1862 Farthing. Help Requested.

[Cliff 45]

Hello everyone, I'm new to this so please be gentle!

I've noticed previous postings on this forum re 1862 Farthing, small 8 over large 8. I have no knowledge of Farthings but noticed a ND Small '8' over large '8' in my Rotographic copy.

I have a coin that I think might qualify but have not been able to verify and attach some (not very good pics) of my coin in the hope that someone will see 'what I think I see' and can verify.

Regards

Cliff

[Coinery 926]

I wonder if you are meaning the fat 8, thin 8 variety?

Have you visited this yet: http://www.aboutfarthings.co.uk/Farthing%20-%201862.html

If the variety small 8 over large 8 existed, I would've expected to find it on Colin's site?

He'll probably be along to correct me shortly!

[Cliff 45]

Thanks very much for the prompt response. Whilst I don't (yet??) collect farthings, I've just had a quick look at Colin's site and am impressed by the wealth of 'visual' info shown there.

I'll be checking what few farthings I've accumulated over the years there shortly.

Cliff

[Colin G. 147]

Cliff the fat 8 and thin 8 details are included on my website for 1862 farthings. For 1862 the fat 8 farthing is much scarcer. The fatter style of 8 was then encountered on a proportion of farthings from 1863 through to 1865.

However I think in relation to your coin you are highlighting the much lower and wider bottom loop of the underlying 8. This is a type I have not yet been able to confirm with certainty, however I am aware of its existence. I also have an example in fairly low grade and I am convinced it may actually be a halfpenny sized 8 used in error, and overlays would seem to principally support the theory. However I need to see a higher grade example to be certain, so it is not yet included on the website. Yours would be the second example I have seen but that does not necessarily mean anything extra in terms of value...anyone else got one?

[hazelman 44]

Interesting 1825 farthing - date looks as though its been messed with

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/frederickalangibson/1825%20farthing_zpsdglywcdv.jpg

[Cliff 45]

Thanks Colin. Following earlier advice I'd had a look at your site and seen the very helpful info on the thin verses fat 8 (thanks for the pointer George) but, as you'd correctly zoomed in on, my pondering's were regarding a small 8 over a large 8. You describe exactly what 'I think I'm seeing' and can only apologise that my photographic attempts don't capture fully what I see/think is there. Reckon the halfpenny 8 stamp you suggest would cover it.

Whilst the coin itself is quite decent it's sod's law that the date area is perhaps not as good. I'll have another go 'when the sun is next out' as my photographic/lighting-skills (?) depend heavily upon what light comes through my window!

Regards to all

Cliff

[Coinery 926]

There you go, Cliff, what did I tell you!

[Colin G. 147]

Cliff, I would also be interested in full images of both sides of the coin if you can provide them. They can be e-mailed to me directly, so I can compare the dies.

[Cliff 45]

Evening All

For your info: Have sent full images to Colin for him to look at with his expert eye. Please see attached couple of pics to keep you in the picture (awful pun!).

The outline of the lower face can be seen on on the Rev pic (result of clashed dies). I don't know how often this is found on Farthings but is common enough on early QV Pennies.

Cliff

[zookeeperz 470]

Hi guys Just looked in the Rotographic 2015 Collectors Coins GB 1797-1970. Farthings page 14. Both those farthing varietis are listed . Large fat 8 and next in the list is Small 8 over large 8. Which I think is as pointed out a halfpenny size 8. Dossn't surprize me as I have seen the lettering do the same thing. As in left side of the coin lettering in larger font than the right hand side. Particularly with the size of the A's. As for the 1825 date. It's nothing unusual. I would imagine in that era. The standard of education and dyslexia ran rife. It would surely go some way to explain some of the many unfathomable strikes re-punches etc. I am just glad we have them

Rich

[Colin G. 147]

Rich the 1862 large 8 and small 8 are a different subject. The 1862 large 8 is actually a different style of digit which would be better described as a fat 8. Where the alternative thinner 8 is encountered it is often recut over the "fat" style 8.

The example above involves a digit which is substantially much bigger in size than the thin or fat 8.

It is also important to note that the issue of the sizing of the A in the legend on the 1825 farthings would appear to more to do with die fill/deterioration. The legend font is not a different size, but has deteriorated/become filled with debris which has the effect of making the lettering appear smaller in size. Finding a farthing of this type without any recut/legend deterioration can in itself be quite a challenge!!