/Edge/Metal/Finish Therefore you can end up with examples such as: 1895-VB-7/F - 1895 Victoria Bunhead farthing 1895-VC-1/A - 1895 Victoria Veiled Head farthing 1895-VC-1/A-BP - 1895 Victoria Veiled Head Bronze Proof farthing 1839-VA-1a/Aa - 1839 Victoria Young Head farthing with Type a minor Obverse variety combined with a Type a minor Reverse variety 1839-VA-1/A-BCP▼ - 1839 Victoria Young Head Bronzed Copper Proof farthing with a 180% die rotation (Die rotation only captured when it differs from the norm) I appreciate that at a glance this can appear quite cumbersome, but obviously I have been working with it and fine tweaking it for quite some time, and as a result it does become second nature for me. I have no doubt up until the point where I decide to release the catalogue this could potentially yet evolve again, but I have found this to be the most flexible system I have used to date. The system could potentially be used on anything from hammered farthings to pattern farthings and I think actually works well to establish some kind of chronological order with care. I have used it on such collection sets just to determine its viability. It also allows people to select just the main design types and avoid the minor varieties if they so choose, and similarly select out the proofs/patterns if they want. Hopefully you are all still awake if you got this far

@Rob is there anything on the Reverse that is legible?

I have asked a few friends who may be able to assist

The last digit looks very similar to the 5/4 found on 1850 farthings which are commonly called 5/7. I would suggest that this could also be a 4. The third digit is a bit unusual, the curves do not appear correct for an 8 even if inverted, they seem to be more similar to a 6 or 9, but then I am not overly familiar with the digit styles on halfpennies.

Number 3 is a George I farthing, you can tell by the raised border on the Obverse

I know...I know...I hang my head in shame

I have seen similar before on farthings, and assume it must be when clog falls out of the die and gets struck back into the face of a die? Not that easy to understand given the fact that the clog should be a soft material being forced against a die. I bought a farthing from Rob P a while back where the same occurs with a 1 in the date which is completely out of place and almost looks as if it fell back on to the next blank planchet and then got pressed into the die. Would welcome other views on this phenomenon....I will see if I can dig out some pics of mine.

If nothing else it is a good set of information to educate yourself against fakes of these specific series.

The Hong Kong dollar dates 1866 but shows Edward VII, so if they are matching sides of a coin it shouts fake, and gives that same fake appearance that Dave describes.

Definitely can't grumble at that price!! Well done

What is the Reverse like?

There was that very large Civil War hoard found recently...you could always keep your fingers crossed that some of those trickle out into the market

The base of the bust does look different in terms of tone, and surface hairlines but that may just be the images. Where does that patch correspond with on the Reverse, has it been drilled/repaired?

You don't need to count the beads as an identifier when you are familiar with the series, but when TPG's are getting this wrong (when there are indicators that even someone not familiar with farthings can use as certainty) it does not fill you with confidence. I agree that when you regularly look at farthings even design types jump out quite readily, but that is not the case for many people. If you are thinking of getting an example but are unsure use the bead count then there is no dispute.

The indisputable fact is that the number of teeth and beads on the Reverse are different...therefore no excuses for mistakes by grading companies....but it is hard to back track when you are already financially committed to those you have already attributed incorrectly

That second one doesn't even remotely look beaded...bad day at the office

I agree definitely a TB/TB

It is a medieval jeton with the "shield of France" design, they were used for counting/tallying. They have an AVE MARIA GRACIE legend, but these were reproduced in number by many sources so you often find some quite bizarre legends, yours does appear to resemble this legend.

Does anyone have a copy of the June 2011 Warwick & Warwick catalogue? If you do, can you have a look and see what lot number the 1825 farthing was (individual coin lots). Lost mine.... Thanks

Depends on which reign you are looking at, the Victoria Bunhead section is the one that definitely outstanding.

@MACKSILKY. you can email them directly to me if you prefer