Colin G.

James, The Reverse 5 was added because I had seen an 1853 farthing which clearly had the B without serifs, it may be that this coin did in fact have the detached clover also. Again, if you want to provide me a scan (ideally of both obverse & reverse), I can get it put onto the site, and updated as no serifs and detached clover. I have no doubt there are plenty of combinations left to find, so the presence of a 5F is very possible.

Welcome Perkin, if its information and opinions you want you have certainly come to the right place and also welcome to the wonderful world of coin collecting!!

Found this curiosity in a bunch of farthings purchased recently, the upright of the four has a much higher relief giving the appearance of the date as 1810. I initially thought it had been restruck using a 1, but I am unsure as to why this would be done with a 1 and not with another 4, or has it been manually recut? I have got to get more knowledge on the cutting/repairing of dies/hubs, any willing teachers out there? Thoughts anyone?

Well actually yours will become Obverse H when I get around to uploading it!!!

James, Thanks for the images, the 1845 is similar, but the size difference is more obvious, except the large date is the scarcity this time. But there is also reference to a mid sized version (just to complicate things, but I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing one). Just to give people an insight into how I make my comparisons, I have used your coin image. The reason I ask for the 1200dpi scans is that it allows me to see differences in detail that I think are noticeable, it also allows me to accurately compare date spacings etc. When comparing coins, I overlay parts of one image onto the other and then reverse the process. It is amazing how it highlights differences. My wife keeps reminding me what an anorak I am I have overlaid your coin onto two Obverse D images and the datal figures, the WW incuse and the beads do match, which would indicate this is the Obverse D prior to its repair work!! I have provided links to the images below. Image 1 Image 2 I really must make an effort to get out more

There are a lot of varieties of the larger date, but the visual differences are not obvious. This is further complicated by the various bead sizes/positions, which makes it difficult to categorise them. I have tried to list the types that have clear visual differences to prevent me from identifying each individual die variety (although I may head down this route at some point in time, probably many moons from now!!). I can see what you say regarding the date spacing and the fact that the 5 and 8 are closer like the Obverse D variety, and perhaps you have located the type D obverse variety prior to the repunched numeral. I have not yet come across that variety, so if you want to submit a 1200dpi scan I will get it added to the site and compare it to they Obverse D to see if it is a match I have tried to highlight the difference on the link below and have provided full sized scans of the Obverse A and Obverse B on the second link, but it is a large file so be patient while it opens. Colin Cooke used to point to the last 8 being higher as an indication, which can be seen, but it is again not obvious. 1858 Small Date Comparison 1858 Large and Small Date - Full size scans

James, That coin is the larger date variety (1A) on my site, it is amazing how noticable the difference is when you have the coin in front of you. I can e-mail you full size scans of the small date and large date coins if you want. It will enable you to see the difference.

Teg, Thanks for that, it has certainly given me more to think about, and answered a few questions in my mind, although it has raised a couple more

Looking at your coin I would guess that there has been no re-punching. It is just a die that has become very worn / clogged / filled. This has more effect on some parts of the die than others - and yours shows plenty of weak areas. "I have to admit I find it bizarre that the die has filled to leave a perfect 1, although it is certainly possible" When dies became weak they would re-punch individual letters or numerals. Dies were expensive. There are numerous combinations to explore - at what stage in the process was a particular letter re-cut? When making the original die - or as a repair? " The 1844 N over E half farthing has always baffled me. It is definitely the N that is struck over the E and this raises more questions. If the E was becoming worn, was there an intent to use the N to try and improve the appearance (if this was the reason it was a bizarre choice!!) Was it the fact that the N in REGINA required repunching and the worker stamped the last but 1 letter in REGINA when reversed leading to the mistake. A more likely theory I believe. Or was it just a complete foul up by the worker repunching the wrong letter in the wrong place" Below is another 1840 farthing, apologies for the large size - but you need it to see the detail. Most of this is all but invisible to the naked eye. Obverse legend all letters doubled. Makes me think that it has to be die-doubling. For me by far the most interesting part, W.W. (William Wyon) doubled on truncation. The date, Vic portrait and rev. do not seem doubled - in hand (even if the pics suggest it). "I have to agree it is a superb example, and the WW doubling does also raise questions in my mind. It is stated that when machine doubling occurs, due to the rotation it is more prevelant at the edges of the coin where the rotation is more severe. But in this scenario you would expect the outer areas of the portrait to have the same amount of doubling, which they do not. This then leads you to think that the die was formed in 2 stages, where the portrait was positioned and then the lettering applied separately, but again the fact that the W.W. forms part of the legend I find curious. I would also thought a 2 stage process impractical, in that surely the secong stage would impact upon the detail of the first. The pressure applied to form the incuse lettering on the die would surely distort the already positioned portrait or vice versa" I know I have had a book recommended to me by Denis R. Cooper before about this subject but I have been unable to locate a copy. Information on the die production/repair process is difficult to obtain and I am open to any suggestions of good websites or other resources that may expand my knowledge. Teg

All, I am looking to expand the site back to the next period. There are still many varieties that I have got to add on other dates, but I am interested in starting to collect and collate data on the 1771-1775 series. I am only interested in genuine coins and not the contemporary counterfeits. I know there are several identified varieties, but I am looking to expand this to the next stage. I know there are those who question the reasoning behind identifying varieties in this detail, but what can I say it is something I enjoy doing. If you have any farthings of this period, and are happy to provide images, can you contact me via e-mail. To allow accurate comparison, can you provide images of at least 1200dpi. I am not going to publish any of the images on my site without your prior permission, but will acknowledge your contributions if the images are suitable, and you choose to do so. The same also goes for any farthing varieties that you have for any later dates (excluding 1799-1807 because I have not yet decided how best to deal with the quantities of restrikes etc). There are many varieties that I have, but until I get confirmation from a second or clearer example, I choose not list them. If you could take the time to contribute, it would be appreciated

James, I am always hesitant about the unbarred A varieties. I know there are several that exist, but on many farthings, the horizontal bar is just much fainter than the two slopes of the A. Therefore on coins where I can not see clearly see the original surface of the coin I will not attribute them as unbarred A varieties. It is difficult to be certain on this coin because of the surface dirt which appears to be apparent within the letter A's on Britanniar. You may be able to confirm this with closer inspection. The A also does appear doubled, but unless the doubling stands out to the naked eye, I tend not to class them as a variety, due to the number of coins this is present on.

I must admit if it is a forgery, it is the best one I have seen, escpecially if the weight is also correct. This was just the sort of dilemma, I needed to discover before starting to catalogue items. It may be a case of trying to identify the regal issues, and noting coins such as this as an unconfirmed/possibly regal. I must admit my initial reaction on the images was that it appeared regal, but I can see Rob's perspective also. I have to admit without closer inspection I would not like to commit my opinion (Sitting on the fence with this one!! ) This has also raised another good point in that if people are happy to submit scans, if possible could they also include weights of the coins, if they have the facility available to them. I can appreciate many people may not want to submit this information, and do respect your individual decisions, I can also guarantee that any scans/information you provide will be treated with the strictest confidence. Teg, Would you be willing to submit scans of your coins? Teg, Is there something going on under the first N of Britannia on the second coin you posted to the forum?

Thanks a lot!!! I have been looking everywhere, and the image you have provided does seem to match. This is really appreciated!

All, Does anyone know what plant the cape sparrows are perched on in the design of a South African farthing, I have looked but without success!!

The letters look to me like they have been repunched, it is especially clear as you say below the U and the first two numerals.

James, If you want to email me a pic at 1200dpi, I will be glad to host the picture for you, and will provide a link on the board.

I would welcome opinions on the attached image. It appears that the V in Victoria is actually an inverted A. I have provided an image of the coin and some magnified images. What do you think? I think I would like to see a clearer example to be 100% positive, so check your 1853 farthings!! This is the WWIncuse variety, and also only has a central stop after DEF.

The 1860 Toothed Border 4 Berries, can be found with or without the Broken E. From the coins I have scanned to date it is about a 75/25 split, with the broken E being found more frequently.

From coins I have scanned to date I get the ratio as about 1 in 25 as having the D over D. They are extremely difficult to find in better grades. From Colin Cookes lists there are very few occurrences of them being listed.

Micky, Welcome aboard!!! and welcome to the wonderful world of coin collecting. There is a good identifier on the calm & rough sea varieties of halfpenny on the site linked below 1957 Halfpennies I also believe there are different varieties of the rough/calm sea varieties, but halfpennies are not my area of interest, so I have no doubt someone else can advise. Local coin fairs are a goo d place to look for coins and they tend to have coins of all values, so you get to see a wide range of coins. I am based in the Midlands, but I am sure someone will be able to recommend a few local coin fairs to you. There are also some reputable dealers about, the owner of this site being one!! who sell coins and have a good reputation for accurately grading & identifying coins. My other advice would be to get books based on the area of collecting that interest you. Chris perkins the owner of this site produces a UK price guide/reference book and Spinks is another book which gives general guidance on coin types prices for UK coins. Make sure you read Chris's page on the "new pence" 2 pence, because they are a lot scarcer than many people realise and easily misidentified. 2 pence In typical fashion someone else answered before I finished typing!!

It looks like incuse midrib, so that still does not determine whether it is in fact 1823 or 1825 , but I think I have to agree with Teg it may actually be a faulty die on an 1823, it does look more like a 3, and the date on the 1823 farthings does tend to have that wider spacing before the last digit. Final summary - inconclusive will have to wait until I get one to look at under magnification, and to match the size/shape of the digit

Teg, I think it is right to wait for a clearer version before confirming the variety, and I must agree having looked at the image in the gallery it is not that definitive, maybe the previous image I saw was more convincing, or maybe it is just my memory playing up!!! I thought it was much clearer. One way of confirming it as an 1825 would be if it happened to have the raised ribs on the lowest leaves, which is not present on the 1823, if it is incuse midrib then it could still be either. Lets hope we get to see a full image of OBV and REV, that may help, otherwise we will have to wait until another turns up

Teg, Colin Cooke made reference to the 1825 5 over 3 and I did see an image of one once and it was very clear, I believe it was off set to the left. Colin Cooke said he had only seen 2 of them when he made reference to the variety on one of his earlier lists. The reason I suggest this as some possible variant of this type is that the curved section extends too far to the right for it to be a 5. It is difficult to tell without a full image, but even if you were to add the upright of the 5 it should line up with the curve, which it would not. I agree a full image would be useful.

Coins4U, My 1825 does not have the five like yours. It could yours is from a damaged die, or an might be an error. I have never seen one like yours. Bob C. I have seen about 4 or 5 of these, but have not yet added them to my site, because I am unsure what to describe it as without having a copy at hand to scan and examine. It has few possibilities, which as Bob says could be a missing vertical in the 5, but there is also a 5 over 3 variety, so it may be an offspring of that variety. Coins 4 U, i don't suppose you would be interested in providing me with a 1200 dpi scan of the coin, and as an added bonus I will include your name "images courtesy of coins 4 u" or similar on the page. Drop me an e-mail if you are interested.

Oh no Tom you have done it now We have enough arguments over coins, and discussions on religion can be even worse. But raising the topic of coins and religion in one sentence is a bridge too far!! I think I will sit on the fence and watch the opening shots before wading into this one