Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

Very pleased with the comments on the 14 + N above. Thank you.

Not eBay. A Canadian seller. 19 Dollars Inc postage. Converts to around £11. Expected end of Nov.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in Iain Dracott's article in the November Coin News - I'm assuming that the C1 and J1 reverses he talks about are the C# and J# from his 2004 articles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mr T said:

So in Iain Dracott's article in the November Coin News - I'm assuming that the C1 and J1 reverses he talks about are the C# and J# from his 2004 articles?

Will try and pick up a copy tomorrow. Is it an update to his 2004 work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zo Arms said:

Will try and pick up a copy tomorrow. Is it an update to his 2004 work?

Let me know if you can't and I'll send a scan. I don't like to criticise but the penny section contains numerous narrative descriptions that really need photographic examples and there are a few errors, such as 1861 pennies with the "2" in various positions !!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

Will try and pick up a copy tomorrow. Is it an update to his 2004 work?

I haven't looked closely to see if there is anything new but it's just a two page summary of new farthing, halfpenny and penny varieties since Freeman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2021 at 6:40 AM, Mr T said:

So in Iain Dracott's article in the November Coin News - I'm assuming that the C1 and J1 reverses he talks about are the C# and J# from his 2004 articles?

Seems like a fair assumption to me. The C1/# is mentioned in conjunction with 1873, so highly likely. Paired with 7, 3 now known. Guessing Martin's and Gary's are included.

A new obverse. 11*. And a couple of unique pairings, now have siblings.

If J#  has now become J1 but was formerly known as J,  I can't see that becoming confusing. Ever.

So, yes. An update on his previous article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dracott describes the article as an update to his 2004 article but it's inconsistent to arbitrarily replace #suffixes with 1. He also describes 1873 7+C1 as a new die pairing with 3 known. I assume that this is the same as the previous 7+C# which was unique at the time of his 2004 article but, in theory could be an additional die pairing if C1 is "new" and different from C#.

The new article deserves expansion together with photos to illustrate the new varieties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the 8 +C# that was unique in his 2004 article. He doesn't list a 7 + C#. 

In a thread started by Gary "NEW UNLISTED VARIETY 1873 HALF-PENNY" Dec 8th 2008, his is the first known, with Martin listing a second, further down the thread. A new pairing since 2004.

But yes. Inconsistent to give it a second, different suffix. 

Could it just be a typesetting error? The 1862 mistake in the penny section. Parings instead of pairings, at least 3 times.

Edited by Zo Arms
Typesetting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies - you're quite right. I need to keep out of this as this is not my area of expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, secret santa said:

My apologies - you're quite right. I need to keep out of this as this is not my area of expertise.

A little harsh on yourself. All views are valid. I'm a relative newcomer and had to flick between the new Freeman, the new and old Dracott and the threads here, to make sure that I was correct. And to check that there was no C1.

Are his penny listings useful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also find it strange that Mal Lewendon's 1875 obverse 13# has no mention. 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 11* is new - probably need a photo to make sense of it but a recut tie ribbon and overlapping berries make it sound a bit easier to diagnose than Freeman obverses 11 and 12.

1877 13+N also looks new though I'm not sure what the comment is getting as the obverse and reverse are both well-known.

1880 15+O* also looks new but based on the comment about all four die pairings, 15*+P* would seem to be the die. Or maybe it's meant to be 1881 where 15+O* was reported by him in 2004. Also I assume O* is Dracott O#.

Nothing new in the farthings that I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mr T said:

So 11* is new - probably need a photo to make sense of it but a recut tie ribbon and overlapping berries make it sound a bit easier to diagnose than Freeman obverses 11 and 12.

I'm inclined to take this with a pinch of salt. I'm not totally convinced that there's a deliberate design difference between obverse 11 and 12 let alone an additional obverse 11*. A high resolution photograph of a high grade example is essential before we accept this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2021 at 7:32 PM, Zo Arms said:

Are his penny listings useful?

Not really - subjective descriptions without photographic evidence (such as Michael Gouby's) are fairly meaningless, in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, secret santa said:

I'm inclined to take this with a pinch of salt. I'm not totally convinced that there's a deliberate design difference between obverse 11 and 12 let alone an additional obverse 11*. A high resolution photograph of a high grade example is essential before we accept this.

I don't disagree, but the comparators did seem more helpful than the subjective neck thickness and nose hookedness.

Does anyone have Iain Dracott's details to get some more information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little help please. Thinking this is obverse 13. I'm using the last colon of F:D: as my identifier, in relation to the linear circle. Sellers photo.

Alternatively, confirmation that it's not 11, would be equally helpful.

Screenshot_2021-11-19-22-32-03-965.jpg

Edited by Zo Arms
Addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure - of the notes I've made for myself the only thing I can make out well enough is those bottom two berries and I think on obverse 13 they should be different sizes, whereas on obverse 11/12 they are the same size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

A little help please. Thinking this is obverse 13. I'm using the last colon of F:D: as my identifier, in relation to the linear circle. Sellers photo.

Alternatively, confirmation that it's not 11, would be equally helpful.

Screenshot_2021-11-19-22-32-03-965.jpg

It looks like a 13*, let's see the reverse ! is it J, K* or L ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bernie said:

It looks like a 13*, let's see the reverse ! is it J, K* or L ?

What is 13* and its reference? Not Mal Lewenden's 13# ?? (Now 2 known, I understand). The latter has the two Ts of BRITT touching.

For me this is obverse 11, but willing to stand corrected with further info on 13*...

I agree that the reverse and date would be good to see to help tie it down!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Martinminerva said:

What is 13* and its reference? Not Mal Lewenden's 13# ?? (Now 2 known, I understand). The latter has the two Ts of BRITT touching.

For me this is obverse 11, but willing to stand corrected with further info on 13*...

I agree that the reverse and date would be good to see to help tie it down!

 

Obverse 13* and 13#, the same, just stating that it differs from 13. Obverse 13 has 133 border teeth, 13#/* has 132 teeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

A little help please. Thinking this is obverse 13. I'm using the last colon of F:D: as my identifier, in relation to the linear circle. Sellers photo.

Alternatively, confirmation that it's not 11, would be equally helpful.

Screenshot_2021-11-19-22-32-03-965.jpg

Based on the image, I don't believe it to be an obverse 13 which has uneven berries nor an obverse 13# where the upright of the R's point to a tooth.

Comparison of the image of the coin in question with images of obverses 11 & 12 and the corresponding respective descriptors lead me to believe it is an obverse 11.

Edited by Bronze & Copper Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

Based on the image I don't believe it to be a 13 which has uneven berries nor a 13# where the upright of the R's point to a tooth.

Comparison with images of 11 & 12 and the descriptors lead me to believe it is an obverse 11.

How do you explain the wide colon dots after F:D:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bernie said:

 

19 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

A little help please. Thinking this is obverse 13. I'm using the last colon of F:D: as my identifier, in relation to the linear circle. Sellers photo.

Alternatively, confirmation that it's not 11, would be equally helpful.

Screenshot_2021-11-19-22-32-03-965.jpg

It looks like a 13*, let's see the reverse ! is it J, K* or L ?

 

Definitely not 13* or 13# then - back of bun and TT in BRITT wrong (see Mal Lewenden's pic below).

Also, don't think it can be 13 as the visible berries are the same size - markedly different on 13, but same size on 11 and 12 as was pointed out above. Colons a fair shout, though, and not sure I can explain, unless wear or re-entering could account? I'm still going to plump for 11...

 

 

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Bernie said:

How do you explain the wide colon dots after F:D:

I reexamined the images and still think it is an obverse 11. To my eyes the spacing of the F:D: (letters and colon) match closer to obverse 11 than 12.

Possibly slightly reminiscent of obverse 13 which I eliminated due to the lack of uneven berries.

I also don't see the spacing as similar to obverse 13#, which, as I stated in the original post has the uprights of the R's in BRITT and REG pointing to a tooth. The coin in question has those 2 features pointing to spaces.

Again however, images can be deceiving, although unintentionally, and the best assessment is done coin in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×