1879 Halfcrown

[Bruce 163]

I bought this 1879 Halfcrown from ebay months ago, and found date style of this one is a bit different from other 1879 Halfcrown, don't know whether it is down to worn or not.  Would like to seek advice from other members if this coin has problem.  Thanks.

[Sword 1,330]

The date looks OK to me. The numbers are somewhat fatter due to wear I think.

[Half 2]

I'm not convinced about the limited amount of wear having much infuence on the interiors of the "8" or "9" even allowing for the inside edge to be slightly bevelled - images of similarly worn coins appear to have larger interiors and I have not ( in ten minutes) been able to trace any currency examples with an 8 or 9 similar to Bruce's specimen.  However, an 1879 proof does seem to have slightly thicker 8s and 9s to currency examples. In Bruce's specimen, the "7" is also thicker than normal, but some variety in this character does exist in currency specimens, so why not thicker 8s and 9s.  Perhaps useful to check the size and weight of the coin.

[Bruce 163]

 

20 hours ago, Half said:

I'm not convinced about the limited amount of wear having much infuence on the interiors of the "8" or "9" even allowing for the inside edge to be slightly bevelled - images of similarly worn coins appear to have larger interiors and I have not ( in ten minutes) been able to trace any currency examples with an 8 or 9 similar to Bruce's specimen.  However, an 1879 proof does seem to have slightly thicker 8s and 9s to currency examples. In Bruce's specimen, the "7" is also thicker than normal, but some variety in this character does exist in currency specimens, so why not thicker 8s and 9s.  Perhaps useful to check the size and weight of the coin.

That's my concern since having it on hand.  By the way, just measure it again, it's 14.1g and 32.1mm, so should be within the tolerance.

[Sword 1,330]

 

Your date is on the left and the date of an example sold by London Coins Auction is on the right for comparison. 

If you balance the coin on a finger and gently tap on the edge with another coin, you can hear if it rings like silver. Copper coins and nickel coins sound very different to silver when tapped this way. (Try out on some scrap coins and you will see what I mean). Wear a glove if the coin still has residual lustre and you want to be extra careful. (Obviously, you won't want to do that with an UNC coin). The coin should be genuine if it is made of silver. 

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Sword

[blakeyboy 1,601]

.....or try the magnet slide test....the eddy currents in silver ( the best conductor) oppose the magnet and it will slide down very slowly.

You have to be careful with alloys- it all depend on what the additive metal does with stopping electrons moving about.

If copper is 100 conductivity as a datum, silver is 105.

Aluminium is around 71.

Brass is a _big_ surprise- mainly copper, but the zinc binds the electrons, so it's only around 30 at best....

Solder- lucky to get 10.....

[VickySilver 775]

Another “typical”:

 

[VickySilver 775]

Thanks fellas! 

Personally I don't get too bent out of shape or size of datals/date, and other bits such as dentil shape and regularity - that is unless they are severely out of line. The OP coin does not match digits in coins I am familiar with but must confess that unless remarkable just don't get too excited by them. You will notice that the datals on mine vary from the OP and that posted by Sword.

The rest of the coin looks acceptable for a somewhat worn specimen, and I like the 1879 date for some reason which is possibly because there were some silver of that date which are a bit scarcer (ie shillings).