1821 Trial Farthing

[Colin G. 147]

Not really a collector of proofs, trials, patterns etc. but I spotted this one on Ebay because it stood out like a sore thumb!!

It Appears to be a Peck 1418 the main change being the legend where the DEF: is much closer to FID: than the currency version, Britannia is also a bit smaller, with the gap between the helmet and border teeth being greater.

I have only ever seen three of these, one was as you would expect a trial piece to be in UNC condition, but the other two looked like they had been heavily circulated. Is it normal for trial pieces to make it into circulation, or is it possible that the trial die was utilised for currency issues?

Excuse the image quality they are scanned images, I have not yet got the camera on this one!!

[Rob 3,152]

Not really a collector of proofs, trials, patterns etc. but I spotted this one on Ebay because it stood out like a sore thumb!!

It Appears to be a Peck 1418 the main change being the legend where the DEF: is much closer to FID: than the currency version, Britannia is also a bit smaller, with the gap between the helmet and border teeth being greater.

I have only ever seen three of these, one was as you would expect a trial piece to be in UNC condition, but the other two looked like they had been heavily circulated. Is it normal for trial pieces to make it into circulation, or is it possible that the trial die was utilised for currency issues?

Nice one. Is it possible to eliminate a forgery? i.e. is there anything to positively link the punches used to known mint output? The fact that you have seen 3 should tell you if they are all from the same die pair. Even if the reverse die is always the same, more than one obverse die used would be highly supportive of an official issue that somehow got used for currency. Forgeries tend to use the same pairs of dies, and if non-standard as in the reverse would be even more likely to be paired with a distinctive obverse die. If the obverse die can be found used elsewhere, this would also help.

[Colin G. 147]

Not really a collector of proofs, trials, patterns etc. but I spotted this one on Ebay because it stood out like a sore thumb!!

It Appears to be a Peck 1418 the main change being the legend where the DEF: is much closer to FID: than the currency version, Britannia is also a bit smaller, with the gap between the helmet and border teeth being greater.

I have only ever seen three of these, one was as you would expect a trial piece to be in UNC condition, but the other two looked like they had been heavily circulated. Is it normal for trial pieces to make it into circulation, or is it possible that the trial die was utilised for currency issues?

Nice one. Is it possible to eliminate a forgery? i.e. is there anything to positively link the punches used to known mint output? The fact that you have seen 3 should tell you if they are all from the same die pair. Even if the reverse die is always the same, more than one obverse die used would be highly supportive of an official issue that somehow got used for currency. Forgeries tend to use the same pairs of dies, and if non-standard as in the reverse would be even more likely to be paired with a distinctive obverse die. If the obverse die can be found used elsewhere, this would also help.

This is the third I have seen, the last one I saw was also on ebay about 4 years ago but I found it after bidding had finished The other one I saw on a coin website in the USA at £350, I tried to purchase it, but it had already been sold. Stupidly I never kept images of the others, so I am somewhat in the dark and can not find reference to any others at the moment.

Weight is spot on and at the top of the range at 4.8g. Most 1821 farthings have the I in GRATIA recut, so that the underlying I can be seen off to the right. This example does not have this feature, which continues through a vast majority of the remainder of this series. There are only some 1821 dies that seem to have this feature (early dies?), and the odd example for each year thereafter. None of the lettering is recut on the obverse which in itself is unusual for any George IV farthing?

From your experience Rob, do many/if any trials make it into general circulation? I just could not see the logic in someone spending what would inevitably be worth more as a collectable?

[scott 144]

i'll have to keep a lookout for these, the sort of thing that can easily slip under the radar

[Hussulo 6]

Here's a link to one sold at Christie's which sold for £633 in 2001!:

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=2099727

[Colin G. 147]

Here's a link to one sold at Christie's which sold for £633 in 2001!:

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=2099727

Thanks for that Hus, it will give me a chance to try and at least study images of one!!

[Peter 615]

Here's a link to one sold at Christie's which sold for £633 in 2001!:

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=2099727

Thanks for that Hus, it will give me a chance to try and at least study images of one!!

Looks like you have struck gold...Well done.