Droz 1788 Pattern Halfpennies

[Guest Rob]

Could as many people as possible (if any) give me info on the die axis/metal combination of late Soho 1788 pattern halfpennies type DH11 ie. BMC962-968. Peck is useless on this. Thanks.

[Rob 3,185]

  Rob said:

Could as many people as possible (if any) give me info on the die axis/metal combination of late Soho 1788 pattern halfpennies type DH11 ie. BMC962-968. Peck is useless on this. Thanks.

Let's try this one again. There must be someone out there who collects these things. All I want to know is which variety has which die axis as some are upright and some inverted. Also, some show design weakness which could be a later striking as this weakness coincides with a change in die axis (upright).

[Peter 615]

There are about 20 pages on George 111 Droz Fecit patterns in Montague's Copper coins of England (I've got the 1893 version)

It is tough reading but a lot of information is there.

I thought about scanning the pages for you but it would cause damage to the book so I'm not risking it.

I bought the book to enhance my Peck and this is one area where it appears it does.

I have just found in Seabys 1949 edition of Copper coins and tokens of the British Isles pattern Droz 1/2d's

K532 to K569 (47 types) although some Pingo and Hancock aswell.

[Rob 3,185]

Does it say anything about the die axis? P964 (silver plate) and P965 (gilt) in the BM come from the Banks bequest in 1818 which puts them firmly in Soho. P966 (Brown Gilt) was acquired in 1870 from Freudenthal which overlaps Taylor who started restrikes in about 1862 but as with the previous 2 has an inverted die axis. All of the bronzed pieces (6 or 7) - P967 and the solitary copper - P968 I have seen have been en medaille. Significantly, the BM did not acquire its pieces until 1926 in the Weightman bequest. I have practically as struck examples of a 965 and 968 which show considerable differences thus eliminating wear as a contributory factor, die axis aside. The globe and drapery have considerable loss of detail on the copper piece with only the top right portion showing the same good detail as on the earlier pieces. The remaining rust spots and striations in this area and elsewhere confirm it is the same pair of dies. The tip of the paddle in the exergue touches the line on the early pieces, but on the copper has a clear gap with weakness where the design has been filled in or more likely polished away. I have not yet found an as struck example of a bronzed piece to compare. Given Taylor's desire of producing "varieties" by various concoctions, it would be easiest to invert the die axis before modifying the dies. The edge reading is of good quality for both pieces.

Therefore, is there any mention of a bronzed or copper piece with an inverted die axis or a silver plated or gilt version en medaille? My gut feeling is that the bonzed and copper must be either very late Soho or Taylor restrikes despite Peck's assertion that Taylor was not succesful with the RENDER etc collar. The lettering is not perfectly parallel to the edges either, although no letters are defective.

[Peter 615]

Hi Rob

This is obviously a specialist subject for you but alas I have very little interest in proofs or patterns.

Montagu references were used in Seaby's 1949 guide which appears attempted to rationlize Montequ's work.

Montequ has a distinct style of writing where he refers pieces being in Mr W Brice or Mr Caldecott's Cabinet etc.

It is more like an essay than a definitve list.

I'm sure for someone like you who has studied this series the required information jumps out....but I feel I'm just going around in circles.

Sorry I cannot be of further help.

I would be willing to trade the book for an Anne 1/4d (I know patterns... ) or a 1717 1/4d (either reverse)

[Rob 3,185]

  Peter said:

I would be willing to trade the book for an Anne 1/4d (I know patterns... ) or a 1717 1/4d (either reverse)

Sorry, I've only got 2 George 1st farthings. A mistrike and an R/sideways R.

[Peter 615]

Rob

If you can't get a view of the books you are welcome to loan mine.

They may or may not be of use.

I'm trying to piece together information on 13 C French hammered and know how frustrating it can get...you really are on your own.

[Rob 3,185]

  Peter said:

I would be willing to trade the book for an Anne 1/4d (I know patterns... ) or a 1717 1/4d (either reverse)

London Coins 27th November, lots 923 and 924. Both available to buy if you want them badly enough.

[Peter 615]

Thanks for the "Heads up"

Part of the joy of collecting is the hunt.

[Rob 3,185]

Let's try this one again.

Has anyone out there got a DH11 pattern halfpenny in whatever metal where they can clearly identify the features noted.

Above are various parts of from left to right a P964 (silver plated), P966 (brown gilt), P967 (bronzed) and P968 (copper). All have the RENDER TO CESAR edge

Peck mentions on p.251 that Bousfield believed there were early and late strikings of the DH11 pattern but didn't explain how to identify them. Peck said he couldn't find any variation in over 70 examples. My statistically insignificant sample of 4 pieces shows up a few differences and I would appreciate if anyone else could input corroborative or contradictory evidence.

The most obvious differences are the N, B and 8 on the silver plated which is double but not fully recut. Similarly the quatrefoil after the date. The notch between the two loops of the B is a different shape on the first compared to the others. The rust spots on the drapery are also less obvious on this piece putting it chronologically first. The next two are clearly later as the above features are now fully cut with a pointed end to the N although there are no significant legend differences other than these. The copper is interesting because it is clearly later than any of the other three which would indicate a third strike. The drapery on Britannia's stomach is now heavily pitted suggesting further rusting and the globe has some flat areas indicative of polishing. There is a significant amount of die fill on the tip of the paddle which is not seen on the others. It also has a series of almost concentric RAISED lines running around the legend which therefore must have been on the die at the time of production. The picture is complicated a bit by the fact that some, but not all of the rev. legend only appears to be quadruply cut, yet Britannia shows no sign of this. I can't explain this. Parts of the reverse legend are consistent with multiple strikes, yet the date at the end of the legend shows no sign of this at all. It is possible the die started to break up on the surface as no Taylor restrikes in an unpolished state are known. It is also likely that the copper piece is one of the last examples produced from the die before polishing.

There are no obvious differences on any of the four obverses.

If anyone can help it would be appreciated. Also useful would be if anyone has an example of the Taylor restrikes R1 (P978) and R4 (983) to check and see if the raised lines as found on my copper example are seen passing over the top of the reverse letters as in the picture. The lines in the field are likely to have been completely obliterated because this reverse was heavily polished by Taylor to the extent that parts of the spear shaft and upper thigh were removed. This was probably to remove the defects described.

Thank you.

Picture of the copper reverse showing the position of the concentric lines which make almost complete circles.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Rob