Any Experienced Farthing Collectors Out There?

[Coinery 1,153]

I grabbed this one as I saw a high-point shining through a mediocre photo, and wondered whether there might be something unusual with the date!

Does a 5/3 exist? Does the 5 date punch look anything like the 'shape' in the picture, or is this a 3 with nothing more interesting than a surplus 'BLOB' of something?

[Coinery 1,153]

[Colin G. 147]

Yes it does resemble the 5 used on Charles II farthings, there are a few different dies that are recorded as 3/5, see items 712 & 713

http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/ccc_charlesiicurrency.html

[Coinery 1,153]

Yes it does resemble the 5 used on Charles II farthings, there are a few different dies that are recorded as 3/5, see items 712 & 713

http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/ccc_charlesiicurrency.html

Thanks, Colin! I tried to view the enlarged images on the site, using my I-phone, but the pop-up image kept jumping below the window of my phone browser, so will check them out tomorrow on the laptop.

The back-sweeping top arm of the possible 5 is slightly raised above the level of the underlying raised 'numeral,' though it is not so clear on the photo! I should have tried photographing it with a different light angle...maybe tomorrow, if the overdate grows in possibility

[Peckris 579]

Yes it does resemble the 5 used on Charles II farthings, there are a few different dies that are recorded as 3/5, see items 712 & 713

http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/ccc_charlesiicurrency.html

Thanks, Colin! I tried to view the enlarged images on the site, using my I-phone, but the pop-up image kept jumping below the window of my phone browser, so will check them out tomorrow on the laptop.

The back-sweeping top arm of the possible 5 is slightly raised above the level of the underlying raised 'numeral,' though it is not so clear on the photo! I should have tried photographing it with a different light angle...maybe tomorrow, if the overdate grows in possibility

iPhone, dear boy, iPhone

[Coinery 1,153]

Yes it does resemble the 5 used on Charles II farthings, there are a few different dies that are recorded as 3/5, see items 712 & 713

http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/ccc_charlesiicurrency.html

Thanks, Colin! I tried to view the enlarged images on the site, using my I-phone, but the pop-up image kept jumping below the window of my phone browser, so will check them out tomorrow on the laptop.

The back-sweeping top arm of the possible 5 is slightly raised above the level of the underlying raised 'numeral,' though it is not so clear on the photo! I should have tried photographing it with a different light angle...maybe tomorrow, if the overdate grows in possibility

iPhone, dear boy, iPhone

Should've got myself a Blueberry, so much easier to spell!

[Debbie 58]

Or even a blackberry .....or an Apple, or an Orange,

[Peckris 579]

Or even a blackberry .....or an Apple, or an Orange,

Reminds me of that great sketch with Ronnie Corbett... ("it's frozen.." "..have you tried rebooting it?")

[Rob 3,152]

I grabbed this one as I saw a high-point shining through a mediocre photo, and wondered whether there might be something unusual with the date!

Does a 5/3 exist? Does the 5 date punch look anything like the 'shape' in the picture, or is this a 3 with nothing more interesting than a surplus 'BLOB' of something?

I think there were a small number of 1675/3 farthings, but nothing like the numbers of halfpennies. Teg and I spent a considerable amount of time corresponding on this matter about 6 years ago, some of which is discussed in the 1675/3 CRAOLVS thread in the unconfirmed varieties section. Taking the mint figures for the value of copper coins struck in Charles II's reign and the number of examples recorded in a not very rigorous survey as there was no checking for double counting of the farthings, but were reasonably close to the theoretical distribution. The halfpennies which were checked for double counting are way off. This appears to be due to a large number of 1673 coins actually being 5/3. In the sample collected, the 5/3 was equal in rarity to the 1675, but the former were virtually all recorded as straight 1673s. The absolute numbers were only slightly greater for these two compared to the acknowledged rare 1672. Given the number of halfpennies dies recut with the overdate, it would be extremely unlikely that any farthing dies good enough for further use were not similarly recycled.

I think that is a 5/3.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Rob

[Coinery 1,153]

I grabbed this one as I saw a high-point shining through a mediocre photo, and wondered whether there might be something unusual with the date!

Does a 5/3 exist? Does the 5 date punch look anything like the 'shape' in the picture, or is this a 3 with nothing more interesting than a surplus 'BLOB' of something?

I think there were a small number of 1675/3 farthings, but nothing like the numbers of halfpennies. Teg and I spent a considerable amount of time corresponding on this matter about 6 years ago, some of which is discussed in the 1675/3 CRAOLVS thread in the unconfirmed varieties section. Taking the mint figures for the value of copper coins struck in Charles II's reign and the number of examples recorded in a not very rigorous survey as there was no checking for double counting of the farthings, but were reasonably close to the theoretical distribution. The halfpennies which were checked for double counting are way off. This appears to be due to a large number of 1673 coins actually being 5/3. In the sample collected, the 5/3 was equal in rarity to the 1675, but the former were virtually all recorded as straight 1673s. The absolute numbers were only slightly greater for these two compared to the acknowledged rare 1672. Given the number of halfpennies dies recut with the overdate, it would be extremely unlikely that any farthing dies good enough for further use were not similarly recycled.

I think that is a 5/3.

It always feels a little pathetic to produce nothing other than a single line of thanks for such an indepth and time consuming response, but thank-you!

In view of what you have said regarding the unidentified 5/3 half pennies, do you think it could be a similar case with the farthings, that a large number are out there, only they just happen to be sat in trays as 73's?

[Coinery 1,153]

Or even a blackberry .....or an Apple, or an Orange,

A Blackberry? Why we haven't even had a summer, yet!

[Peter 615]

WOW

that is nice

I have had loads of scrumpy mind :P

[Coinery 1,153]

WOW

that is nice

I have had loads of scrumpy mind :P

Man after my own heart, then!

[Coinery 1,153]

I think there were a small number of 1675/3 farthings, but nothing like the numbers of halfpennies. Teg and I spent a considerable amount of time corresponding on this matter about 6 years ago, some of which is discussed in the 1675/3 CRAOLVS thread in the unconfirmed varieties section.

I've just had a read of the above mentioned thread, your drawings are a useful example. I'm going to try and take some angle-lit shots tomorrow (today), to try and get a full 3D view of it!

[Rob 3,152]

I grabbed this one as I saw a high-point shining through a mediocre photo, and wondered whether there might be something unusual with the date!

Does a 5/3 exist? Does the 5 date punch look anything like the 'shape' in the picture, or is this a 3 with nothing more interesting than a surplus 'BLOB' of something?

I think there were a small number of 1675/3 farthings, but nothing like the numbers of halfpennies. Teg and I spent a considerable amount of time corresponding on this matter about 6 years ago, some of which is discussed in the 1675/3 CRAOLVS thread in the unconfirmed varieties section. Taking the mint figures for the value of copper coins struck in Charles II's reign and the number of examples recorded in a not very rigorous survey as there was no checking for double counting of the farthings, but were reasonably close to the theoretical distribution. The halfpennies which were checked for double counting are way off. This appears to be due to a large number of 1673 coins actually being 5/3. In the sample collected, the 5/3 was equal in rarity to the 1675, but the former were virtually all recorded as straight 1673s. The absolute numbers were only slightly greater for these two compared to the acknowledged rare 1672. Given the number of halfpennies dies recut with the overdate, it would be extremely unlikely that any farthing dies good enough for further use were not similarly recycled.

I think that is a 5/3.

It always feels a little pathetic to produce nothing other than a single line of thanks for such an indepth and time consuming response, but thank-you!

In view of what you have said regarding the unidentified 5/3 half pennies, do you think it could be a similar case with the farthings, that a large number are out there, only they just happen to be sat in trays as 73's?

I don't think there are huge numbers because of the 1674 dated coins where you would expect any spare 1673 dies to be used, but a couple might have been modified.

There were 5 presses, four for farthings and one for halfpennies which explains the relative rarity of halfpennies to farthings. The unscientific survey I carried out was based on a survey of all the sites I could find with coins including ebay together with my own coins as by definition these would be mutually exclusive examples. I then did the same for catalogues around 1970 give or take a couple years using images wherever possible. For the record, the results were as follows.

Halfpennies

1672 18

1673 80

1675/3 22

1675 22

Farthings

1672 88

1673 68

1674 64

1675 98

1679 32

Make of the results what you will, but the totals seem to give a reasonable approximation of 1:4 in keeping with the recorded number of presses in use. I don't have any figures for the number of identifiable dies.

As for the drawings I made of the different overstrikes, these only applied to the halfpennies. Judging by the size of some 5s where struck over the 3, it would appear that farthing punches were used sometimes. For the real life example of the 5/3/2 refer to that thread in the same section of the forum where you can see that the 3/2 has followed the curve at the top of the 2 before a separate u shaped cut was employed for the bottom loop.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Rob

[Coinery 1,153]

I've had a further photographic attempt at the 5/3, trying to use added lighting to replicate what I can so much more easily percieve by rocking the coin back and forth. The top tail of the 5 does seem to be clear, stretching much further back than the arm of any three would likely do!

[Peckris 579]

I've had a further photographic attempt at the 5/3, trying to use added lighting to replicate what I can so much more easily percieve by rocking the coin back and forth. The top tail of the 5 does seem to be clear, stretching much further back than the arm of any three would likely do!

Yes, but given that this would have been done to create a 5 from a 3, not the other way around, wouldn't you expect to see a downstroke to connect the top of the 5 to its loop? There doesn't seem any trace of it at all.

[Rob 3,152]

I've had a further photographic attempt at the 5/3, trying to use added lighting to replicate what I can so much more easily percieve by rocking the coin back and forth. The top tail of the 5 does seem to be clear, stretching much further back than the arm of any three would likely do!

Yes, but given that this would have been done to create a 5 from a 3, not the other way around, wouldn't you expect to see a downstroke to connect the top of the 5 to its loop? There doesn't seem any trace of it at all.

No downstroke on many Charles II fives. Look at Nicholson 020-024 on Colin Cooke's site.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Rob

[Coinery 1,153]

Yes it does resemble the 5 used on Charles II farthings, there are a few different dies that are recorded as 3/5, see items 712 & 713

http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/ccc_charlesiicurrency.html

I managed to get a look on a grown-up computer today, rather than an 'iphone' (thanks Peck ), and this particular 5/3 looks different again to both coins on Colin's site, guess that's at least 3 reverse dies then? Getting to be more and more common all the time!

[Colin G. 147]

Yes, but given that this would have been done to create a 5 from a 3, not the other way around, wouldn't you expect to see a downstroke to connect the top of the 5 to its loop? There doesn't seem any trace of it at all.

On Charles II farthings there are several different styles to the shape of the 5 in the date, whilst some are like a normal 5, others have no short upright with just the top cross bar sloping down to join the curve. With the clearer images it almost looks like a 3 over a slightly rotated 3, but then the digit 5 would still be in higher relief. Therefore is it a 5 over an already recut 3?

Not really an area of farthings that I have really focused on yet, so this is all "slightly" educated guesswork on my part I am afraid

[Coinery 1,153]

I've had a further photographic attempt at the 5/3, trying to use added lighting to replicate what I can so much more easily percieve by rocking the coin back and forth. The top tail of the 5 does seem to be clear, stretching much further back than the arm of any three would likely do!

Yes, but given that this would have been done to create a 5 from a 3, not the other way around, wouldn't you expect to see a downstroke to connect the top of the 5 to its loop? There doesn't seem any trace of it at all.

I'm of course no great master in numismatics, but I have noticed with Elizabeth (the REALLY old one), for example, that there were no special efforts taken to disguise the underlying numeral, they just seemed to bang in the next standard number punch, as used on the other dies for the year, and seemed happy with it! I've seen an 8/7 looking more like a dollar sign than a numeral. I wonder if they became more exacting as die preparation and milling got better?

Not that I'm claiming this is a 5/3, of course!

[Peckris 579]

No downstroke on many Charles II fives. Look at Nicholson 020-024 on Colin Cooke's site.

On Charles II farthings there are several different styles to the shape of the 5 in the date, whilst some are like a normal 5, others have no short upright with just the top cross bar sloping down to join the curve. With the clearer images it almost looks like a 3 over a slightly rotated 3, but then the digit 5 would still be in higher relief. Therefore is it a 5 over an already recut 3?

Fair comments - those pictures show quite a variety of 5 styles. The ones that look least like a normal 5 are the overdates, which lends credence to this being one of them.

I managed to get a look on a grown-up computer today, rather than an 'iphone' (thanks Peck ), and this particular 5/3 looks different again to both coins on Colin's site, guess that's at least 3 reverse dies then? Getting to be more and more common all the time!

iPhone! You'll never achieve it though, thanks to the Microsoft tyranny of not allowing a lower case first letter followed by a capital letter.

[Coinery 1,153]

[Coinery 1,153]

Now all the comments, and indeed my own opinion, seem happy to run with the suggestion that this is a 5/3, can I ask how would I next go about getting it validated for inclusion into the Charles II farthing series as a variety?

Who would be the leading incontestable expert in this field, would I be looking at the late Mr Cooke's remaining players?

[Peter 615]

Now all the comments, and indeed my own opinion, seem happy to run with the suggestion that this is a 5/3, can I ask how would I next go about getting it validated for inclusion into the Charles II farthing series as a variety?

Who would be the leading incontestable expert in this field, would I be looking at the late Mr Cooke's remaining players?

Try a letter and picture in coin monthly.