George I lacquered proofs

[Rob 3,152]

Morning all.

One of the boxes to tick for the collection is an example of the so-called 'lacquered proof' described by Peck for George I farthings (P789) and halfpennies (P773). I haven't mde up my mind whether they are a genuine mint issue, or simply a selection of coins that were lacquered(?) in antiquity by persons unknown. The first would mean a place in the collection for an example, the second not. A summary of my thinking on these pieces is laid out below. Thoughts anyone?

Thoughts on Lacquered G1 coppers

On the question of lacquered halfpennies and farthings, I have not yet made up my mind regarding their authenticity as a mint product. Take the farthings first. Colin Cooke's 464 (CNG 93, lot 1891) and Baldwin's item BM20470 are struck from a completely different die pair, but both claim to be lacquered proofs. The obverse die has the S of GEORGIVS under the hair on one (ex-CC) and not the other, whilst the reverse die has a huge flaw or two on the Baldwin coin but not on the Cooke piece and the exergue line hits the toothed border at a different relative position on the left side. Therefore neither has a die link to suggest production at the same moment in time, which you would expect in the case of a special product or test. The Baldwin LP 1/4d does share the same obverse die as the 1717 & 1718 silver farthings, which would confirm that the Baldwin piece is a proof. Peck notes that they are a glossy brown with a mottled surface under the microscope. The 1717 LP 1/4d on Baldwin’s site has an obviously mottled surface from the image provided, but the reverse die is flawed and totally different to other silver or copper proofs seen. The ex-CC coin has the S of GEORGIVS partially underneath the laurels, as does the plate coin in Peck. Again, it appears to confirm proof status. The question therefore is down to whether the lacquer (assuming the description is correct) was mint applied, or at the whims of various previous owners.

There are 2(3) obverse dies involved on the dump issue farthings.

1. With the S underneath the laurels – CC463, 464(LP). Peck plate coin P787. All 1717.

2. With the S just clear to the left of the laurels (later strike of 1 after die polishing?). CC462.

3. S with clear space to the laurels. CC455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461. Bald BM20470(LP), Z42539. (1717 & 1718)

Reverse dies are as follows.

1. Badly flawed, lower exergue line touching inner circle. 1717 Bald BM20470(LP)

2. No flaws, exergue on inner circle, laurel closer to A than N.(1717) Bald Z42539, CC459, 460, 462, 463

3. short exergue line, no flaws. (1718) Z37110(thin Ag), CC456. CC455(1718 Cu)

4. short exergue line, laurel closer to N. CC461,

Moving on to halfpennies, the Baldwin coin has a small flaw by the N of NIA whilst Nicholson's (175) doesn't look like it does, but I can't be certain. The remainder is in general agreement. A coin in a private collection is a die duplicate of BN175 based on the presence of a small lump by the N of NIA and a couple of spots. It is possible that the coin on Baldwin’s website, Z37116 is from the same dies in a different state.

The question I am asking is whether these are deliberately done by the mint or not? If a mint product I would expect them to be made at the same time using the same die pair which they patently aren't looking at the farthings above. The jury is out on the halfpennies at the moment, but I would like to know what the various BM and HM pieces look like before I consider buying. If the pieces Peck used to attribute the variety are not from the same dies and those coins doing the rounds are already shown to be from various die pairs, it suggests that they are just a selection of lacquered pieces done in antiquity and so not really collectable as discrete varieties. i.e. they are only collectable because Peck says they are, having given lacquered 1717 coins a reference number. The argument given by Peck for allocating a reference number was that they were initially thought to have been lacquered in Victorian times, but Hunter's demise in 1783 meant they must predate this period. What doesn't seem to have been considered is that lacquering could be an older practise than previously thought.

I need to find out which dies are used for the BM and HM pieces and check to see if the Baldwin LP 1/2d has a ticket indicating whether this is the J coin.

If anyone has any input to this argument such as an example which purports to be a lacquered proof, please feel free to contribute. Thanks.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Rob

[Colin G. 147]

Unfortunately no examples in my collection, but in relation to the dies you have noted, I would add the following from a brief check:

There are 3 obverse dies involved on the proof dump issue farthings (CC 458 would also be a different Reverse die, position of B in Britannia)

1. With the S underneath the laurels – CC463, 464(LP). Peck plate coin P787. All 1717.

2. With the S just clear to the left of the laurels (later strike of 1 after die polishing?). CC462. - Different die note the I is clear of the head due to the lettering meeting in a slightly different position.

3. S with clear space to the laurels. CC455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461. Bald BM20470(LP), Z42539. (1717 & 1718)

Reverse dies are as follows.

1. Badly flawed, lower exergue line touching inner circle. 1717 Bald BM20470(LP)

2. No flaws, exergue on inner circle, laurel closer to A than N.(1717) Bald Z42539, CC459, 460, 462, 463

3. short exergue line, no flaws. (1718) Z37110(thin Ag), CC456. CC455(1718 Cu)

4. short exergue line, laurel closer to N. CC461,

An area for a bit more study in terms of settling die combinations, and therefore potential sequencing. I have to agree that the addition of the lacquered proof in Peck does surprise me. Peck is quite dismissive of others in his publication...rightly so in many circumstances, but as a result he seems to try and stick to the proven. Whilst there are clear cases where this is not true, it would inevitably be expected in a work of this size, but the inclusion of this piece really does surprise me. How could it be included without certainty...it is such a unique record in terms of a lacquered coin being included that you would expect there to be clear evidence. I am also not convinced yet, and as you say unless you are willing to part with the cash to view a couple of examples in hand it would be difficult to change my current view.

It is also worth noting that the CC example was suggested as a possible? lacquered proof so I would suggest not too much could be based on that particular example either.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Colin G.

[Rob 3,152]

The above was quickly cobbled together from a standing start at 2 o'clock this morning as a result of the CC coin going off in CNG 93 in a few days time. Thanks for the more detailed info. I'm still leaning towards it being a non-variety (which is good because it will save me some money ) and so not required for the collection. I just thought it would be a useful way of getting a dump farthing as a type example.

[Rob 3,152]

And no tickets with the two coins at Baldwins to help the provenance, though it is likely that the halfpenny is the J coin as both had been in the basement for years.