1771-1775 Farthings

[Colin G. 147]

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

[Teg 0]

Hi,

The variety of 1771 - 1775 that I find most interesting is:-

Bramah 1774 9a "R - Two additional leaves have been introduced into the spray,one on each side; that on the left side rests on the fingers and has no stalk, that on the right side has a stalk which touches the thumb."

Britannia looks to be holding a branch from an apple - rather than olive tree.

Colin Cooke had not seen one, when he did he thought it had to be a contemporary counterfeit. His reasoning was that the design was too crude for a Mint issue. The weight is fine and as far as either of us could tell the rest of the coin is identical to Mint issues.

"I am only interested in genuine coins and not the contemporary counterfeits."

I think for this series you have to take some interest in ctfts, I have seen one slabbed by a major grading company - and it was said at the time that even Mint employees could not be sure if some coins were genuine or not. It is a bit of a myth that all ctfts were produced worn and underweight, many were some were not.

So Bramah thought Regal, Peck did not include it. Colin thought counterfeit. I thought Regal.

What do you think?

PS a Regal to follow shortly.

Teg

A Regal (I assume!) for comparison.

Teg

[Rob 3,152]

I'm inclined to lean towards a very good forgery. All of the detail appears to be slightly thicker in appearance, including that which isn't at the high points which is what you would get from a casting. i.e. the original design at just about the same size as the genuine thing, but tooling in the detail to give a sharply defined design would increase the thickness of most lines. The Britannia punch with the blobs for leaves would almost certainly not be blobs on the original punch. The ties are slightly thicker on the suspect one as are the lines in the hair, even allowing for wear.

[Colin G. 147]

I'm inclined to lean towards a very good forgery. All of the detail appears to be slightly thicker in appearance, including that which isn't at the high points which is what you would get from a casting. i.e. the original design at just about the same size as the genuine thing, but tooling in the detail to give a sharply defined design would increase the thickness of most lines. The Britannia punch with the blobs for leaves would almost certainly not be blobs on the original punch. The ties are slightly thicker on the suspect one as are the lines in the hair, even allowing for wear.

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?

[Teg 0]

Hi,

scans sent.

I don't think much is happening under the N of BRITANNIA.

Rob, thanks for the thoughts.

BTW

The 'regal' one is 4.28 grams, and the disputed one is 4.86 grams.

Pecks lower limit is 4.33, average 4.93.

It would certainly be the best quality counterfeit farthing I have seen.

On the other hand as any better would be classified as regal perhaps that means little.

The better quality ctfts tend to be 1/2ds, and underweight.

Perhaps they are both ctft! For people who don't know, the ctfts are worth as much - if

not more than the regals.

I wonder if we will ever know.

Teg