Teg

Very good book, highly recommended - it took me a fair while to find mine. Teg

Hi, Chris I am surprised you have had issues with CC grading in the past. I have always thought he was spot on, or a little harsh. One good benchmark has been with pedigreed coins. His grade has almost always been the same or usually lower than previous sellers / auction houses. Farthings in particular bring problems to high end grading. I have coins that I have bought as B.U., catalogued into my collection as B.U. (and I think I am strict!), then taken a high res. photo in a certain light, and they almost go into the 'cull' pile. Many, if not most, of Colin's own collection looked far better in hand than in the sale photos. The general high standard of this collection makes me think that they will look good in hand. Perhaps we need a new grade, looks BU at x30. None of which would excuse a missed fingerprint, let Niel know which coin and I am sure he will look again. Looking at the collection, I wish I was in a rich time! Oh well. Teg

Hi, not a proof. The proofs do not have the deep groove - they are plain or grained. Teg

Hi, All the proofs have a grained or plain edge. Currency has the deep grained groove. I cant see any features that would make me think proof, so perhaps an odd coloured currency piece? Teg

Hi Ron, the weights don't help on these - yours is in the normal range. A picture would help, some of the proofs have obvious characteristics - a blocked letter or similar. The edge is also important - does it have a security groove, is it plain, etc? I have six different 1799 proofs, and I know others here have some as well. Teg

Hi, it's a 1/2 penny. I can't tell if it is 1730 or 1739. Someone will know! Teg

Hi Matt, Welcome to the site. 1893 is not a proof year for farthings. Peck's book (British Museum) does not list one and neither does Michael Freeman (Bronze Coinage). The Victorian Proofs can be hard to verify - and even the experts disagree on some dates / coins. Very often the first coins struck from new dies look 'prooflike'. The late Colin Cooke had the best farthing collection ever assembled. One of his 1893s is described as 'prooflike', (not proof). There are still pictures of his coins on the Colin Cooke site. 1893 farthing If you have a picture of your coin we always like to see nice farthings! Teg

Peter, Great achievement, 1676 is rubbish. Mr Freeman would have had it slabbed if it were genuine. We should be glad that our collecting was defined by C.C. 1693 copper, for me not currency. Anne - again not currency. What is your favourite farthing? If you could only save one from your collection - which would it be? Good call to pass on the tin issues! Teg

Try collecting them 2 at a time. Colin Cooke was doing 2 1689's for the price of 1 when the farthing collection was sold. 2 farthings = one halfpenny and so can be collected as such- see lot 662. I was going to attach an image, but it doesn't seem possible any more? I thought about it! In the end I decided I needed a currency example more - so I bought lot 664. So you got 662! Much cooler than my coin - you have your own Peck footnote. Lucky for both of us - we bought at the lower end of the estimate. Did Colin list who he bought the coin from? A good job you wanted a currency example because I was only interested in it as a halfpenny. Colin bought it from Peter Viola in 2004. The history I have on it so far is Spink 16 lot 824 sold for £410 and SNC 2/92 no.269 listed at £1500 - which I suspect it didn't sell for given it is nearly x4 the price a decade earlier. Nothing after that until PV. I don't know when the 'Bn' reference in Peck was noted. It came with a Spink ticket written by Mark Rasmussen and PV's ticket. Without question it's the most I have paid or am ever likely to pay for a Chas II halfpenny in poor! Thanks Rob, Peter Viola - I could not remember the name. As I recall he had a collection of William and Mary that Colin bought, including this. That pushed him into detailing what W&M farthing varieties existed - which he included in one of his lists. I visited him in Jan. 2005 to go through all the varieties - which is when he showed me your coin. We both thought it was fascinating and were not sure why Peck did not give it a proper entry. Great buy! Teg

Try collecting them 2 at a time. Colin Cooke was doing 2 1689's for the price of 1 when the farthing collection was sold. 2 farthings = one halfpenny and so can be collected as such- see lot 662. I was going to attach an image, but it doesn't seem possible any more? I thought about it! In the end I decided I needed a currency example more - so I bought lot 664. So you got 662! Much cooler than my coin - you have your own Peck footnote. Lucky for both of us - we bought at the lower end of the estimate. Did Colin list who he bought the coin from?

Hi Peter, A great achievement - especially with tin. Do you remember farthing specialist selling complete date runs? What did you decide on problem dates eg 1689, 1693? I don't even have a complete type set of currency farthings yet! P.M. sent on swaps. Colin - you may have made a smart move with the G/G. You know you will have to upgrade. I have G/G and 1860 mule in VF ish. Not as good as I would like - but good enough to stop me upgrading! Teg

Hi Colin, I would leave it as it is. You are going to want a better example in the future. Until then this one is an interesting space-filler. Leaving it like it is you will be able to recoup your £40 odd quid when you upgrade! Teg

1822 farthing, with Lion side feet ? Click He must have seen Wossip's coin Wossip "Wossip" - Michael Freeman, should know a lot better. I am very disappointed in the farthings he has recently listed. If you are reading this Michael - WHY? Teg

Hi Jon, The diameter could be the key. 6d is 19mm, farthing is 20mm. Held together the difference is obvious. I would expect the rim to look slightly thinner than it does - if it was on a 6d blank. Tricky. Teg

Hi, Interesting! The Norweb sale had a 1951 cupro-nickel farthing 'probably from a sixpence blank'. So although I don't have a record of a 1949, it is possible. If (very big IF) genuine then worth a few hundred pounds. Teg

Mr Ingram does indeed only photograph a few of his coins. Quite vexing - I have mentioned it to Andy - he provides free photo hosting, he can't do any more! At least Ingram's prices and grades are on the same planet as I am. Some of the others on that site are 'entertaining' to say the least. Back to the 1842 large date. From the last 20 years of C.C. lists I note:- List Grade 5 AF/F 20 GF/NVF 23 GF+ 41 GVF " NEF 49 Bold GF light corrosion 50 GF " GVF So it is a rare coin in any condition. Bought as EF + and very nice in hand. I am struggling to grade this one. It wont get EF+ - but how low do I go? Teg

All 1842s are rare. I have been looking for a decent 'large 42' for a while. One arrived this morning! Quote about this variety from Colin Cooke:- "Variety B, with noticeably larger 42 in the date. The 4 is of the "crosslet 4" type, having both lower and upper serifs. The loop of the 2 is only a half circle, being very open, as well as the whole numeral being thinner and more upright. Much rarer than Variety A. This variety was first recorded by Bramah in 1929." Normal - large 42 Teg

Hi Colin, Photo for your site sent. Let me know if you need a different format. If you use it can I ask a favour - C.C. calls normal type A, and this type B. You have it the other way round. Can you change to avoid confusion down the road? How much did I pay? Too much! Seriously, in hand the coin is a shiny little gem. The photo does not do it justice. (I hate it when eBay sellers use that line) Bought from R. Ingram coins (through Online Coins), as EF /+ £ 110. It was not sold as a large 42, but the photo had me 95% convinced. I had the 'internal conversation' that most of us must be familiar with. Against "110 quid!, there will be one on eBay for £50 any day!" "If I buy it it will look cr*p in hand - and may not even be a large 42" For "It is one of the best I have ever seen, miss this and pay £250 later on." "£110 is not far off for a normal 1842" "It's my birthday this week, this is a MAJOR rarity, I know of one better." "Colin G. will / should be very jealous." So I bought it -and I love it. Very good service from R. Ingram - as always. 1842 large 42 Woo! Teg

First - I am no expert in this matter! As Rob said -Linecar & Stone - English Proof and Pattern Crown-Size Pieces p.54 They state that the coin was commissioned by Mudie (James) - so no royal mint connection. To me it seems that he had already commissioned the bust from Webb for his 'National Medals' series LINK HERE Take a look at the first medal. Linecar & Stone give the date of the pattern as 1820. George III died in Jan 1820, so perhaps he asked Mills to produce a reverse as a memento of the dead King. With Wyon and Pistrucci at the mint I find it hard to think that this was a serious attempt as a pattern for the coinage. Teg

Colin G. may be expecting this! I got a new 1730 today (the top one with a flan clip) EF with some subdued lustre - the pic is washed out. Obviously different dies to the one bellow -spacing etc. However look at the olive branch bellow Britannia's hand. The top one is more of a tree than a twig! This gives me the excuse to call it a variety - and keep both coins.

No problem Colin.

Some random thoughts:- A lot depends on exactly what you collect. For example pre - GIII you may want to record the weight of the coin. Mintage does not mean a lot - so I do not bother. If Qty is quantity I think it should always be one - have a separate row for each coin. Consider a separate file, or sheet for each denomination - then all your sixpences or whatever are in the same place. I keep a record (column) that tells me if I have photographed the coin - and what I have called it. Oh and make backups! All the best with this Teg

Teg, The coin you linked to in your post is being sold by Michael Freeman, so it must have more value than you or I expect! <gggg>. Bob C. Thank You Bob, I was just going to make note of that fact, and I see that you beat me too it...... Honestly though, I' not really sure that I see it....... It's a POOR specimen.... I would love to be proved incorrect. Indeed the fact that this almost certain 1672 has a very low 2 is interesting. Most 1676 (types) are 1675 with a broken 5. It's not 100% infallible - but after 1672 nearly all CII farthings have the last O of CAROLO between the hair ribbons. This does not. Colin Cooke did not believe in a 1676 farthing, the closest chance you could get would be a 1679 with a possible inverted 9. Mr Freeman has been proved wrong on new (Victorian) farthing dates before. I don't think that early farthings are his speciality. So a difference of opinion then! Teg

Hi Mark, No response because I had no helpful advice. The commercial software I have tried was pants. My data started on a spreadsheet, migrated to an Access database, switched to MySQL, then OpenOffice. My best (poor) advice is keep your own database- if you are up to speed with these things! Teg

Do you have a spare £850? Clicky Decimal point problem I think. £0.85 Teg