1865 Farthing 5 over ?

[RLC35 288]

I have an 1865 Farthing that I am not sure what variety it is. I have attached a full size pic at 10x for you all to take a look at, and see if you can identify what it is. I have a 1865, 5 over 3, but it does not look like this one. I will add some additional pic's, but I will have to add them in subsequent posts, due to size.

Bob C.

I have an 1865 Farthing that I am not sure what variety it is. I have attached a full size pic at 10x for you all to take a look at, and see if you can identify what it is. I have a 1865, 5 over 3, but it does not look like this one. I will add some additional pic's, but I will have to add them in subsequent posts, due to size.

Bob C.

Here is a 60x pic of the 5 in the date. It almost looks like an 8.

Bob C.

I have an 1865 Farthing that I am not sure what variety it is. I have attached a full size pic at 10x for you all to take a look at, and see if you can identify what it is. I have a 1865, 5 over 3, but it does not look like this one. I will add some additional pic's, but I will have to add them in subsequent posts, due to size.

Bob C.

I have an 1865 Farthing that I am not sure what variety it is. I have attached a full size pic at 10x for you all to take a look at, and see if you can identify what it is. I have a 1865, 5 over 3, but it does not look like this one. I will add some additional pic's, but I will have to add them in subsequent posts, due to size.

Bob C.

Here is a 60x pic of the 5 in the date. It almost looks like an 8.

Bob C.

Here is the top of the 5 at 200x.

Bob C.

Here is the bottom of the 5, at 200x. Has anyone seen one like this before? Please advise.

Thanks,

Bob C.

I have an 1865 Farthing that I am not sure what variety it is. I have attached a full size pic at 10x for you all to take a look at, and see if you can identify what it is. I have a 1865, 5 over 3, but it does not look like this one. I will add some additional pic's, but I will have to add them in subsequent posts, due to size.

Bob C.

I have an 1865 Farthing that I am not sure what variety it is. I have attached a full size pic at 10x for you all to take a look at, and see if you can identify what it is. I have a 1865, 5 over 3, but it does not look like this one. I will add some additional pic's, but I will have to add them in subsequent posts, due to size.

Bob C.

Here is a 60x pic of the 5 in the date. It almost looks like an 8.

Bob C.

I don't think I got the 3rd pic loaded. Here it is...I think! <ggg>.

I have an 1865 Farthing that I am not sure what variety it is. I have attached a full size pic at 10x for you all to take a look at, and see if you can identify what it is. I have a 1865, 5 over 3, but it does not look like this one. I will add some additional pic's, but I will have to add them in subsequent posts, due to size.

Bob C.

I have an 1865 Farthing that I am not sure what variety it is. I have attached a full size pic at 10x for you all to take a look at, and see if you can identify what it is. I have a 1865, 5 over 3, but it does not look like this one. I will add some additional pic's, but I will have to add them in subsequent posts, due to size.

Bob C.

Here is a 60x pic of the 5 in the date. It almost looks like an 8.

Bob C.

Here is the top of the 5 at 200x.

Bob C.

Here is the bottom of the 5, at 200x. Has anyone seen one like this before? Please advise.

Thanks,

Bob C.

[Teg 0]

Hi,

In short 1865 / 2.

Colin G. has some examples on his excellent website (aboutfarthings.co.uk).

Peck and Freeman both acknowledge 1865 /2, but not 1865 /3 - perhaps Colin could

make that more clear on his site. Colin Cooke also did not believe that 1865 / 3 exists.

Why so many over-dates in the bronze series from this period? Gouby covers this in his

book / pamphlet "The British Bronze Coinage 1860-1869"

The Royal Mint from 1860 - 1863 contracted out a large amount of production of the bronze

coinage to James Watt & Co, and Ralph Heaton.

All 1862 farthings were struck by James Watt, all 1863 farthings were struck by the Royal Mint.

At this time the Royal Mint continued to use their dies until they broke. (A debatable statement

perhaps). Watt returned all the dies they had been using to the Mint - many with

plenty of life left in them. These were over-cut - and in this case used in 1865. Hence 1865 /2

is what you would expect from that logic.

Back to your coin, and others similar. Parts of the 2 can be seen - the base and the top right.

That does not explain the curious spur in the 5. However I have seen that spur on 1865 with no

other over-date. My best guess is that the spur is a flaw - possibly on the 5 punch, and is not

connected to the over-date.

I know that Colin Cooke has examined this exact type on a BU coin - and does not think it a 3.

Yes I must get a life.

TEG

[RLC35 288]

TEG,

Thanks for the information. I think you are correct, since you can also see a little of the 2 below the 5 at the bottom. Thanks for the information. I appreciate it.

Bob C.

[Colin G. 147]

Hi,

In short 1865 / 2.

Colin G. has some examples on his excellent website (aboutfarthings.co.uk).

Peck and Freeman both acknowledge 1865 /2, but not 1865 /3 - perhaps Colin could

make that more clear on his site. Colin Cooke also did not believe that 1865 / 3 exists.

Why so many over-dates in the bronze series from this period? Gouby covers this in his

book / pamphlet "The British Bronze Coinage 1860-1869"

The Royal Mint from 1860 - 1863 contracted out a large amount of production of the bronze

coinage to James Watt & Co, and Ralph Heaton.

All 1862 farthings were struck by James Watt, all 1863 farthings were struck by the Royal Mint.

At this time the Royal Mint continued to use their dies until they broke. (A debatable statement

perhaps). Watt returned all the dies they had been using to the Mint - many with

plenty of life left in them. These were over-cut - and in this case used in 1865. Hence 1865 /2

is what you would expect from that logic.

Back to your coin, and others similar. Parts of the 2 can be seen - the base and the top right.

That does not explain the curious spur in the 5. However I have seen that spur on 1865 with no

other over-date. My best guess is that the spur is a flaw - possibly on the 5 punch, and is not

connected to the over-date.

I know that Colin Cooke has examined this exact type on a BU coin - and does not think it a 3.

Yes I must get a life.

TEG

As TEG says it is the 5 over 2 of which there are a few versions, in my opinion they are mispriced in coin books and are commoner than many people believe, although they are difficult to obtain in higher grades.

I have to also say that my opinion is similar to Tegs in that it is a flaw on the 5 punch, because it does appear on coins with or without the overdate and also where different date spacings occur. Which implies it is not a die flaw, if it is a 5 over a 3 they produced the same effect on different dies by accurately positioning the 5 over the 3 in the same position every time.

Is there a possibility that the punch was originally a 3 that was altered, I have to honestly say I do not know enough about the repunching process to know. The line appears too accurate to be just a flaw in my opinion, but I may stand to be corrected.

I have left the varieties on the site at present because they do appear as differences that are clearly apparent to the eye, but I am hoping in time, I can obtain some clearer examples, although it may be a case of we will never know for certain.

[RLC35 288]

Colin, THanks a second time today for your help. I appeciate your point of view.

Regards,

Bob C.