1840 (1810) Farthing

[Colin G. 147]

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?

[Teg 0]

Hi again Colin G.

Quite right - not enough farthing posts on here recently.

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.

In general, pre 1800s (for farthings) the Mint had the kings head, and Britannia on separate punches. The letters and date were then added for each working die.

Subsequently the lettering (and perhaps the first 2 numerals of the date) were combined with the portrait before producing the working dies. The last date numerals were then added.

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?

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).

Perhaps interesting to note that many Vic Cu farthings used the 'worn' obverse from the sovereign. There were no 1840 sovereigns - so perhaps standards were allowed to slip.

Teg

[Peter 615]

I notice the 3rd prong on the trident is well worn....on the way to becoming the elusive 2 prong 1840.

I love the WW doubling.

IMO as good a variety as some already accepted ones.

Peter

[Colin G. 147]

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

[Teg 0]

" 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"

Have a look at this from SPINK, Numismatic Circular Oct 1971.

Fairly comprehensive!

Teg

[Colin G. 147]

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

[Jamesred 1]

Im gonna stick my bit in here as well.

Looking at the large Pics above and in particular the A in Gratia.

Have a look at the sliced pic of the obverse.

(This I can see to the naked eye). It looks like an A over A, i dont have any other doubling on the coin.

Now the Reverse. I have a few points on this. Firstly the prongs are certainly wearing down here but the top is in the opposite direction as the one in the photo

The colon after has a colon (:') it is more visible to the naked eye than on the pic

The colon after DEF is smaller than all my other ones.

What do you all think?