Rob

Obverse 3 narrow rim, the I of GRATIA points to a dot. Obv. 4 wide rim the I points to the right of a dot. The legend is also closer to the border on the wide rim.

From what you are saying, I'm not sure this is the right way to go. Surely the info you need is the price you paid for it a this will have a more significant role in any insurance claim than any theoretical price for a coin in what will be a subjective grade, slabbed or otherwise. Any prices given by Spink, this Coin Elite program, Krause, CCGB or any other publication can only be an approximation to the market value as these change on a daily basis and from dealer to dealer, auction to auction. Unless the programmers have an all encompassing pricing database (which for $79 I doubt) it is unlikely to be very accurate. Very few coins are precisely Fine, VF, EF or UNC and so these prices are inevitably fairly meaningless. All pricing info also leads the average collector to inaccurate assessments of value because most people overgrade their coins.

Freeman doesn't list a narrow rim 1970 1/2d and I've certainly never seen or heard of one. The only varieties of 1970 are 2 ship sizes, 21.5 and 21.7 mm wide listed as Freeman reverses I & K respectively.

Good fine, certainly doesn't make VF

Fathings are quite common as are sort after cions, unique 1967 peennies, hlaf crwons and crwons, floorings, florians, peenies, penny's, shilings, hammerd victroian and gerogian etc. Kant ne1 spel? Amny thnaks for reading this diatribe.

Although not farthings, so possibly a distraction to the debate, there are examples of both halfpenny and penny proofs with defective dates or lettering. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there would also be imperfect farthings.

Freeman estimated the rarities as follows. The narrow rim version rarity C18 (75-100 million in existence), the wide rim rarity C8 (15-17.5 million in existence). Both common enough to be given away with a packet of Cornflakes.

For what it is worth, here is a close up of the same area on my 1853. The remains of the stop can just be seen. So I still say blocked die and therefore not a genuine variety.

My 1853 1/4d has the same feature. I looks like it is due to blocked dies though as the ebay close up image has what could be the remnants of the lower stop. This is also just visible on mine as a dot of reduced area in very low relief.

Half price unwanted bottles of Jamesons.

I would suggest it's probably letter punches purchased from two separate sources. If you look at the widow head half crowns (Davies 660-674), some have a flat base and some have an indented base at the same point as those on the coins above. I don't think it would add significant value.

Jamesons Jamesons Jamesons Jamesons .......... Paracetamol

Certainly do and sorry, that was just a dig to your reference on another thread that you prefer a gVF to an EF. I must atone and being the season of goodwill to all, wish you an almost merry Christmas.

It'll cost him more in food to replenish the energy spent in typing that lot out. There may be some enjoyment in the yeras of energy though. Never experienced this.

Fair is a grade only found on tin pieces and 1685 James 2nd plume reverse shillings in the eyes of many on eBay because these are the only milled pieces in Spink where it is mentioned. There are precious few hammered either, the only ones noticed during a quick flick through being the portcullis and greyhound overstamps of Edward VI from Elizabeth 1st. Accordingly, with Spink being the most widely read as the bible of collecting, fair has to be absolutely dire and only used in extenuating circumstances and all else has honorary fine status irrespective of grade as an absolute minimum. Good doesn't exist, nor does poor. A further rant. Northeast Numismatics have an 1893 proof shilling graded PR67. The note on the website says it all. "Could 68 today". Coins in slabs don't mature like a fine wine, they can only degenerate from chemical reaction. If they get higher grades the longer they are slabbed, it makes a mockery of grading. If you like less than perfect coins, there are a few mishandled proofs and patterns out there to collect

I marked yours down because of the flat areas on the reverse where I wouldn't expect so much flattening and because obverses are usually better, so wouldn't have expected so much loss of laurel detail. Unless of course there is die infilling to consider which is difficult from a picture. Weakness in the head area of the reverse seems to be endemic in early copper and tin until you get to Anne with the exception of some of the W&M proofs. If you look at Nicholson's pictures, all of his Charles 2nd have weak reverses even when virtually as struck as do my pieces. This is continued through the tin series and even up to the end of William. There is a marked increase in design relief with the last W3 issue where his best two currency reverses were 108 and 147, but these aside only 138 came anywhere close and here you have to allow for wear. The improvement in relief on this issue is offset to a great extent by the manufacturing standards which at their best are crap with most worse. A dire issue in all senses. Re my farthing, I was just interested how a farthing collector would grade it, not having much interest in farthing personally. I am quite willing to stick my neck out and say I feel many are overgraded on dealers' sites or maybe it's just that I also grade with an overemphasis on eye-appeal.

I totally concur. The problem with limited editions is there is no upper limit. Even 1967 pennies had a limited output. Personally I would only consider issues of less than 1000 to be limited if asked to put an arbitrary figure on it. Just think, Colin Cooke's repro pennies to commemorate the Nicholson sale being worth more than an official L.E. set.

I'd give it good fine because of the lack of laurel wreath detail and Britannia's left leg is a bit devoid of detail too. Parts of the detail are however very good, clearly unworn and better than good fine, but when grading, I always weight it towards the worst area. So a VF face is offset by a fine at best wreath for example. To give you an idea of how I would grade a farthing, I listed the coin below, mentally graded as about VF. Opinion welcome if you think it is under or overgraded.1675 farthing

Lend me your night vision glasses and I might be able to up it a bit

I've bought off her before, and when I did (which was about a year ago) her grading was spot on. Interesting how it has slid... Her basic problem seems to be that coins are graded using copy and paste. Almost without exception a coin is "practically as struck" or "practically mint state". She buys a lot and clearly acquired a lot of half crowns at Spink a fortnight ago. If you buy enough coins in auctions where there are high grade pieces, some will invariably be practically as struck. Oli, you bought a coin on which you presumably did a mental assessment of grade and also considered her grade, but how many did you reject? It's not the grades you agree with, but the number that you disagree with that determines whether you accept that given by the vendor.

Here's a wonderful example of incompetent grading and pricing. 1701 1/2d I guess it couldn't make the usual "Practically as struck" description due to the absence of most detail, but the presence of legend and a date allowed for almost UNC . At least the pricing will ensure that nobody buys it.

It's a gaming token of minimal value. Typically they are imitation guineas or fractions thereof and very common. Ebay usually has a lot listed at 99p and many don't sell. Can't find one immediately, but I think this is what you are describing, albeit a different date which will be irrelevant anyway.

The virgin queen was also the bearded lady it seems. She looks more like Charles 1st.

I prefer it in UNC with good lustre or ideally full blazing lustre but sadly mine has only a bare trace

Why would anyone want to pay 50p to get rid of a 1p coin? Why don't they just throw it away? 1p coin