1672 farthing. Loose drapery. 2 over ?

[Michael-Roo 777]

Hi all.

Today, for the first time in a long time, I've been looking through my farthing trays. I hadn't noticed before but one of my two 1672 loose drapery coins seems to have something going on underneath the 2 in the date. Photos attached.

[scott 129]

hard to tell with the pitting on it.

i need to get one myself.

[Coinery 926]

Could be a bit of damage to the die, similar to that which can be seen on the top bar of the 7, or on the upper tip of the 1????

Really difficult with these early dies unless die-matches can be made? Now, that's got to be a pet project for someone one day, there are more than enough viable C2 farthings still in existence to compile a pretty substantial library of dies...amazing for a 350 year old copper coin!

[Coinery 926]

It could of course be something under the two too!

[copper123 1,352]

This seems to be one of those varieties that farthing collectors dont really bother about not sure why along with 1834 and 1835 1823 roman I, 1853 ww incuse, 1855 ww raised and a few others .

I must admit I have one though

Edited July 13, 2015 by copper123

[Michael-Roo 777]

This seems to be one of those varieties that farthing collectors dont really bother about not sure why along with 1834 and 1835 1823 roman I, 1853 ww incuse, 1855 ww raised and a few others .

I must admit I have one though

Great. I'd not come across this before.

Is the overstrike any clearer on your example? What do you think the underlying number may be?

[copper123 1,352]

No I meant that the loose drapery is a variety that not many collectors bother with even though it is quite an important one

[scott 129]

it is listed.

and for there to be a number under the date, there would need to be earlier dates, and earlier dates using that die.

[Michael-Roo 777]

Good point Scott, but I suppose there's always the chance something else was entered in error first? Think of all the various letter overstrikes we see in early milled copper which have been made to correct spelling mistakes.

[copper123 1,352]

there is the 1671 pattern is there not that had loose drapery sorry don't have a copy of peck to hand but I am sure there is a 1671 loose drapery pattern.

[scott 129]

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&searchterm=Farthing+1671+Pattern&category=9&searchtype=1

quick google later, London coins has a 1671 farthing with picture

doesn't position of the 1 doesn't match whatever is under the 2.

Edited July 13, 2015 by scott

[Michael-Roo 777]

Interesting.

I've checked. If we discount what appears to be an extra bit, behind, and to the left of the foot of the 2 then what looks like an underlying upright IS in exactly the same place as the 1 on the 1671 pattern. The 7 is the same on both coins too.

[scott 129]

to me it looks like it starts at the bottom of the 2 and up to the exergue

i need some examples of these loose drapery reverses myself.

Edited July 14, 2015 by scott

[Michael-Roo 777]

Here's another close up of the 1672 date together with the same area from the 1671 coin. The underlying upright certainly appears to sit in exactly the same position as the 1.

[Michael-Roo 777]

A darker photo for comparison…...

[copper123 1,352]

To be sure I am sure that you need a higher grade example

[Michael-Roo 777]

As is the case whenever the possibility of a new variety is suggested this example is what we have to go on for now. Maybe another, clearer, example will surface as a result of this post.

[Rob 3,002]

The 1671 patterns in Peck don't match this 1672 die because the spacing and relative positions of NIA and stop are different. The I is rotated to a different position on the above example compard to the patterns, and if the same die would also require the flaws seen on P437 to be polished out. It doesn't eliminate the 1671 die being recut, indeed this would be in keeping with the need to save on production costs, but would require a problem free example to confirm.

[Michael-Roo 777]

Wise words, as always. Thanks Rob.

One thing I would add: the underlying upright is much more evident when viewed though a loupe 'in the hand' than it is in these rather poor overly enlarged photos.

[copper123 1,352]

copper123 quickly runs to his collection and checks his loose drapery

[copper123 1,352]

.... no it's not