Unusual 1718 Halfpenny.

[Rob 3,002]

The biggest diameter piece I have is also 27.5. Although they are not supposed to have been struck in a collar, mine has remarkably sharp edges for one struck without restraint. Nicholson 172 applies in this case.

Yes. Thank you Rob. I see the Nicholson 172 is the same diameter. Mine is much more 'irregular' in shape though? Do you have anything to add regarding the no stops and E over B?

Nothing that hasn't been discussed before.

The point Stuart raises about damaged punches has some mileage in it because you see intermittent composite letters right up to George III. Although not on the scale seen during the 1695 recoinage, the mint employees would still be using the same stop-gap measures they used 20 years earlier, or as indeed you would do today if you didn't have the correct tool. It could be a B, but a high grade example would be better to confirm or dispel the idea.

The existence of the no obverse stops is a moot point in my view. Nicholson 172 has very tiny pimples where the stops should be. The question is whether they are filled stops or whether they were lightly punched guides that were never bottomed. It is reasonable that guide points would be used to get the legend spacing correct just as you see wire line circles on hammered coins. This in my view makes it a legend with stops because you can see something there, but if they were never punched in to completion, does this make it a no stops variety? Because the coins used by Peck in the BM to categorise it as a variety are not in high grade, it makes the variety suspect and open to debate. Add wear and you can eliminate any detail, so ambiguous varieties such as this should really be confirmed with as struck coins rather than on a whim. My coin is only gVF and doesn't qualify.

It doesn't please the variety collectors to hear of a reduction in numbers, as they need a continuous fix of established and unrecorded varieties to search for and expand their collections.

As regards an irregular flan, this is an occupational hazard when you use a fly-press and no collar. In fact, I think it is surprising that no examples have crossed my path any larger than 27.5mm. Although production will have been a monotonous exercise, every so often you would expect that the person put more or less effort into the job, or you might find that the blanks were annealed softer than usual. All of these things can potentially lead to an inconsistent product. I used to have a G2 halfpenny (attached) which had a significantly spread flan. You can see the diameter of the die within the perimeter. Obviously the lack of detail to the high points is as a result of the metal filling the room rather than the die detail, because it was probably much as struck.

[Paulus 1,942]

I would dare anyone to challenge Rob in this area, you won't get a better response anywhere!