1876 H Thick Flan Half Penny F327

[Hussulo 6]

Hi all I recently picked up a thick flan 1876 H Half Penny, which I presume is Freeman 327 R18. The strange thing is that the date doesn’t seem to be as narrow as it should be i.e. reverse M. If you look at the picture in the book the top sheriff of the 6 is in line with the leftmost fold in Britannia's dress. On my coin it is in line with the second from the left, also I can't see any signs of a sandal on her foot. Could it be reverse K? Any thoughts, I haven't had much time to research it yet.

Pic 2 weight.

pic 3 date.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Hussulo

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

Hi all I recently picked up a thick flan 1876 H Half Penny, which I presume is Freeman 327 R18. The strange thing is that the date doesn’t seem to be as narrow as it should be i.e. reverse M. If you look at the picture in the book the top sheriff of the 6 is in line with the leftmost fold in Britannia's dress. On my coin it is in line with the second from the left, also I can't see any signs of a sandal on her foot. Could it be reverse K? Any thoughts, I haven't had much time to research it yet.

Pic 2 weight.

pic 3 date.

HI Hussulo,

I had watched the coin on ebay but had my doubts..... I had meant to email you about the coin to see whether it WAS a thick planchet...... Please keep me posted......

[Hussulo 6]

Hi BCC,

I received it today those are my pictures posted (sorry they aren't perfect just abit rushed tonight). It definitely is on a thicker planchet than normal and weighs 5.91 grams which is over weight (Freeman does not mention what F327 should weigh?). It is just about as thich as a young head half penny.

What I need to ascertain now is whether it is a reverse M or K. If it is K which my initial hunch points to then it is either unlisted or a thick planchet error.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Hussulo

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

Hi BCC,

I received it today those are my pictures posted (sorry they aren't perfect just abit rushed tonight). It definitely is on a thicker planchet than normal and weighs 5.91 grams which is over weight (Freeman does not mention what F327 should weigh?). It is just about as thich as a young head half penny.

What I need to ascertain now is whether it is a reverse M or K. If it is K which my initial hunch points to then it is either unlisted or a thick planchet error.

Freeman lists the thick planchet as 2.25 mm thick....

(Maybe I passed on a good buy???.. It happens).....

[Chingford 166]

Weight seems light,

Dr Nicholson 1874H Thick flan weighed 7.97grams similar to the 1876H Thick Flan mentioned in Pecks, Ex Hoblyn and Foster, 123.1 gr (7.97 grams).

Nicholsons was 2.5mm and Pecks 2.25mm thick.

Pecks combination for the 1876H was 9+M, sandal without straps, LH 3 windows 2+1 and Oval dome of hemet in high relief separated from the lowe part by a distinct incuse line.

John

[Hussulo 6]

I make it out to be exactly 2 mm thick on my not so trusty household measuring tape.

Link to more pictures.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Hussulo

[Chris Perkins 223]

I have some surpluss digital (100th mm) digital calipers if you want to invest in some. They're not on the website, I got them locally. Excellent quality with hard case, and only £25.00

[Hussulo 6]

Weight seems light,

Dr Nicholson 1874H Thick flan weighed 7.97grams similar to the 1876H Thick Flan mentioned in Pecks, Ex Hoblyn and Foster, 123.1 gr (7.97 grams).

Nicholsons was 2.5mm and Pecks 2.25mm thick.

Pecks combination for the 1876H was 9+M, sandal without straps, LH 3 windows 2+1 and Oval dome of hemet in high relief separated from the lowe part by a distinct incuse line.

John

Thanks John,

It definetly seems under weight, but it is thicker than standard?

[Chingford 166]

Only other information I have found is that M Freemans 1874H Thick flan was recorded as being 2mm thick, but no weight given, although Pecks gives a weight range of the series as being 84.4gr (5.469 grams) to 90.80gr (5.884 grams).

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

Footnote 11 in Freeman, lists the thickness as 2.25 mm..... No weight given.....

[Hussulo 6]

Thanks guys,

I have emailed Michael Freeman hopefully he can shed some more light on it.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 401]

Thanks guys,

I have emailed Michael Freeman hopefully he can shed some more light on it.

Excellent idea.... He can refer to his original notes.....

[Hussulo 6]

I recived an email from Michael:

"I have had a look at the posts on the website, and I think John (Chingford) has hit the mark.

Your coin is F.325. This has my reverse K*, and the constant and most obvious feature distinguishing it from reverse M is the wide date. On reverse M it is much narrower.

There are other features, as you know, but, as with the comparable penny reverses, this is the most obvious and easiest way to tell.

As for the weight, your coin equates to 91.28 grains, which is fractionally above the range given by Peck for the Bun Head halfpennies (max. 90.8g).

Although flans will vary, and yours may be possibly a fraction thicker than most, I think it is the COLLAR which you have measured, rather than the flan (planchet). To measure the latter, you would need calipers. I recollect that I had specimens of F.325 with a wide COLLAR, overlapping the surfaces, and I think your coin is one of these."

I am still happy with a "F.325 a wide COLLAR" variety outcome.

Next step measure the flan using digital callipers purchased from Chris.

[Chris Perkins 223]

They're on their way!

[Hussulo 6]

I measured the flan using the digital calipers (very well made, great bit of kit, highly recommended, thanks Chris). It measures 1.85mm. So I guess that makes it a F.325 as predicted by Michael and John.

Cheers,

Hus

[Ron 0]

Here's a dumb question - If you are measuring the width of a coin, what part do you measure?

Is it the collar, the centre of the coin through the effigies (which is probably the widest part except from the collar), or the thinnest part (probably the field)?

I just wanted to know for future reference.

[Rob 2,996]

Here's a dumb question - If you are measuring the width of a coin, what part do you measure?

Is it the collar, the centre of the coin through the effigies (which is probably the widest part except from the collar), or the thinnest part (probably the field)?

I just wanted to know for future reference.

Not so dumb. To verify if it is a thin or thick flan you have to weigh it. If you feel you must measure thickness you would have to choose the field, but bear in mind that die faces are not always flat and may be either convcave or convex leading to further error depending on where in the field you measure.

Later coins have a rim which causes problems deciding where to measure, but pre-1800 coppers mostly have no prominent rim because collars were not used with fly presses (allegedly) which makes measuring thickness easier but is not infallible when you consider the following.

Lot 350 in last month's Baldwin sale was listed as a P834 thick flan halfpenny because it had shedloads of excess metal to the rim and was 2-3mm thick at the edge, but only weighed as for a thin flan type being 10.87g. Nicholson's thick flan weighed 12.46g and was 2mm thick at the rim except for a 30 degree arc where very marginally thinner. The latter just about conforms to the minimum dimensions quoted by Peck for the thick flan. Therefore, given the metal is the same, the light weight of the Baldwin piece confirms its status as a thin flan type despite its appearance.

As an aside, the very prominent excess metal on the rims (as also found frequently on Anne halfpennies) suggests it may have been struck in a collar. According to accepted wisdom, collars were not used in the early 1700's but it is difficult to account for the metal rising vertically rather than spreading laterally. A topic for debating elsewhere rather than sabotage this thread.