1865 Farthing 8/8 ?

[davidrj 194]

I've never really bothered with farthings, they were out of circulation by the time I started collecting, but over the years I've accumulated some and thought it might be nice to complete a simple date set (most are pretty dire ex circulation)

So help with this 1865 please

The 8 looks fatter than the descriptions of fat 8 for 1865, is this an 8 over 8?? also something under the 5?

Edited December 14, 2015 by davidrj

[Nordle11 564]

Looks like reverse 1 obverse A, with a 5 over a possible 3?

I'm not sure on the 8 however, I think it might just be flat from wear, I can't find any reference to the 8 being overstruck..

[Rob 2,996]

Could the 8 be over a misplaced 1? i.e. started the date too far to the right. I would have thought it was a bit late for such things as I think the mint were only adding the last two digits by hand at this point, but it looks a bit regular for a flaw and it is difficult to see how an 8 punch could give this appearance.

[Nordle11 564]

I should add that Colin Cooke's refers to 2 varieties of 8, one being thin and one being thick. Perhaps this is the thick variety?

I still think the 5 is struck over something though, you can see something protruding at the tip of the 5.

[InforaPenny 21]

Although I'm not a farthing specialist, this looks like the scarce "large 8" 1862 farthing to me. Worth a premium even in low grade.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

[davidrj 194]

Looking at Colin's farthing site, I'm thinking - large 8 over normal 8 and 5 over 3

[davidrj 194]

Looking at Colin's farthing site, I'm thinking - large 8 over normal 8 and 5 over 3

Something like this?

[Colin G. 147]

My first reaction would have been that the light patch was caused by surface damage and therefore the side of the 8 has been squashed. However if you are adamant that it is not damage, then the fat 8 over thin 8 would also be a possibility. The 5 I would suggest is a recut 5, with just the tip of the 5 still evident. Still not convinced on the 5/3 theory, but one which I am literally on the edge of trying to prove/disprove. I have a pool of 1865 coins to study closely to see whether it is even feasible (using overlays) that an 1865/3 could exist. I think it may just be fill on the digit caused by a recut 5.

I will try and resolve shortly

[davidrj 194]

Thanks Colin, I don't think it's PMD

[bhx7 222]

Is there not something protruding out from the top of the 6 there too!