1860 farthing - obverse 2 or 3?

[mrbadexample 985]

Hi all, 

I'm trying to work out which obverse this farthing has, 2 or 3:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxBRenK8v0n-dHJMWktMMk1tbmc/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxBRenK8v0n-NmtSczMwbVNjeVk/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxBRenK8v0n-dzRxUzNlUnNta0k/view?usp=sharing

Referring to Freeman's bronze coinage isn't quite as easy as I'd hoped. I'm sure I'll be ok once I've got my eye in and I know what I'm looking for, but at the moment I'm struggling a bit. Especially with specimens that aren't in the highest grade. Hopefully the photos will give enough detail for someone to be certain. I think I know which it is but would like verification please.

Cheers,

MBE

Edited February 8, 2016 by mrbadexample

[Colin G. 147]

That would be Obverse 3, you do get used to them with time....this may help

http://aboutfarthings.co.uk/A10%20Victorian%20obverses.html

[mrbadexample 985]

Thank you Colin. I had just about convinced myself that it was obverse three, but those pictures help, especially with the location of the berries.

[IanB 175]

Colin,

thank you also for the link, as a newcomer to coin collecting the information especially the part about  errors was very useful.

i only have a couple of Farthings so far but in the future I hope to add a few more.

 

Ian

[Colin G. 147]

It does not seem that long ago that I was staring at Obverses and Reverses trying to figure them out, it is surprising how obvious they become with time. Just keep looking and you will start to identify the differences. I know it can be a bit daunting when you start out, but asking is the best way...otherwise you can drive yourself crazy 

[mrbadexample 985]

Right then, if I'm getting the hang of it, this

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxBRenK8v0n-RFpzTjJLNE00QWs/view?usp=sharing

is obverse 2, and this

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxBRenK8v0n-OURSY051c0lJU0U/view?usp=sharing

is obverse 3. Both 1861. Seems the easiest way to differentiate between these two is the linear circle under the bust.

[mrbadexample 985]

Colin, am I right in thinking that the differing reverses don't take into account the date? i.e. you can have an 1875 reverse C, with and without the Heaton mint mark (and thus different numeral sizes).

[mrbadexample 985]

Or perhaps a better example, the 1879 reverse C with large & small nines?

[Colin G. 147]

Your obverses above are correct....with the reverses it is more to do with the intended data figure size rather than what does occur (large 9) which is just a datal anomaly. The best identifier on these is either to count the border teeth if you are bored  one has 130 and the other has 134, or failing that the Reverse B has hollows at the base of the trident prongs whereas Reverse C does not.

1875H are always Reverse C, as are the 1875 small date, but 1875 large date are Reverse B.

 

[mrbadexample 985]

Next question then please Colin, do you think this is the 1865/2, or is is too worn to be able to say?

 

[Colin G. 147]

Yes that is most definitely an 1865/2 farthing. Interesting to also note that several different dies carry the alteration, must have been quite a few dies recycled in this year.

[mrbadexample 985]

4 hours ago, Colin G. said:

Yes that is most definitely an 1865/2 farthing. Interesting to also note that several different dies carry the alteration, must have been quite a few dies recycled in this year.

Thanks for the positive ID.  Yes, you've a few on your site I see. Is it just experience of many examples that allows you to be confident? (To me it's a "that might just possibly be a 5 over something") 

[Colin G. 147]

I always try and hold off classifying a variety until I get a clear indisputable example. This has been achieved with the 1865/2 and then once you see one of the clear examples, you can pretty much spot a lower grade example with almost certainty.

 

[mrbadexample 985]

That first picture's great, thanks. Even shows a similar break in the top right of the underlying 2.

[copper123 1,352]

At one time 1865/3 was thought to exist as well but I have never been convinced with any coin i have seen - u ever seen any likely canidates colin?

[Colin G. 147]

I am the same still not convinced, I have a couple of candidates but none of them have ever seemed clear enough to be sure. I meant to do some overlays as well, but never got around to it....perhaps a mini project for this weekend!

[mrbadexample 985]

Incidentally, my 1865/2 in the above picture was sold to me (years ago) as a 1865/3, something I declined to mention when asking the question. I've not previously had the technology to look at the detail in good close up, and I have to say I'm happier with the 5/2 verdict (especially having seen your first picture of same).

 

[mrbadexample 985]

So Colin, to continue (just let me know if you get bored!), what makes a mis-strike / defect / weak strike of interest? 

For example, you have on your site an 1862 with RFG instead of REG. Is this cause by a filled / clogged die, or the wrong letter on the die? Why is it important? When I look at my 1862, I'm (mostly) missing the top of the first T in BRITT, part of the C in VICTORIA and it has only one stop in the colon after the D in F:D: Is any of that significant?

[mrbadexample 985]

[Colin G. 147]

You are asking all the right questions!!!

This is one of those questions that will result in a different response depending on who you speak to. For many of the purists such things would not get included in a list of varieties, and it is with good reason, because as Rob Pearce often says you can end up doing a die study if you are not careful and in reality a die study of one date of Victorian farthing would be a quite boring task and would not really fascinate many people. However many people do often get interested in varieties for numerous reasons and the problem then starts when you try to decide upon a set of boundaries for inclusion/exclusion.

Design types - are generally accepted as being "intentional" changes in design for numerous reasons (change of monarch, periodic updates, change in design etc) and these can be quite clearly defined although there are some of these that are questionable (as previously mentioned I am still not convinced that the changes to the bronze farthing between Reverse C and D were intentional and are nothing more than the result of polishing of a master die/hub....still mulling this one over.

Matrix/master die varieties - Very often/assumed to be unintentional features that repeat over a number of working dies as a result, and are an area where I think there is some merit in study. The stop after F:D shown above is one example. It is my opinion that depending on how the design was put together legend first/bust second or vice versa then a change in legend at this point occurs. This can be determined by noticing that patterns do occur across certain Obverse types and dates, however this can be further complicated by some die sinkers touching up this aspect on some individual working dies. Examples can be found with a single upper stop, a full upper stop and a partial lower stop (assumed to occur when the legend was applied first), or a full colon which almost cuts into the back of the bust (assumed to be due to the fact that the bust was applied first). 

Another example would be the 1839 farthing where a set combination of legend dots and prong numbers is encountered, which does not indicate progressive die wear (because farthings at stages in between would be encountered), but more an issue when the working die was taken from a master die or when a master die was struck from a matrix.

Working die varieties - A variety that occurs on a single working die and as a result can still repeat across numerous coins but is limited to a specific die and therefore date. This is the awkward category because you can often get issues such as progressive deterioration and die fill which can occur and really is no more than a striking flaw....however even so many of these do become collectable varieties. Such as the various "raised dot" varieties across farthing/pennies.

What determines which become collectable is pretty much pot luck!! However when cataloguing it is important to have boundaries and stick to them. I have never dismissed die fill because it can be as a result of a master die variety and the only way to determine this is by getting to see how many examples exist and comparing them for signs of flaw progression. The RFG varieties have been included purely because I have encountered several examples that have been consistent in appearance. However whether this is due to grease in the die I don't suppose we will ever really know for certain, and a letter that has the appearance of another will always grab attention. 

This has been one of the problems with publication, I find I am constantly studying dates/topics which sway my opinion on inclusion, and therefore the goalposts keep moving...I am sure I will just make a decision at some point.......apologies for the essay!!! 

[mrbadexample 985]

11 minutes ago, Colin G. said:

.......apologies for the essay!!! 

Make no apology! In fact, thanks for taking the trouble to pen such a detailed reply - it really does help. 

From my own point of view, I started by collecting the date run 1860-1956. Having done that, obviously I needed a 1860 beaded border as it's quite different to the toothed and to my mind, clearly a different coin. Heaton mint marks? Of course - they're still clearly different. Large 9? Hmmm... Close sixes? Maybe... And so it goes on. 

Personally, I don't much like my 1862. The imperfections to the C and T, and lack of a second stop in the colon detract from the coin. It means I need a better one with all the detail intact. Each to their own, of course, but it is difficult to know where to draw the line, and I haven't quite decided yet either.

As for reverses C&D - I'll let you know when I get there. I've only got as far as 1866.  Flippin' USB microscope - now I've got to examine every letter and every number of every coin. It makes everything look worse - look at the state of the date in what I previously thought was a half decent 1860BB - I need a new one of those now! 

 

 

[Colin G. 147]

Put that on eBay as farthing dated 860...it will fly!!!

It is such a lengthy topic to discuss... the sort of topic that needs a book 

 

[mrbadexample 985]

10 minutes ago, Colin G. said:

It is such a lengthy topic to discuss... the sort of topic that needs a book 

 

Hurry!

To cap it all I'm confusing myself. The above defects are on an 1861 (Obv 2), not an 1862. I expect you knew that but were too polite to say. 

[mrbadexample 985]

Righto, I've got to 1873 now! Can you tell me if you think this is a 7/7 please? The (only) reason I suspect it might be is the thickness of the top bar of the 7.

 

 

[Colin G. 147]

Now this is where they grey gets really grey, I will not even consider a recut letter/digit, unless it is obvious to the naked eye or again an indisputable/obvious recut.