Rob

I would think so, as it mimics the shoulder detail of G2 silver with the cuirassed bust.

brilliant

No idea, but I have never looked for it as a variety. It really depends on whether it is an inverted V or a filled die as obviously the latter is a normal event as opposed to an error. A lot of these spurious 'errors' are unwarranted IMO as they tend to exist in varying developmental stages, so are clearly not by design. The pricing in Coincraft suggests not rare as it is priced cheaper than the 1746 LIMA shilling and only marginally more than the barred 1745.

As a non-conformist, I like things which don't obey the normal rules such as the below which has a ↑→ die axis. The reverse shields are wrong for 3 of the 4, as only the French one is in the correct position. This is a useful piece as one might infer that the dies were normally aligned in the press by matching the top of the bust with the French shield.

Everything was en-medaille (upright die axis) from the Jubilee Head issues of 1887 onwards. From 1787 to 1887 there was a mixture, with some upright and others inverted (en-coin). Before 1787, an inverted die axis was the norm, though the odd example with an upright axis exists such as the 1663 first bust shilling.

I concur with the first sentence but not the second. True you see lots of comparable pieces that are graded miles apart, but this is a benefit of the system as it means you can pick up coins which have been undergraded very cheaply indeed, being as they are by extension, undesirable, having the wrong label or number. This is a bonus, not a shortfall and should be milked for all it is worth.

I think the halfpenny dies were used to destruction. Halfpennies are by far the commonest of the three denominations and presumably they were the ones in greatest demand. The lack of crispness is in the main down to the design which has quite a low relief laurel wreath, but there are a few contributing factors also. The reverse is usually crisply struck. One thing you see more often on halfpennies is the weakness in the legend. I have ascribed this to a build up of rubbish over time which blocked the dies. This blocking tends to be of annular form which I suspect might be the result of a small amount of play in the die fixing mechanism leading to slight rotation during operation which in turn would allow the rubbish to spread itself along the circumference. It is worth noting that the blocking only seems to occur where the legend is on the die. This is a significant factor in the apparent lack of crispness. The relatively low relief of the obverse design can be seen from the attached. The K43 halfpennies in the various metals are the only Soho proof (halfpenny) struck from currency dies. Ironically, the reverse die chosen for the type has two long flaws and is presumably an old and somewhat knackered die, meaning you see better on a regular currency piece. Apologies for the trimmed edges necessary to keep it under 500Kb.

There is no right or wrong about what you collect. Each to their own - thank goodness.

Probably the only feasible way to acquire rare date pennies for those who just have to 'complete' the series.

No - you rotate the coin either horizontally or vertically. If the sides are the same orientation, you rotate horizontally, if 180º degrees apart, you rotate vertically. I think oculus needs to clarify, because he either has two dodgy pieces, or more likely two normal and an ambiguous description.

I think you are both saying the same thing. i.e en-medaille is a rotation on the vertical axis etc. Peck, you misread it I think.

The residue looks like lacquer

It's just a currency piece struck from a very worn die that has probably been polished to remove rust spots of which there is ample evidence on Britannia's legs and in the legend. You can polish the fields easily, but not the incuse detail on the die.

.......... even moving the decimal point three places to the left.

One per decade! How long do you intend to live? Welcome to the mad house.

Looks like it. This short run of farthings produces more enquiries than just about every other reign. Missing serifs abound, double or even triple cut numbers. Considering the quality of the portrait and Britannia, it is somewhat surprising that they didn't take care over the legend and punches used. If the dies have previously been hardened then I can see it being difficult to punch in another character. The abundance of varieties ensures a well struck example with no missing serifs or double cut characters is something of a rarity. I think this falls into the 'just another' category.

This is partly where the discussion lies. To demonstrate, I don't have any pennies, but I do have a pair of 1876H halfpennies which asks the same question. The Heaton proof/specimen has much less sharp lettering than say the unambiguous 1867 bronzed proof, http://www.colincooke.com/coin_images/halfpenny_merge/397.jpg i.e. it ticks some boxes but not others. For comparison sake, here is the 1876H which was slabbed as a proof in the Terner sale and was considered a proof by Freeman (this was his coin also). However, others considered it to fall short, preferring to call it a specimen strike and so the debate continues............

It looks like a poorly struck/defective punch T which has been reinforced with an I. The angled part claimed as an A wasn't totally convincing to me in Nicholson, though more so than this one. If an A, I would expect it to be similar in profile to the two other letters in the legend, but it looks to be different. The foot is almost at right-angles to the upright.

You said you were considering two and four pences? Apart from Vicky groats, those will have to be Maundy. 1838 & 1848 currency 2d. (S3914E)

Another consideration is that they are intended to be no H after being returned from Heatons, the H filled and the die used by the Royal Mint so that what you see is a trace from inadequate smoothing. I know they corrected errors and repaired dies by filling and recutting because I have an 1862/26 halfpenny, so filling only is hardly a great leap into the unknown. Trying to prove which is an 1882H filled with debris as opposed to filled at the mint because it was struck in London rather than Birmingham might be a tad problematic.

If you play around with the contrast and brightness there is a possible H shape, but I don't know if this agrees with the other 1882H dies. Somebody will be more au fait than me on the penny dies. I can have a look at it in a couple weeks at Wakefield if I remember.

This is all part of the question as to whether the Heaton Mint produced proofs from polished flans to the Royal Mint standards or a slightly inferior product that was an early strike from polished dies but not exhibiting all the characteristics one would experct of a proof. The same argument has been put forward for halfpennies and farthings. Freeman contended that the Heaton strikes were proofs, whereas Peck and others maintain they are not. Somewhere else on the forum I have previously posted images of a 'normal' 1876H 1/2d compared to a 'specimen' or 'proof' depending on your point of view. I can't find the relevant thread at present, but the reverse of the normal coin is prooflike in the hand. The specimen or proof is infinitely superior both in strike and brilliance of field.

There is no reason why any smaller O has to be a halfpenny. There are many denominations in Victoria's reign in other metals. There are digits with and without serifs. There are letters of different fonts. There are odd shape punches which were often used for repair work, any or all of which could apply.

Ebay still gives a limited number of free listings per month, so you can always find 20 pieces of rubbish to stick on. You don't have to bust a gut selling quality for OTT amounts as the margins are much better for items of negligible value. Just don't expect to make too much money.

Although it is quite a deep strike, probably from a fresh obverse die looking at the relief, there are still quite a few marks on it. 1838 isn't a hard date to find irrespective of mintage, so you should be able to find an unc example with a lot of red for not much more than 100 quid. It certainly wouldn't break the bank as it is nothing like as rare as 1843 to 1848.