Rob

I've no idea at present as I haven't checked out 1/2 sovs, but will keep an eye open for a reference. They aren't a commonly collected denomination to any depth, so any occurence is likely to be random which is unhelpful when searching catalogues. It's likely to be a Captain Oates moment.

Scott cataloguing these farthings will be an absolute nightmare, I have several that do not fit perfectly into the "varieties listed" but there are that many subtled differences that the page would be about 3 miles long!! I only record those farthings where there is no mistaking the variety, and usually would look for a higher grade example to act as confirmation before adding it to the site. I get numerous submissions daily, and it is a constant battle trying to determine what warrants inclusion and what does not. Spotting the different Obverse on that coin would be impossible. It is determined by the brooch design, and therefore any other subtle differences could not be used as a determining factor without careful comparison against numerous other coins. "so what to do, is this now the offical 9+B? or is this 11+B" I only wish everyone saw my numbering as the official system I understand what you are saying in that it appears to my 9b prior to it having the 3 recut, but because the exact combination could not be determined with certainty from that coin, I would only record it as a potential variety to keep an eye out for, it would not become 11B just yet Herein lies the real difficulty of producing definitive lists of varieties. In the era before reducing machines, every die was punched in by hand and every die will therefore be different. Add in the number of different punches used for what on the face of it is a similar die and you could easily write a 50 page article on just one issue such as the 1771-5 farthings. All of these common early issues would give the same results if accorded the same research. There were a minimum of 50 ship punches used and probably more for the 1799 or 1806-7 Soho halfpennies. All are different varieties as a result. Where do you stop? Probably when you think it is all getting a little silly, but don't worry, there is always someone waiting in the wings to carry the baton to a new level. God - we're a wierd bunch.

I have a bookmarks folder which expands into a column high enough to fill the screen but no more. I therefore tend to add a useful one at the expense of a less used (or useless) one. You remember those that are of use in any case without needing to bookmark.

I can see that if you are only recording a fixed number of data points per item, then Access has to be easier due to its versatility for searching, but in my instance I found it easier with Excel to add in new data due to a variable number of data points for any single coin. Take the example of the unique D23 Worcester 2/6d (Brooker 1153 for those in the dark). I have 14 references to this coin in sales or lists over the past 140 years for which said number may well be increased if I can find the lot bought by the owner who sold it in 1872. Those 14 (or potentially more) individual sales would each require a field if I am to be able to search using the sale date. Many individual coins will only have a single sale reference, but I will still have an image for it in just the same way as I do the coin with the long provenance. Add in the concordance for the various (numismatic) references through the ages which may well number 8 or 10, a brief description of the defining points of the variety, any notes of interest for the coin and you are looking at a Access database that is say 30 fields wide. This is unwieldy compared to what I currently have in place which has only 6 fields - Date, Reference, Variety Identifier, Metal/Mintmark/Moneyer (depends on coin type), Provenance and finally notes of interest such as unique/ so many known/ no of die varieties known for the generic design etc. This isn't searchable, but you would never have to look far as any systematic entry will automatically be in the correct denomination file and listed under the correct monarch or any other chronological attribute even if not dated. So for example, an Exeter C6 will always be cunningly interposed somewhere between the last entry for a C5 and the first C7. It is the guaranteed inconsistency in the number of fields required that made me use Excel and condense them into a single box for multiple data points of the same feature. The only way I can see that this would be improved is if I had some means of sorting the group of coins of an individual die combination into the best known down to the worst, but that isn't a problem until you have a few dozen or more examples imaged.

Nice one. Is it possible to eliminate a forgery? i.e. is there anything to positively link the punches used to known mint output? The fact that you have seen 3 should tell you if they are all from the same die pair. Even if the reverse die is always the same, more than one obverse die used would be highly supportive of an official issue that somehow got used for currency. Forgeries tend to use the same pairs of dies, and if non-standard as in the reverse would be even more likely to be paired with a distinctive obverse die. If the obverse die can be found used elsewhere, this would also help.

If you have a modern computer a 2mb pic on each of the 2000 makes only 2GB in files. Which is only the size of the smallest flash drive you can get these days. Computer hard drives are usually more than 100GB, mine being 240. I think this is supposed to be quicker and more aesthetically pleasing. Also it's more convenient if you are checking all the images of the same year coin for an error you've just read about you can just gently move the mouse down as opposed to opening an unholy amount of windows or tabs. I guess it's horses for courses. All I needed was the ability to compare an image copied off the web or in a book, with those in the database. Having compared images, I either extend an existing provenance and redo the link or create a new entry. Whatever, it would be too much work to modify each entry to a different format.

Before the files got corrupted a month ago, I just converted the text in the box to a link to an image of each coin which I could call up when I wanted. That seemed to be simple enough to operate as it was one box, one coin. The above seems a tad complicated.

Amen

You need an unholy alliance of collectors who record all the varieties they can find within their specified field and individual(s) with a broad knowledge of the overall details and who is/are willing to pull it all together. A specialist will only be able to do a restricted area as a result of self inflicted choice, so it would need a broadly based person to oversee the operation. One problem is that specialists identify new varieties, but don't necessarily communicate that info to the wider collector base as they will usually want to upgrade to a better example before knowledge of it becomes widespread. I think it is fair to say that is something we are all guilty of. e.g Only today I sold a collector a 1748/7 halfpenny. It's the only one I or the new owner have ever seen and apart from the 1742/0 the only other example of a later Geo.II overstruck date halfpenny as far as we are aware. This isn't recorded anywhere, but is a prime example of the sort of information that would have to be dragged into the public arena. Also, some varieties are suspect with no obvious recorded examples in past sales. How to weed these out is problematic. Verification of the previously unrecorded varieties is another important consideration. It's far too easy to claim a new variety, and everybody wants the rarity because they are worth more. You only have to look at the numerous posts on this forum to see that is the case. People see what they want to see, not what they have. Human nature is a bit of a b****r.

Being somewhat flattened, the effigy has been modified - just not in the accepted manner.

Insert the phrase 'it's been in' at the correct point to clarify the description.

Many thanks to all who have taken part in the poll at the beginning of this thread over the past 2 or 3 weeks. As expected, the usual suspects contributed, though a handful of regulars on this forum were notable for their absence. I was hoping for a greater contribution from less experienced collectors, as this would have given an insight into their perception of the hobby, the obstacles they face and the decisions that have to be made when looking for a field or series to collect - all things which long term collectors have mostly forgotten. Serious collectors have obviously got the persistence to look for the information they require, but without sufficient knowledge of where to find the reference material I can see that the easy option is to do nothing, and longer term to lose interest. Clearly the easiest way to get people engrossed in this or any other hobby is to have material at your fingertips which you can refer to or read for pleasure. Perhaps a list of material could be pinned to the top of a forum or two (like a read this first thread) whereby people can know what books to look for. Many visitors are clearly casual ones looking for a single piece of info, but a handful are, or convert to longer term collectors. Looking at the various posts I get the impression that people are on the whole not too dissatisfied with the books that are available. I know we can only use the material at our disposal, but there was no obvious call for a new reference in any one particular field with the best material for the job known to the longer term collector (unsuprisingly). The only revision that has been mentioned in this or other threads is one for farthings. Maybe the farthing collectors would like to give ColinG a nudge in that direction for a future project given Colin Cooke would require a medium and a ouija board to finish his work. If anyone is able to identify a section of the hobby that is inadequately catered for, please speak up, as there might be sufficient enthusiasm to fill that hole.

Good question. I also had one with a fault above the tie knot, which from the discolouration I had put down to someone soldering it to a piece of jewellery or similar. The interesting point is that mine was also 1857, but the mark is in a slightly different place on the two pieces shown being to the left of the bar. The third piece has apparently the same location, but as you say a lamination fault is unlikely. It is possible that there could have been some trapped material which adhered to the die given the identical location from the images. A spanner in the works to this theory is that the dies are different. The clash marks are at different positions on the two reverses and the profile of the 7s appears to be a bit different too.

Those were my thoughts as well Scott. I looked at it and although by no means an expert on shillings it did not look right. The legend is too bulky. I have an 1696 and an 1697 and the lettering seems to be much thinner. I know there are more than one obv types so maybe its just a different obv, like I said no expert! There are so many dies in this recoinage that the thickness of the letters probably isn't an issue. It looks cast because it has pitting, but that could well be because it has been underground. The detail matches ok. The missing ties are not unknown in this period either. The apparent E/A is seen on halfpennies where you frequently see a join between the middle and lower arms of the E. In fact the legend could be made using punches for this denomination. I think it probably is ok, but a weight would be useful. Anything around 5 grams would be dodgy, anything close to 6 ok. An enquiry as to the weight would probably clinch it. A quick comparison of a few pieces suggests the halfpenny punches are maybe 10% bigger in both directions.

RLC35's thread earlier in this forum has an 1854 1/2d with one. Go to the forum and scroll down the first page.

Not convinced from the image. I'd want to see it in the hand.

Form another one. Sell your pennies which are riding at an all time high and buy shillings. Simple.

There aren't any gold 1902 pennies. If it is gold coloured it has either been plated or chemically cleaned to give this colour.

They just don't understand, do they? Having indicated how much a specific lot was likely to go for, I was told to go out and get it. Having duly bought it for 25% less than I expected to pay, I was told I was spending too much on coins. I guess the first sentence being on Tuesday and the second on the Thursday after the sale - I hadn't been around during that day to get in the **** until then.

Unfortunatly rare coin and small budget don't appear side by side in the same sentence. Yes they do, you just said it!

The tin farthings and halfpennies had a copper plug in the centre to deter forgeries.

Brilliant find!! Struck on a two shilling planchet, must be worth at least £500 Seems a bit much for a wrong flan coin. My Eliz.II florin on an underwight flan (possibly a Burundi 10Fr) cost £1.79 (including postage).

These 'clacking pennies'. Do you mean coins with a laminating flan? If so, these were quite common amongst the decimal patterns of the late 1850's when they were experimenting with metals other than copper. The problem has been ascribed to using excessive pressure when struck, though this should presumably also apply in 1920 and I haven't seen any signs of this effect on early .500 silver unless they were typically struck with too little pressure which often appears to be the case.

Black puddings from Bury market or tripe beat jellied eels any day. Though if I was abroad (or south of the Watford Gap), I'd still eat them. Not all foreign food is bad. And to get it back on topic - just about anything is more palatable than the tin farthing served up at the beginning of this thread.

It's always worth checking the weights of these pieces. The mint was not only using Cu-Ni, but was also experimenting with steel in the early years of Elizabeth II. Bronze is mostly copper, and the density of nickel means that there is not likely to be too much difference between these two metals (flan size variation not withstanding). Iron is over 10% less dense than either copper or nickel, so if the dimensions are ok as for a standard penny and it is underweight then check for magnetism. Nickel and iron both being magnetic should give a clue as to its composition. I think the steel experiments predated this coin as Freeman records a pattern farthing (which was demonetised in 1960) and I have a steel halfcrown (halfpenny size), so the first half dozen years of the reign are more likely to apply but you can never rule anything out.