Rob

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.

didn't realise the two were separate videos

This is a different video to the one last night.

Don't do it too aggressively or you might upset someone.

1610 would be right for bell, but not mullet given the mark didn't start until 45 days into the new year. Presumably an old reverse die that someone forgot to change the date on. As the pyx was determined by the mark and not the year on the coin, it is obviously a surviving oddity, hence the wax. Which catalogue I don't know unless the lot description gives you the info. There can't be many sixpences in that condition illustrated in old catalogues. RD. The numbers of each denomination within a mark will depend on what was requested by the people bringing silver to the mint. Only when the market price of silver moved above face do we see a marked loading in favour of the small denominations. These were required to provide the poor with small change for their relief and as a result are more common relative to sixpences and shillings in the second half of the decade when the mint struck them at a loss. Shillings on the other hand are excessively rare for book, plain cross and spur rowel - less than a dozen examples for all three marks combined? Sixpences are also elusive at this time. The smaller values were only made by the mint under duress due to the difficulty in handling ever smaller pieces of metal. The terms of most indentures were that the remuneration was related to the weight of metal coined, making small coins unattractive. The overmark is clear on yours, but less so on the other two dies. A bit of double striking/off flan/not well struck up and you would only know it was an overmark by matching the visible bits of the die.

I explained what WRL means too. Feedback as a seller isn't exactly encouraging

WRL is in the heading Rob Yes, but that doesn't tell the average person it is a reproduction. It's a very sly way of trying to cover your own backside. It doesn't say 'THIS IS A REPLICA'. I know WRL is one, you know it is too, but an awful lot of people see wrl in images without knowing its significance. The description says wrl, but also says in very good condition for its age. Methinks deception is intended.