1860 Obverse 6 Half Penny

[Bronze & Copper Collector 417]

I believe I might have found a lower grade, yet identifiable Obverse 6, Reverse B Half Penny......

Freeman does not list an Obverse 6 for 1860, although Iain Dracott does mention a specimen (listed as Unique)....

I have attached images for your perusal......

Obviously still not as good as direct examination, yet I believe it is clear enough......

[Rob 3,238]

I believe I might have found a lower grade, yet identifiable Obverse 6, Reverse B Half Penny......

Freeman does not list an Obverse 6 for 1860, although Iain Dracott does mention a specimen (listed as Unique)....

I have attached images for your perusal......

Obviously still not as good as direct examination, yet I believe it is clear enough......

Possible, although the only clear incuse lines are on the bottom 4th. The flaw in the forehead also raises questions as this is obv. 5. Do you have a well struck mint state obv.6 to compare with? I only have an EF and on that piece, although it fits obv. 6 in all other respects there is no sign of incuse lines for the leaf vein at all on the upper leaf of the 4th group. There is however a trace of raised leaf vein - sort of obv.5 3/4 if you see what I mean. There is only a trace of wear to the highest points and none on that leaf, so rubbing isn't the problem.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 417]

I believe I might have found a lower grade, yet identifiable Obverse 6, Reverse B Half Penny......

Freeman does not list an Obverse 6 for 1860, although Iain Dracott does mention a specimen (listed as Unique)....

I have attached images for your perusal......

Obviously still not as good as direct examination, yet I believe it is clear enough......

Possible, although the only clear incuse lines are on the bottom 4th. The flaw in the forehead also raises questions as this is obv. 5. Do you have a well struck mint state obv.6 to compare with? I only have an EF and on that piece, although it fits obv. 6 in all other respects there is no sign of incuse lines for the leaf vein at all on the upper leaf of the 4th group. There is however a trace of raised leaf vein - sort of obv.5 3/4 if you see what I mean. There is only a trace of wear to the highest points and none on that leaf, so rubbing isn't the problem.

True enough, but I am reasonably sure that this is NOT an Obverse 5 because it does not have the scalloped top middle leaf that EVERY Obverse 5 (flawed or not- I have seen examples of both) that I have seen exhibits, and that I have NEVER seen on any obverse other than an Obverse 5..... (see scan)...

Unless of course, this is some interim Obverse 6 variant, that eventually became the obverse 6 in 1861.... I don't have the obverse 6 coin mentioned in Iain Dracotts article for comparison..... It's possible that it is some sort of hybrid obverse spanning the 2 years (1860-1861)

I would certainly suspect that this coin is closer to the Obverse 6 than to any other obverse, so given the information available, and the condition of the coin, I think that I would have to classify it as an Obverse 6 (maybe with an asterisk denoting it as a possible minor variant or precurser to the accepted obverse 6)

And again, photographs can not substitute for direct examination....

[Rob 3,238]

I believe I might have found a lower grade, yet identifiable Obverse 6, Reverse B Half Penny......

Freeman does not list an Obverse 6 for 1860, although Iain Dracott does mention a specimen (listed as Unique)....

I have attached images for your perusal......

Obviously still not as good as direct examination, yet I believe it is clear enough......

Possible, although the only clear incuse lines are on the bottom 4th. The flaw in the forehead also raises questions as this is obv. 5. Do you have a well struck mint state obv.6 to compare with? I only have an EF and on that piece, although it fits obv. 6 in all other respects there is no sign of incuse lines for the leaf vein at all on the upper leaf of the 4th group. There is however a trace of raised leaf vein - sort of obv.5 3/4 if you see what I mean. There is only a trace of wear to the highest points and none on that leaf, so rubbing isn't the problem.

True enough, but I am reasonably sure that this is NOT an Obverse 5 because it does not have the scalloped top middle leaf that EVERY Obverse 5 (flawed or not- I have seen examples of both) that I have seen exhibits, and that I have NEVER seen on any obverse other than an Obverse 5..... (see scan)...

Unless of course, this is some interim Obverse 6 variant, that eventually became the obverse 6 in 1861.... I don't have the obverse 6 coin mentioned in Iain Dracotts article for comparison..... It's possible that it is some sort of hybrid obverse spanning the 2 years (1860-1861)

I would certainly suspect that this coin is closer to the Obverse 6 than to any other obverse, so given the information available, and the condition of the coin, I think that I would have to classify it as an Obverse 6 (maybe with an asterisk denoting it as a possible minor variant or precurser to the accepted obverse 6)

And again, photographs can not substitute for direct examination....

I'll go with that.

[Gary 7]

I tend to agree with you, this is Obv 6.

The apparent flaw to the forehead which indicates Obv 5 is in my opinion due to damage sustained during circulation. Of the 3 Halfpennies of mine with Obv 5, two have the flaw lower down on the forehead, half way between the hairline and the top of the eye and one does not have the flaw. However all three have the scalloped top middle leaf as "Bronze & Copper Collector" mentioned.

The incuse leaf veins in the fourth group, to the right and left of the main one seem to be quite clear. The raised leaf veins show up on a scan much thinner as it is only a single line.

I had always wondered why Freeman listed Obv 7 before Obv 6!

I shall now be on the look out.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 417]

I have seen and/or owned a few (2 or 3) examples of Obverse 5 WITHOUT the flaw.... ALL were 1860 however......

Freeman even mentions that MOST obverse 5's exhibit this flaw.... (most NOT all)

Possibly the flaw developed early in 1860 and carried on into 1861???? a weak premise that an unflawed obverse 5 from 1861 would easily disprove.....

Edited July 10, 2006 by Bronze & Copper Collector