1675/3 CRAOLVS halfpenny

[Rob 3,242]

1675/3 CRAOLVS halfpenny, unrecorded in any literature and rare for any date

[Chris Perkins 228]

That's a nice, incredibly obvious error isn't it. Thanks.

[Peter 615]

I didn't notice the Craolvs initially...just blinded by the over date.

[Rob 3,242]

I didn't notice the Craolvs initially...just blinded by the over date.

And there is also a 1675/3 no obverse stops about, similarly unrecorded. Another person on this forum can advise on that if they like as they beat me to it.

[Teg 0]

Hi,

Hmm venturing into an area where I know a lot less than others on this board (1/2ds this time).

< tin hat>

Is this a credible variety?

CRAOLVS exists for 1672 , it's almost incredible that the die lasted into 1673 - but obviously true. To be still going strong to mate with a 1675 seems a step too far!

How does this relate to the 1673 version -Dr Nicholson 14

the dates look similar to me.

On a wider note:-

Dr Nicholson / Colin list five different 1675 /3.

Hard to believe that Peck and Bramah did not see any (but then they did miss a lot!)

Peck states that there were four farthing presses and one halfpenny press. This gives you four different 1/4d dies to start with - but only one 1/2d.

It's hard for me to imagine a mechanism where the mint ended up with 5 "spare" 1673 rev dies - all of which they altered to 1675 in a clumsy way. None of the Nicholson pieces seem to come from very old / flawed dies, are any any of these known from 1673?

One other possibility is that in 1673 they had an odd 3 punch - even normal 3s looked odd then, I say all this without having examined the coins (other than photos).

On balance if Colin thought they were 1675/3 they probably are. I would like to hear peoples thoughts on how they occurred though.

I am interested in all this because Colin said that 1675/3 also occurs for the farthing. Again claiming a definite specimen in GVF - so almost certainly true. Peter Lawrence had two in his collection - neither was convincing. The obverses looked more like 1673 to me (and because 1674 farthings were minted, there is less chance that any would last until 1675). I have seen a lot of 1675/3 for sale (even bought one) - none of which convince me. A much rarer coin than it seems.

</tin hat>

Very neat error by the way!

Teg

[Rob 3,242]

The question of altered characters always seems to invoke a lot of debate.

The common thread running through all of the 5/3s is the 3 dimensional aspect of the character. The only unambiguous 3s I have seen are the thin line ones. These have rounded backs to the two loops but the angle of the left hand points of the 3 vary from punch to punch. Sometimes the top and middle points are raised, sometimes the middle and bottom points droop. The 3 dimensional relief of the digit is consistent. All of what I would consider to be 5/3 have the underlying thin 3 in its various forms, but there is always the vertical stroke to the 5 and top bar with approximately twice the relief height of the underlying 3 components. The bottom loop of the 5 invariably follows the bottom loop of the 3, sometimes with slight displacement and with a degree of bulging resulting from this.

It seems unlikely to me that the top bar of the 3 would vary in relief consistently at the point where the left hand side of the vertical joins it. It also coincides with a change in direction of the top line of the top bar of the 3 - always in the pieces I have seen. If the 3 was punched in with a numeral punch I find it hard to believe that no punches had a straight top. To my mind the 3 would be curved or straight but not consistently bent. If the 3 was made up from individual cuts using straight and curved punches as opposed to a digit punch I would expect to see a straight top and not one composed of 2 separate and significantly different depth strikes. What is clear is that the vertical and right hand side of the digit is at the same relief height and given the consistency of relief, part of the same punch action. The 3 points on the left are always lower relief.

I have previously listed this on eBaywhere you can see what I mean. The coin is not badly worn and the difference in relief of the overstrike clear.

I also have the attached picture which is from a virtually mint state 1675/3 and the best Charles II halfpenny I have ever seen with a hint of cabinet friction only to a couple points of both sides and good lustre. Clearly different dies and which incidentally was also slabbed as a 1673.

[Rob 3,242]

CRAOLVS exists for 1672 , it's almost incredible that the die lasted into 1673 - but obviously true.

The note on page 105 in Peck states that 1/2ds were only available from Christmas 1672, giving only 3 months output for this date. Consequently it is not very surprising that the die survived into 1673. If the die was identified as faulty legend it is possible that it could have survived for much longer as it would not have been used except in error and not necessarily thrown away because faulty dies were altered during this period - witness the vast number of William III varieties. What is not known is the number of Charles II halfpennies coined (see Peck p.106), so given the increase in the cost of Swedish copper and their reluctance to mint coins at a net cost to themselves it is likely that the numbers minted were not excessive and potentially not struck as a continuous production. The insistence of making a profit also would encourage the retention and reworking of dies.

If, as according to Craig p.174, the operation of coining copper was excluded from the annual accounts of the mint; then copper coin output must have been restricted to a value which was relatively insignificant or else somebody would have had to account for it officially. In this subdued manufacturing environment the possibilty therefore exists that dies would last longer than you may at first think. Don't forget that altered dates regularly exist for the next 90-100 years and very occasionally in the following hundred years or so.

[Teg 0]

Rob,

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed replies - I really appreciate it.

Very briefly,

I understand the 3D argument for these possible overstrikes - the farthings are the same. I will go into more detail in my next post.

There is information on the mintage of Charles II coppers, despite what Craig said.

In all some 10,000,00 1d equivalents (split between 1/4 and 1/2d), which is a substantial amount. Again I will supply details in my next post, and try and give an estimate between the 1/2s and 1/4s.

Sorry this is so slapdash compared to your answers - I am a Welsh rugby fan, and kick-off against Italy approaches.

More tomorrow.

Teg

[Rob 3,242]

Thanks Teg. I may not be around to reply immediately to your response but will add the following to reinforce what has so far been written.

There appears to be at least 4 distinctive styles of 3 (and may be more) which are obviously single punches and these are shown on the scruffy drawing which I append below and apologise for forthwith. There seems to be three types of 3 with a round back to the top section together with at least one type of flat top 3 as used on the 1673 proof Nicholson 017 and others. All of the 5/3 or blundered 3's depending on one's opinion appear to be derived from these 3 types of round back threes shown in drawing 1 below.

Type 2 is as shown in the image previously posted and incidentally the least varied in 3D variation although the second clearest 5/3 type with a deep V on the top bar with the divergence taking place just above the mid point.

Type 3 is the most obvious overstrike where the horizontal bar of the 5 comes out at the mid point and just above and is flat. This is as Nicholson 021. I have a much clearer image of this variety but won't post it to avoid filling the forum with pictures as you can only add 1 picture per post. Is it possible that this, or any other could be farthing 5 punches? You may be able to shed light on this.

Type 4 is the one shown in my previous post which I listed on eBay and appears to be the most common.

Type 5 is as the CRAOLVS at the start of this thread where the right hand section of the top bar starts to drop and forms a small V at the mid point.

Type 6 is taken from the 1673 halfpenny in next week's DNW auction lot 1436 and is the same coin as listed on Colin Cooke's site which I sold him previously having upgraded to my existing piece. This has a poorly struck final digit with much of the bottom loop weak, but the top bar is very clear and the top curved section of the 3 can be seen descending into what can only be decribed as a T-bar in shape with the vertical part of the 5 in the middle and completely upright. Unfortunately, I have inadvertently deleted this image from my computer so can't show a better picture.

Given the number of readily identifiable unambiguous 3 punch varieties, it seems strange to me that so many would need to be overstruck with punches of a different shape. The occasional messy 3 would be OK, but why so many? For your info, all of the above information has been taken from coins in VF or better with the exception of the CRAOLVS and one type 4.

The other question in my mind is the length of time that copper was struck (1672-9). Given that only 1672,3 and 5 are known, I presume that other years were struck but bearing one of the 3 dates known. I also would not be surprised to hear of a 1673/2 as the 1672 dies can't all have been worn out.

Rob.

[Teg 0]

TWO hours crafting a reply

and the f********g computer crashes.

Very f*l*ip*in*g annoyed,

Will start again tomorrow!

Arse.

Teg

[Teg 0]

Hi,

There must be an easy way for me to post a formated table here, but I can't get it to work.

Getting late - and I promised some info, so please see the link below.

Thanks

Teg

Charles II

[Rob 3,242]

Thanks Teg.

There are some glaring inconsistencies comparing the value of copper coined with observed date distribution so I will have to count up the number of different dates and their incidence that I can find in catalogues and on lists. In the words of Captain Oates, "I may be a while".

However, the immediate reaction is that 1675 is a much rarer date for pieces that have an unambiguous 5 than the value of copper would suggest, even if your assumptions are wildly inaccurate. Although not backed up by any statistics (a situation I am now going to rectify), I would say that 1675 pieces where the 5 is indisputable are found in an approximate ratio of 2:1ish, maybe slightly more, compared to 1672 which is accepted as rare due to the limited production period. Against this it has to be considered that 1672 pieces are always touted as rare and this may result in more people trying to cash in based on that knowledge. I would say that 1673 is the given date in fully 80% of Charles II halfpennies sold and possibly more, which sits rather uncomfortably with the figures given by Challis. Again I will attempt to produce a more accurate figure rather than rely on guesswork. Whilst doing this, I will also note the number of farthings for each year from the same sources. This hopefully will generate some meaningful ratio for the two denominations.

I don't have any idea for the numbers of readily identifiable dies for each year. The problem is one of quality and finance. Halfpennies are so much rarer than farthings and anything in reasonable grade costs a three figure sum, so I don't tend to buy them as I would the weekly shopping.

Whilst this sheds no light on whether the CRAOLVS die survived until 1675, your postulated figures suggest to me that there are a good number of 1675/3 dies.

[Guest Guest]

Rob,

certainly agree we are at the beginning with all of this.

Bramah's rarity figures for 1/2d are

1672 25%,

1673 55%,

1675 20%

I am still working on various elements of Challis's figures.

Farthings may be cheaper than halfpence but I still rely heavily on good quality photographs.

It's only in the last few years that 'photograph collecting' has become feasible.

You make a good point when you say readily identifiable dies. Some coins look identical until you superimpose one image on another - and find say that the last A of BRITANNIA is slightly lower on one coin.

Teg

[krasnaya_vityaz 0]

From the title of the thread I thought we had a bad speller, but apparently we do, from 1673! That coin is really very fascinating, such pieces truly amaze.

[Rob 3,242]

From the title of the thread I thought we had a bad speller, but apparently we do, from 1673! That coin is really very fascinating, such pieces truly amaze.

Ah, but I think it's from 1675. I just have to convince people. And it will be done.

[Rob 3,242]

Has anyone out there got a Charles 2nd halfpenny that they can match to this reverse die? If so, please post it on this thread. Thanks.

[Michael-Roo 783]

On 11 March 2006 at 0:43 PM, Rob said:

Thanks Teg. I may not be around to reply immediately to your response but will add the following to reinforce what has so far been written.

There appears to be at least 4 distinctive styles of 3 (and may be more) which are obviously single punches and these are shown on the scruffy drawing which I append below and apologise for forthwith. There seems to be three types of 3 with a round back to the top section together with at least one type of flat top 3 as used on the 1673 proof Nicholson 017 and others. All of the 5/3 or blundered 3's depending on one's opinion appear to be derived from these 3 types of round back threes shown in drawing 1 below.

Type 2 is as shown in the image previously posted and incidentally the least varied in 3D variation although the second clearest 5/3 type with a deep V on the top bar with the divergence taking place just above the mid point.

Type 3 is the most obvious overstrike where the horizontal bar of the 5 comes out at the mid point and just above and is flat. This is as Nicholson 021. I have a much clearer image of this variety but won't post it to avoid filling the forum with pictures as you can only add 1 picture per post. Is it possible that this, or any other could be farthing 5 punches? You may be able to shed light on this.

Type 4 is the one shown in my previous post which I listed on eBay and appears to be the most common.

Type 5 is as the CRAOLVS at the start of this thread where the right hand section of the top bar starts to drop and forms a small V at the mid point.

Type 6 is taken from the 1673 halfpenny in next week's DNW auction lot 1436 and is the same coin as listed on Colin Cooke's site which I sold him previously having upgraded to my existing piece. This has a poorly struck final digit with much of the bottom loop weak, but the top bar is very clear and the top curved section of the 3 can be seen descending into what can only be decribed as a T-bar in shape with the vertical part of the 5 in the middle and completely upright. Unfortunately, I have inadvertently deleted this image from my computer so can't show a better picture.

Given the number of readily identifiable unambiguous 3 punch varieties, it seems strange to me that so many would need to be overstruck with punches of a different shape. The occasional messy 3 would be OK, but why so many? For your info, all of the above information has been taken from coins in VF or better with the exception of the CRAOLVS and one type 4.

The other question in my mind is the length of time that copper was struck (1672-9). Given that only 1672,3 and 5 are known, I presume that other years were struck but bearing one of the 3 dates known. I also would not be surprised to hear of a 1673/2 as the 1672 dies can't all have been worn out.

Rob.

Forgive me for resurrecting an ancient post but, Rob, could you id which 5/3 this is please? many thanks.

 

[Michael-Roo 783]

A lighter image of same...

 

[Rob 3,242]

I'd go for the last one with the top bar of the 5 lower than the top bar of the 3

[Michael-Roo 783]

 

That looks right to me too. many thanks.

Its a 5 over 3 / normal obverse.

[Michael-Roo 783]

Another I have (though a lower grade than the first coin). Type 4 in your illustration of seen varieties?

Edited November 6, 2016 by Michael-Roo
minor

[Rob 3,242]

Go with that

 

[Michael-Roo 783]

 

Thank you