All Activity

Cheers, Rob…wishing you, your family, and all those you’re caring for, a happy and prosperous 2026. We just need more people to be kind without motive, without any expected reward, then there’s a chance for us all. Stay safe and healthy, my good man 🙏🥂

That's because he is a long term collector with a genuine understanding of claimed versus actual rarity. If you know your stuff, a lot of questiions are easily answered or never get asked in the first place

Also not helped by the 5/3s which leaves people wondering what the hell they've bought.

As the label says. Good luck to all

unfortunately 1735 and 36 are both common

1735 I struggled with that date too in my collection until I was able to compare examples of both dates.

nice obverse paddy

1735

Thank you.

I'd say definitely 1735. This is what the 1733 date looks like:

Hello, I bought this coin and the seller said it was a 1733 farthing, but it doesn't look like 1733, maybe 1735? Can anyone provide some insight?

Hello Diaconis On further thought I have doubts about this: D > a nominal 120 Troy-grain noble corresponds to 112½ Tower grains (120 × 450⁄480). Tractus de Ponderibus makes the sterling penny 32 rather than 30 grains - so applies a "Tower wheat grain" smaller than the "Troy wheat grain" Thus I would assume the notional calculation you are reaching for would make a nominal 120 Troy-grain noble correspond to 128 such "Tower Grains" (120 x 480/450) Did I miss something? Regards Rob

Dear Diaconis, Delighted to find we exactly agree regarding observed weights. D > There is no evidence¹ It looks as though you intended to footnote this claim – is that the case? I would much like to get reference to any published sources you favour backing up your position here. Broadly, we are at cross purposes. In general you are addressing the use of words, I am addressing the understanding of things. I agree the Troy weight system apparently got that name around the later 14th century, but hold that the system, as we know it, existed long long before that. Readers should note that there are two later 20th century official English publications on the topic, both HMSO publications from the London Science Museum. Skinner in 1967 tentatively hints that the ultimate origins of Troy weight standards were in Egypt, maybe as early as 4,000 BC. Connor in 1987 tentatively associated them with the metrological reforms of Nero. Meanwhile it is implicit in Grierson (and explicit in both Skinner and Connor) that both standards were a single system already existing in the Anglo-Saxon period. D > a nominal 120 Troy-grain noble corresponds to 112½ Tower grains (120 × 450⁄480). To the best of my knowledge there are only two documents even positing the existence of such a “Tower grain”. One is the famous, (or perhaps infamous) “Tractus de Ponderibus” of the early 13th century. In 1987 Connor (p. 125) called that account “simply not true”. The other is a single obscure internal mint document brought to light by Stewart Lyon. From personal discussion with Stewart I know he was later open to the suggestion that that was just an ephemeral 13th century matter. D > In this respect, Tower and Troy weights did not derive from one another but descend from a shared metrological ancestry. A tantalising suggestion that maybe we are closer than you otherwise suggest? It seems overwhelmingly probable to me that Tower was merely a coin weight, derived from a Troy bullion standard, by a gross charge on coining, by weight, of 15/16. That such had roots at least in the Anglo Saxon period is explicit in Skinner and Connor, and implied by Grierson. Meanwhile - what “shared metrological ancestry” do you posit? Finally, I met the delightful Henri Pottier, and corresponded with Elsen, Doyen and de Callatay. Now I get further evidence that metrological study thrives in Belgium 🙂 Meanwhile I get no reply here at all, from anyone in the Britain, concerning this, the foundation stone of our “pre-decimal” coinage. 😞 All the Best for 2026 Rob Tye

Ah yes I see it now.

No, it’s definitely CIVI TAS, the AS is very clear and there are four characters beginning with C in the CIVI quarter. Always worth looking out for spelling and positional errors though, I’ve got a Henry III penny of Hereford reading HENRICS , also a known variety. Jerry

I’m intrigued by the 2024 mintage figures of sets (25,000) vs circulation (0). Does this mean that the 2024 definitive coins will be highly collectible because of such low mintages or that they will be considered alongside commemorative issues such as Star Wars 50p’s, etc, so of little interest? And how would anyone differentiate them from the set coins (maybe apart from condition) if the mintage of, say the 2024 20p, was 1,000 for circulation rather than 0? I accept that 2023 was an exception given that the set coins had the privy mark on the obverse, which I believe would clearly define them as not intended for circulation and akin to commemorative issues. If the 2024 coins are considered non-circulating then surely the same logic should have been applied to coins such as the 1950 and 1951 pennies (which I’m pretty sure all penny collectors will have in their collections, but were only struck for circulation in Bermuda and the Bahamas) which were not meant to circulate in the UK, and even more so to the 1933, which was obviously never struck for circulation? I’m just curious as to what would make a circulation vs non-circulation strike of an otherwise identical coin (obviously I’m discounting proofs and/or precious metal versions).

Are you sure that the second isn't TAS/CIVI/LON/DON? That's a known class 9b pernny error reverse legend. The diameter would help of course

H, Obviously I don't know what type of scales you have but "1 gram each" sounds a bit rounded to me and could mean anything from 0.50 to 1.49g. . Do your scales not display 100ths of a gram? BTW, diameters are also important for aiding ID, preferably in tenths of a mm. For reference my Edward pennies weigh between 1.24 and 1.43g each and have diameters of 17.8 to 20.4 mm. With Short cross pennies a cut half could weigh 0.53g (so 1 gram) and a full coin 1.43g (also 1 gram). You'd be surpised what we could come up with given as much infomation as possible, some of which cannot be gleaned from a photo. Steve

Not gloating on the cricket as well as the weather Bahh humbug

PS sorry about the rant, H, I love your enthusiasm, you’ve woken the forum up a bit…but PLEASE buy some scales, they cost pennies and halve the effort required in identifying your coins.

Yes, both are pennies given the weights. For a complete coin, weight is usually a good starting point. You really need to use the information and guidance available to you and become your own ‘expert’ rather than relying on others who clearly don’t care what they tell you. Jerry

I meant printings, not editions. I know about the 1985 edition, but I imagine there may well have been more than one printing of the 1970 edition?

Hey, H, I personally think both the coins are pennies tbh! You have been majorly misled by the idea that one is a farthing, it’s ridiculous! As for myself I feel really uncomfortable with you setting ‘expert’ against ‘expert’ to attain provenance/identity, etc.…it all sits very uncomfortably with me, personally, especially when you can’t even provide a basic weight, at nothing beyond the cost of around £15. Speaking only for myself…I’m looking for your personal, and financially minimal commitment of weight in the future!

Hello Jerry, I have the scales that show they weigh 1 gram each, I took additional photos using a more up to date technology.... both coins are in a truly worn out condition so I was surprised that anything could be discovered....