Paddy

I am not the slightest bothered if anyone wants to declare another micro-variety on this. I would point out though that of the two I posted, the one that differs from the standard as posted on the aboutfarthings.co.uk website, is the first one, for which the condition is pretty good.

It was not the die crack that led to the discussion about another micro-variety but the difference in the colon after F:D

I agree - I wasn't searching for a new variety. In any case, with the aboutfarthings.co.uk site frozen I'm not sure who or where new farthing varieties are being logged now.

Welcome! First to say - never use Brasso on any coin - it would destroy any value there might be. Anything that won't come off with warm soapy water and a soft sponge is best left, and if the coin is in great condition with good lustre, don't even try that. Sadly 1967 pennies are extremely common. The range of prices you are seeing is down to Ebayers chancing it in the hope of catching a mug. Even in Brilliant Uncirculated condition you would be lucky to get £1 for one, and anything less they are scrap metal. @Sword has replied while I was typing with much the same response.

Yes - I assumed that at first, but with both pictures up I can see that the colon after F:D is 1 1/2 dots on the first one, but 2 full dots on the second.

... and the second:

Our friend Lukasz again - I think he has been discussed on this forum before.

I probably won't be able to answer this query, but I think we need to know what era you are looking at, as the identifying features are likely to be different. I was looking at mid 18th century halfpennies earlier and see that Peck notes slight differences in the positioning of some features of the coin for proofs.

Some may remember that I had a small batch of these a while back. I have one left and in my clear out it has to go. Inevitably it is the least good of the batch and the lustre has broken down in a few patches, but it is still pretty good. First sensible offer by PM, to include postage, gets it. Paddy

This has now gone to auction, so you are all too late! If you want to know which auction, PM me.

I am considering it - depends how high it goes! So far I have only gathered contemporary counterfeits in passing when they have come in with other coins, and all are in the 1770s. I have handled a few evasions, but always sold those on as the Americans tend to go crazy for them. The only list I have at the moment is at the back of the Withers Token book One.

That was the conclusion I was coming to. Seemed unusual to see one dated so early - I usually associate the contemporary counterfeits with the late 18th century but I see some of the evasions are dated much earlier, so that makes sense.

Here is the reverse:

Any thoughts on this? Vendor's picture, so please don't ask me for better ones. Described as 1739 Halfpenny, and size and reverse seem about right but this bust looks wrong to me. Is it a contemporary counterfeit, a modern forgery, or just unusual deformation of the portrait?

I use Chrome and am having no problems at all. The address bar does show "Not Secure" but it always has done in the forum area as far as I know. It might be worth checking/comparing your Chrome security settings. Click on the three dots in the top right corner of the browser window and select "Settings" and then "Privacy and Security". Under "Safe browsing" I have "Standard" rather than "Enhanced" selected. Further down under Advanced I have "Always use secure connections" turned off. I am not necessarily suggesting you change your settings, but if they are different it may explain where the issue is. Further - I just tried putting https before the predecimal address and got a "Not allowed" message where previously it said "Not Secure".

I usually rely on others to sort these out for me, but as no one seems to be replying, I will add my thoughts: I think the 1* obverse is clear - the lack of knot with the beaded border is clear. Not so sure about the reverse. The halfpenny website mentions A and A# , not A* - was it A# you meant? See https://halfpennyvarieties.wordpress.com/victoria-reverses/ A close up of the shield might help - looking for the extra incuse line for A rather than A#. Variations in the position of the 0 in the date are mentioned for both, so that alone is not an identifier. In any case the website suggests that in either case they are not that scarce. Or maybe I have missed the point with the A*?

... and I did not dispute that "fact" though I have seen no evidence to support it. If it happened 50 years ago, it was wrong then and remains wrong today. I doubt that it was as wholesale and targeted in the past. I was at university 45 years ago and I recall very little of what you describe. My fact, supported by current evidence, was completely discounted based on left wing bias against any media that does not support their narrow viewpoint. What really gets me is that the Labour party, supposedly champions of the working classes, for which I laud them, has now become the puppet of wealthy, privately educated and privileged trendies from London.

... and are you not also ignoring facts - as displayed in the Daily Mail - simply because of your bias against that paper? As @oldcopper puts it, much better than I could: "when you put the Daily Mail clipping to Peckris, he pulls out the cliched lazy get-out clause so beloved of the Left". Before you say "Why hasn't the BBC repeated the story?", that organisation has become so woke, left wing and anti Brexit it has ceased to publish any news that contradicts their viewpoint. I am wasting blood pressure again - I'm out of here.

I think it is best we just agree to differ. Neither of us is likely to change our viewpoint substantially, so there is no point wasting blood pressure on the debate.

... and as if by magic, this headline article today. I know from the Daily Mail, so there will be a good deal of bias in choosing to run this topic, but the basic facts are still extraordinary:

That's not a smile - it's a smirk!

Fair comment that I would place my political views to the right of centre, but I would say well short of extreme. Just as I am aware that your position @Peckris 2 is well left of centre, but presumably would object to being called "extreme". I think it is the lengths some of the woke supporters go to suppress any view that does not concur with their own that I find most disturbing. Universities "cancelling" any speaker whose viewpoint is not up to date with woke culture smacks of extremism. The essence of a free democracy is freedom of speech, and that seems to be being undermined.

We all have our views as to what would be "extreme" in the woke crusade. I would say the idea that a biological male, possibly even one convicted of sex offences against women, can one day declare that he now identifies as a woman, and immediately earn the right to hang around in female changing rooms - is extreme. Or that someone who has passed through puberty as a male, and so gained all the muscular advantages of testosterone, can then declare transgender and thereby be allowed to compete on equal terms with biological women - is extreme. Or that in some parts of the NHS they are no longer allowed to use terms such as "woman" or "mother" and are expected to use some complex phrase such as "child-bearing capable person" - is extreme. I am all for the fair treatment of all sexualities and genders, but that should not be at the expense of fair treatment for those who fit into the more traditional gender classifications. I have probably opened Pandora's box by expressing those views and will incur the wrath of the woke brigade. In their usual form they will seek to silence me as they despise any view that does not concur with their own. Reminds me a bit of the Catholic Church through much of its history.

Anything that undermines the resolve, strength and morale of your enemy is useful to your cause. If Russia decided to invade across Europe now, how many of our present population would actually volunteer to resist them? Compare that to the situation in the last 2 World wars. Putin is well aware that the British have been the most resolute in resisting tyranny in the past. By taking us out of the equation he makes his ambitions much easier to achieve.

This from the BBC this morning: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-66594076 I think this case has been discussed here before. It is sad that he let his greed/ambition take him so far off the legal track.