Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook


The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.


Unidentified Variety
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Debono

  • Rank
  1. @Peckris. Hopefully this pic shows the 'bump' more clearly. It is concave on the reverse and convex on the obverse.
  2. HaHa! @ Jerry! 🤣 @blake. My coin is not domed as such. As you can see in the photos (although maybe not that clear) is that is has a centre bulge that is concave/convex. It doesn't dome to the outer rim. Perhaps if it were like a hardwood steak with a point no more than a mm or 2 wide and was truck? I have no idea what would happen but maybe it would bulge? Why anyone would do that though with a farthing all those years ago would remain a mystery but would love to see if it would replicate the 'ding' (bulge). Being such a low mintage coin (the lowest Farthing I think?) it is sad that what is unknown, pretty much makes the coin worthless. Makes for a good topic of discussion though and I still hope some other coins of similar 'damage' can surface.
  3. I read that Previously Jerry. Noted that it is 7 years old and emailed with Mike direct. He believes that the fact that it would 'rock' points to PMD although can't speculate how it could have happened. The fact that it has happened with the half dollar at least to me indicates that it is possible and no one yet has come up with a way to prove it can't happen or come up with a definitive way of PMD to cause this effect.
  4. Thanks for the replies everyone. "Money for nothing and the chips for free" 🤣 You guys are hilarious! Peckris, I have searched and searched but yet to find another coin let alone farthing like this. If anyone can show one or point me in the right direction I would be most grateful. If anyone knows of somewhere/someone I can send the coin to to be verified one way or the other that would be amazing. I have emails with The Royal Museum and they unfortunately don't believe they can make such a call either way even with the coin in hand so I am at a bit of a loss with some thinking it happened at strike and some post strike. Just not sure how to prove either way. I still am yet to find a way I believe is plausible for post strike damage (with no offence to Jerry).
  5. Thanks Jerry. Why would you do that? You alter the coin you found (with a bulge?) to manipulate it for what purpose? and why would anyone over 50 years ago do that to destroy a coin? So you disagree with this? Reciprocally Deformed Convexo-Concavo Dies Definition: This rare error occurs when one die face sinks in and the other bulges out in a complementary fashion. The effect can affect the center of the die face or the edge of the die face. The affect can be global (affecting the entire die face) or local.
  6. C'mon coin guru's! Help me out please! How can a coin be damaged like this post strike without damaging the Brittania? Can anyone show any examples of such an occurrence?
  7. Thanks copper. At this stage I am up for speculation on how the coin can dome without damage to the surface. This is the most logical probability but I am at a loss to work out how? It would have happened well over 50 years ago.
  8. Thanks for the reply Mr T. I agree because that seems the more obvious explanation. Except how can the coin dent (dome) with out damaging the Britannia on the reverse? I am hoping someone with experience can provide a plausible reason how this can happen. Also that damage would have to have occurred more than 42 years ago so for what purpose? Accidental damage would appear possibly more likely but then I am still left with the problem of how could it happen, deliberately or accidentally? I wonder whether there are any tests that can be done to determine such things? I have reached out to Colin from About Farthings to see if he has ever come across such things however no response as yet. Thanks again for the reply.
  9. Greetings from Western Australia all. I have an interesting 1935 Farthing with a concave on the reverse and convex on the obverse. It has been in a box with other coins for at least 42 years (when Grandad passed and Dad bought back to Australia)and probably many years longer. First instinct is to think PMD. Then the process of working out how? Someone said that probably used as a wedge under a table or something heavy to balance it and this has happened over many years. Sounds reasonable but then if used to balance then not much weight on it. They hit the coin dead centre and no damage to the coin at all apart from the doming. Physics says to me that the harder object wins so even with a heavy weight what ever was touching the coin would either submit to the pressure or the Britannia would submit to damage before the coin would dome? The Royal Mint Museum has confirmed the below. So whilst no certain proof, it allows for the possibility of a minting error. However my thoughts are that even though there were only 2.2m or so 1935 Farthings minted surely if a mint error, there would be more than one and I am yet to find any reports anywhere of such. So anyone that has any 1935 Farthings could they please check for domes and let me know? I have had the coin checked by a dealer who confirmed no apparent damage to the Britannia reverse. Would love to hear from anyone that has seen or possesses any such coin/s and any ideas on how the dome could have been formed post minting? "I have now had chance to share the images you have kindly provided with our Information and Research Manager, and we have compared it with those coins the Museum has in the collection and has encountered previously. It is possible that the appearance you describe might be a result of the size and scale of the George V portrait of coins of this era. The nature of a large and high relief portrait is that it can, when struck, draw too great a portion of material from the reverse of the coin. This issue was a particular concern for the George V portrait on the penny, and in 1933 experiments were undertaken to try and produce a lower-relief, smaller portrait, to eliminate a ‘ghosting’ effect which had been observed on the reverse of some strikes. It may be the case that this same problem has resulted in a very slight concave/convex effect on your farthing, although it is unfortunately very difficult for us to say with any certainty, and particularly from photographs alone"