DrLarry

thanks yes got that. you all seem to have been looking at the same things as I have on my example so at least that gives me confidence. Whilst I list varieties I should open my eyes more often. it was however only because I was sorting my F4's and f 7's that I noticed this one was not falling into the same pattern. The HONI SO is pretty clear and I can at least compare it to the F 4's I have in similar grades ....I know it is often hard comparing otherwise.

yes thanks Bernie I found the ones mentioned on page 12

yes he lower one is from my obverse 4's

would you happen to know on which page your example of F 6 is on? it is listed not listed in Freeman and Richard has it as PU and there is no freeman #

yes added those below and the details of the leaves 15 in number are above ...this is an 1861 reverse F paired with an obverse 4 (ithought) but on closer examination has the more typical deep incurse lies for the leaf veins ....it is def not a 7 and does not look anything much life my other obverse 4;s rev Fs

oh ok great yes I will take a look .....thanks so much yess I will try take a full picture

REVERSE F obverse 6 ? But first I would like some help I have an obverse 4 which might be an obverse 6 . The O of SO on the garter appears more complete and the viens with two deep lines more like a 6 than an obverse 4. But it is on the back of an REVERSE F I have added the O in SO from this reverse and from a reverse 4

REVERSE F In my opinion reverse F's lighthouse is the most elegant artistically. The rendering of the masonry and the cutting of the lantern and top just looks right. It is the work of a more competent engraver than previous ones which either look top heavy, have windows placed badly or over simplistic lines are used to give us little appreciation of what a lighthouse is. Especially so as the lighthouse was iconic and if engraved to show the Eddystone lighthouse F shows it as a close approximation. I am afraid I dont know the history behind the 1862 mint marking three different lighthouse 3 different letters. Where they done to record a way forward to choose a lighthouse that could survive repeated strikes. Excuse my ignorance perhaps someone knows. There remains serious anatomical issues in the modelling of Britannia with the impossible outstretching of the left arm to grasp the trident and contortionism with the hand itself. Who knows perhaps the artist was attempting to create an image which fights with itself in this unharmonious non-life drawing. I would have loved to have seen the original design that was " troublesome and in too high a relief " for the transition to Bronze. Copper would have been much more forgiving as would silver but that edge that Bronze gives must have been a headache leaving us with what we have. Designing for a coin never requires a good artist to throw out the rules and Wyon most definitely did not do it on any other designs throughout his career his art is beautiful, subtle and harmonious. Reading through archives of the mint with parliament and his own diary I get the impression that once his more contemporary take on the designs were "rejected" in favour of just the same old seated Britannia plus a lighthouse and a ship he seems to resign himself to having to complete the task. the standing Britannia would have held the kind of beauty the EDW VII florin has (my opinion) But a year or more of alterations and changes obviously left him "fed up" if not ill ( even partly by the problems it caused him) . The part I find most shocking is that in the middle of the year with issues still existing, he still picked up his bags and went on holiday for a month around europe, with the special permission of the mint. I know my opinion on the design does not find much favour with accomplished collectors who love the bun penny, but the design is quite poorly done and shows to me a frustration by an accomplished artist to transition to a new material and who had to make choices which limit the artistic integrity of the design. But many of these problems like the outstretched arm and clumsy modelling of the hand on the trident are seemingly self imposed errors. So much so that I find it hard to reconcile the artist with the art. I know most of you have never even given some of these ideas a thought , those that love bronze coinage see only the elegance of the design. The coinage before in copper and then later with the veiled head does not ignore the anatomy . The whole hand around the back of the trident fingers curling around and the pulling of the right hand on the shield into the figure and the tucking of the left leg to stabilise the model shows attention to reality. Still with all its flaws having 1000's scattered around me , they have lasted the test of time and even now are one of the most buoyant coin collecting choices I should just shut up and know my place. Trying to comprehend both the design of the reverse and obverse got me looking and finding technical errors so I cannot complain.

REVERSE E OBVERSE 6 RECUT RIBBON? ONE LAST ONE I NOTICED TODAY It is hard to tell if the position of the ribbon has been recut or this is a die clash ?? a raised area to the left of the hanging ribbon seems to own a dove tail end but it may be this is part of the crease of the garment from the reverse , the raised area similar to the "ribbon ends" that appear on many clashed dies between the nape of the neck and the ribbon in the pennies. Your thoughts please ...Many thanks in advance Oh and yes is this a mintmark B that's a joke

tHAT JUST ABOUT DOES IT FOR MY REVERSE E'S there are a few additions but nothing much worth listing more than the following : some rotated T's ; a low 1 in the date ; c over C and G over G . These are mostly small alterations .the last one to intrigue me is I have a couple of V over V's where the V has been restruct 3 Times eventually the die cracks creating a "mass" attached to the inner circle giving the impression that the right spoke is longer. I have included pictures for completeness along with an interesting character in which the I of VICTORIA is almost absent V_CTORIA ; the OBVERSE 6 with the V_CTORIA has restamped colons as do other OBV 6's and a half smile ( smiling cyclops) o) comma colon. The colon sizes vary quite a lot some being tiny remnants others large mixed numbers 13 no errors 20 with some kind of error . I am not sure this in any way is a representative sample but i have enjoyed making my list

REVERSE E OBVERSE 4 A OVER A ROTATED IN HALF

reverse E obverse 4 or 6 UNBARRED A in VICTORIA and die break through the R of REG THE SECOND EXAMPLE IS AN OBVERSE 6

1861 reverse E PFNNY the E is blocked this one also has and R over an R in REG obverse 4

Here is the obverse 6 with reverse E with the right handed 1 over 1 . The H of HALF is also doubled as is the R in REG . I have 3 I believe one in the US waiting to be shipped and I have seen one other on EBay in the last year. which might help with your numbers

REVERSE E 1 OVER 1 BUT SLANTING TO THE RIGHT AND HIGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE EXAMPLE IN YOUR HALF PENNY VARIETIES AND noticed the high 1 on the first 1 in the date faces the other way in the two examples I have. So the error must have been repeated twice . is this the one mentioned by DRACOTT yes I think it must be because it is on an obverse 6 with the double incursed lines for the viens.

ok great I was just a little worried if the flaw as a strike or true flaw on mine. The ribbon seems a little different but likely just wear No I'm wrong yours also is slightly longer on the left of the dove tail

no I think mine are all rotation errors on the T in VICTORIA except the 2md although only the lifted base is present not the top as you have and in the T;s in Britt

I will check mine see if I have a T over T on the penny ...... yes in my records I have it in the n over Z in one example and in my notes on others but I would have to look it out sometimes I write T over T but it may not be as in yours .... thank you

reverse E continued : F274 with obverse 5 with an 8 to the side of the 8 and the 6 over a 6 or it is possible that the 8 is over a 6 and the 6 over and 8 the curvature of the overstamp on the 6 seems closer to and 8 than a 6 but this may simply be the pressure on the stamp . It appears to have the flaw in the forehead so I am opting for OBV 5 but please correct me it could be OBV 4 ....the ribbon end seems somehow wrong longer on one (left side) could be a blockage

Reverse D OBV 7 wide and "narrow" date

sorry yes I should have listed the errors in Reverse D OBV 7 first off there do appear to be two date ypes ne with the date spaced wide and the other the 1 closer to the 6 one of the values in making these catalogues to share is that it forces me to re-examine and spot new things. In total I have 6 reverse D's if anyone is collecting data The first error I think has been noticed before with a 1 over 1 but in the example I have the 6 is also doubled image of 1 over 1 6 restamp on the obverse the B of BRITT is over a B wide date and "narrow " date

HAIF REVERSE E Best if I start with reverse E the LCW , whilst my favourite is reverse F there are any errors in reverse E's I have collected a sample of 30 , 18 of them have some type of error , of course there is nothing statistic in this sample as I select out errors. I will start with the reverse and then proceed to the obverses unless there is something interesting associated with something unusual on the reverse The HAIF error exists on a few half pennies two in 1860 . there is an interesting obverse die break again through the R in BRITT

1861 B OVER R . The 1861 half penny seems to more packed with errors than the 1860 some errors in the proper sense and many restamp errors. I remember a conversation a few years back when the debate on varieties came up which pretty much went along the lines of ignore them there simply is not enough space to list them all. Perhaps this is true. Previously a Geologist it makes me think where would we be if someone said " ignore the microfossils, they cannot be seen so what value is there in them" . Someday someone may be able to gain some value so here goes. The first two are B over R's the second two are suspect a die break I think that joins the B and the R giving the impression of an R over a B . I have never seen as example of the R over B but this is not it

Thank you . When I started collecting in 2015 I had no interest other than to think all these varieties were a bit navel gazing but as time went on my peculiar brain seems to like spotting them. I will start listing the 1861's now then the 62's I am sure it will help someone look for more. Congratulation with the HAIF, the L is partially present well there are fragments I will search for yours and compare ..