Colin G.

I agree that it is impossible to determine other than by logic. For an example of an earlier thing superimposed on a later character, refer to the 1807/6 proof halfpenny in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. There I was able to show that Taylor took the 1806 broken jewel die and changed the datal 6 to a 7. The 7 can be seen to have sections of the 6 superimposed on top of it where the position of the two digits coincides. This was written up fully in the 2007 BNJ. Another example was in the thread a few months ago that I posted on the spur rowel over saltire mark James I half groat. After discussions and rationalising the arguments for and against, it was reasonably concluded that the majority of the multiple spur rowel cuts were underlying despite being chronologically later than the saltire due to the hardness of the die. Eventually the mark was cut to a depth equal to that of the initial saltire mark. Both could lead you to conclude that the chronology was wrong. Conversely, some marks are cut ever deeper and conventionally in chronological terms. e.g. see the triangle over anchor over tun mark below. Tun was in use 1636-8, anchor 1638-9 and triangle 1639-40. At last my sanity is restored I had always pondered the fact that it was very often discussed depending on the depth of the cut, and this should not be a deciding factor. It could certainly be evidence but should not be definitive evidence. Thansk for the examples I will have a look!! I'm not sure I agree (though far from being expert in such things). I've seen the 1807/6 thread and that's clearly a 7, though there are residual traces of a 6 showing, that's quite certain. From a deeper cut 6, that's also the only reasonable explanation. But it doesn't correspond in any way to those E N diagrams above, as the remains of the 6 do not show beyond the boundaries of the 7. And Dave's penny doesn't show anything like that. It shows a clear E with a lump of something sitting on top of the central portion (it looks almost like a lump of solder). Even if it was the deep lying trace of something original and much deeper, you'd have to account for what it must have been, and the way it sits 'on' the E doesn't seem to bear that theory out anyway. The unerlying E looks kosher, just with a lump of something on it. In the illustrations above, the white letter is clearly the overcut one, but possibly the diagram was constructed in an exaggerated way to illustrate a point? I can't see any Mint official allowing such a lamentably unsuccessful overstrike out, nor any responsible technician keeping their job if that was best job their skill could do. Ahh you misunderstood, this was not in relation to Dave's coin or that particular flaw, it was just to illustrate that the most prominent digit/letter does not necessarily have to be the last one struck. In both examples the shaded letter could have been cut later than the unshaded one, if less pressure was used and tehrefore the letter was not cut as deep. The visual result would still be the same, it is just a topic that I have never agreed with and wanted clarity, but I hijacked Dave's thread

Yes but could they tell it wasn't EF? I agree there's very little that can be done about it overall, but the odd little victory is good for the soul... I am with Sion on this one, whilst what these sellers are doing is clearly wrong, it pales into insignificence when the site they are being sold through does nothing The world will never be the perfect place for a buyer, there has to be a certain level of people using their own common sense. Trial and error is how most people learn, you do something wrong, it hurts you don't do it again!! The exact same rules apply to sellers as well

I agree that it is impossible to determine other than by logic. For an example of an earlier thing superimposed on a later character, refer to the 1807/6 proof halfpenny in the confirmed unlisted varieties section. There I was able to show that Taylor took the 1806 broken jewel die and changed the datal 6 to a 7. The 7 can be seen to have sections of the 6 superimposed on top of it where the position of the two digits coincides. This was written up fully in the 2007 BNJ. Another example was in the thread a few months ago that I posted on the spur rowel over saltire mark James I half groat. After discussions and rationalising the arguments for and against, it was reasonably concluded that the majority of the multiple spur rowel cuts were underlying despite being chronologically later than the saltire due to the hardness of the die. Eventually the mark was cut to a depth equal to that of the initial saltire mark. Both could lead you to conclude that the chronology was wrong. Conversely, some marks are cut ever deeper and conventionally in chronological terms. e.g. see the triangle over anchor over tun mark below. Tun was in use 1636-8, anchor 1638-9 and triangle 1639-40. At last my sanity is restored I had always pondered the fact that it was very often discussed depending on the depth of the cut, and this should not be a deciding factor. It could certainly be evidence but should not be definitive evidence. Thansk for the examples I will have a look!!

First things first we need to resolve this overlying/underlying issue. Am I the only person who thinks that it could be both scenarios. I just don't get the "which one came first" unless it is obviously an attempt to correct something that can be applied logically. My explanation (excuse the dreadful art work!!) I have used a letter E and a letter N to demonstrate. The image below shows two overstrikes (albeit they have been recut without losing the detail beneath). Most people would suggest that the white letter is the overlying letter, and the shaded letter is the original letter that was cut. My view is that it is impossible to tell because potentially the shaded letter could be the overlying letter, it may be that it is just not cut as deep as the first letter. This would result in exactly the same arrangement. Just because one letter is more prominent it does not mean it is the most recent letter to be cut. Does anyone agree/disagree with this theory, or am I missing something? Dave I think your coin could be either a flaw or something more intentional, I have seen flaws that just seem too much of a coincidence but that is exactly what they are!!

Even more bizarre!! They must cost more to make than giving someone the real thing http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/George-VI-FARTHING-1942-1952-Reproduction-Coin-/320673967100

Sion, What a great idea!! Are you okay if I put a link to the map from my site the next time I do an upload?

The bad thing about multiple coin lots at auction, they have mixed up the coins/tickets Now I have to try and match the coin with the ticket, which would not be too bad if I could read Rev Rogers' tickets!! Rob, you said you should have been a pharmicist due to the fact you could read such handwriting. Image 1 shows the tickets for 5 x 1860 farthings, I can read the "5 berries in wreath" bit, and one appears to have "beaded edge" and another possibly "dot circle" so I am assuming these indicate beaded border varieties if I am reading them right. The others seem to say "serated? edge" so I am assuming implies toothed, but I may be reading this wrong. Images 2 & 3 show the backs of the tickets which I assume indicate where they were bought(illegible)and the price of 6d or 1 shilling as shown in image 3. Finally I can say he certainly had an eye for a nice strong strike!!

Fascinating stuff Rob thanks!! I have a couple that have different names on the reverse of a couple of others, I will put them up for deciphering!!

I use the Lighthouse Optima M range for this, where you can store 12 2*2's per page, my better coins are self slabbed The pages with slips in for the coins were also pretty good, but the plastic is hard so I was always worried about scratching the coins.

Michael mentioning the word slab with this lot is like prodding them with a hedgehog on a stick!! Your son has a good eye for the dates, that is without doubt the toughest date to obtain in full lustrous condition. It took me two years to find mine. If I do come across any I will let you know

Tom, CGS give a price guide for each denomination/date/variety depending on the grade any coin achieves, and the price guides are viewable by any members on the site, so even if your not convinced by slabbing it's worth joining just to see their price guide I might not always agree with it (no different to any other price guide) but it's another set of figures available for viewing!! In answer to your second question I think there are multiple potential reasons, but primarily it is a case of people speculating in investment terms ready for slabbing to take off in the UK. If you have the highest graded piece like in the US they suddenly become substanially more desirable/valuable. And finally don't blast me I am just guessing and trying to put explanations to the post time to hide

Try Colin Goode at aboutfarthings.com he's also a member of this forum It is a tough date to get in BUNC. The only example I have is the one in my collection, and as tempting as the offer sounds....it took me a fair while to get hold of it!! Plus I would have to get it slabbed which would mean about a 1-2 month wait.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it doesn't reach the melting pot anyway, it has just become the latest short term investment, it is probably getting shipped all around the world as it is re-sold waiting for the bottom to drop out of the precious metal market!!

Now go and stand in the corner and repeat after me...farthings are great!! Tell you what though, Colin, your eyes must be brilliant. I spent about half an hour last night trying to give an 1881 the right obverse attribution, and even through a loupe I was squinty afterwards. Turned out to be an Obverse D (from your website) with the F merged with the linear circle, in well over EF. The bizarre thing is now I can identify the obverse types from a distance. After a while it really does become quite obvious, but drag me away from farthings and I don't have a clue

Now go and stand in the corner and repeat after me...farthings are great!!

The 1909 I would give GVF whilst the 1917 probably around Fair. The fist might be 'worth' about £3 whilst the second has no obvious value. I have put 'worth' in inverted commas because that is purely a book figure; dealers are unlikely to want it other than as part of a bulk lot and you may struggle to reach that figure on e-bay. So make of that what you will! I would agree with Derek entirely, you can see similar examples in my shop as confirmation

Have been doing as you advise and looking out for threepenny pieces, and saw this on fleabay. He's offering dates from 1952 - 1971. Were any produced in 1971 just a few months before they ceased to be legal tender? If so, that's a tad short sighted I would have thought. Phil, That is a result of Ebay making you list the Reign/design of the monarch. So the dates correspond to the Ebay category not the dates on the coin. There is a 1970 proof version, but otherwise the latest date for a currency specimen is 1967, I think!!

My last box went off to the local charity shop!!

The amount of times I have squinted at a photo, or thought I saw something I can see what you are saying, but 99.99% of the time it is your eyes or a combination of lighting and marks on the surface confusing things, but you just never know.......

Looking through the lots from yesterday and noticed that one farthing looked a bit different,thought it was a die flaw at first, the coin is a great looking GEF with lustre traces, got the lens and microscope out and hey presto it has the E of DEF clearly over another sideways E. I didn't even spot it yesterday when looking at the lot, this is definitely the most exciting farthing find I have ever found....now I do sound really sad Has anyone ever heard of this one before?

Went to Warwick & Warwick today, and actually came away with four lots, the prices seemed a lot more realistic, with silver still going a bit crazy!! There will always be the odd exception but some lots were going well below estimate. Fingers crossed that the madness is starting to fade away.....at least until I have bought up a load more coins

Good luck Bob, would be great for another farthing collector to find one, but if you find two let me have one cheap!! Not familiar with Knightsbridge coins, but have a nice day

Dave just for you

I do that, Colin, and not just for farthings. Definitely towards the autistic end of the spectrum, like most of us, I suspect. handy when you discover a variety though - just to make sure I didn't sell a Gouby X for 99p before I knew about them... But that is the mad part, it would drive me nuts!! It is the only way i can start to get an idea of scarcities on varieties, which although not entirely accurate (because I may distort the figures by focusing on a type) does give a good indication. I thought I was crazy doing it for farthings, you must be really crazy doing it for all denominations