Rob

First of all. Spink's pictures this year have many errors, though this is not one of them. You need to refer to ESC (English Silver Coinage since 1649) by P A Rayner. The footnote at the bottom of page 73 reads as follows. On Edinburgh halfcrowns of 1707 the figure 1 is always a J as on all coins of the London mint. Edinburgh coins of 1708 usually have a local reverse die with a Z type fig. 1. Rarely however one sees a Tower die with a J type figure 1 on coins of 1708.

Not so dumb. To verify if it is a thin or thick flan you have to weigh it. If you feel you must measure thickness you would have to choose the field, but bear in mind that die faces are not always flat and may be either convcave or convex leading to further error depending on where in the field you measure. Later coins have a rim which causes problems deciding where to measure, but pre-1800 coppers mostly have no prominent rim because collars were not used with fly presses (allegedly) which makes measuring thickness easier but is not infallible when you consider the following. Lot 350 in last month's Baldwin sale was listed as a P834 thick flan halfpenny because it had shedloads of excess metal to the rim and was 2-3mm thick at the edge, but only weighed as for a thin flan type being 10.87g. Nicholson's thick flan weighed 12.46g and was 2mm thick at the rim except for a 30 degree arc where very marginally thinner. The latter just about conforms to the minimum dimensions quoted by Peck for the thick flan. Therefore, given the metal is the same, the light weight of the Baldwin piece confirms its status as a thin flan type despite its appearance. As an aside, the very prominent excess metal on the rims (as also found frequently on Anne halfpennies) suggests it may have been struck in a collar. According to accepted wisdom, collars were not used in the early 1700's but it is difficult to account for the metal rising vertically rather than spreading laterally. A topic for debating elsewhere rather than sabotage this thread.

Has anyone got a copy of the C A Watters pt.1 sale at Glendining 21-25th May 1917? Please get in touch if you do. Thanks.

We clearly need some systematic approach to naming so that people are not mislead. Everyone I know would call this an obverse brockage. Do we have yet another example of two cultures separated by a common language here?

I wasn't aware of any informed collector ever using brockage for flan splits or clipping. Everyone I know has always used the word in the same way in all English speaking countries. I've always assumed the clipped flan "brockages" listed on ebay were a result of either illiteracy or the uninformed copying the uninformed.

A good example of unchecked information. The Wikipedia entry says "In Coin collecting, brockage refers to a type of error coin in which a side of the coin has both the normal image and a mirror image of the opposite side impressed on it. This is caused by an already minted coin sticking to a die and impressing onto another coin." It should of course read "the coin has both the normal image and a mirror image on the opposite side". Only one letter out, but gives a totally different meaning. The lack of prior peer review for entries in Wikipedia is its main failing in my view as it means you can't rely on the information given and need to cross-reference any stated facts to ensure factual accuracy. However, it is still better than nothing. This is why Wikipedia is not and should not be acceptable as a reference source for academic papers and is a prime example of a little knowledge can be dangerous. It is however an improvement on the frequent ebay listings of clipped flans which are described as brockages.

When the first grading company did, I'm not sure why PCGS one of the more respectable grading companies even grdaded it.

His introduction says the ENRB upholds standards of integrity and honesty in numismatics. No mention of artificial toning in the description though. That's a bit dishonest given that no coin could naturally tone to this degree in less than 10 years. Why do Americans like this sort of thing? How can so many people be so stupid? If prices get any higher for chemically treated lumps of metal, it will soon be cheaper to buy a Jackson Pollock. Presumably the above statement should read holds up standards as any standard would be higher.

That seems too thin. I would have expected about 2.5 mm as near the bottom end. What is the weight?

Could as many people as possible who possess a tin halfpenny please PM me or post on this thread the thickness of their piece(s) together with the edge reading or fragment thereof if legible. Thanks.

I think it is a farthing struck on a farthing flan. If you consider the spread of the flan from the initial strike, then an off centre strike would leave a considerable amount of space to one side. Knowing the weight would confirm.

It's a different obverse die, but the reverse is a pretty good match. The relative positions of the FI in FID are correct as is the date alignment. The short tooth by the F of DEF is OK and the trident prongs are in reasonable agreement. The D in FID is complete whereas yours isn't and the EF of DEF is double cut with the underlying letter closer to the border which I can't make out in your image either. The image is on my website.

It does look similar, but mine also has a much fainter, but definitely present, left foot of the A together with a bit of the sloping left hand vertical which is positioned just to the right of the bottom of the I and this serif just covers the left extremity of the A. The size and spacing is correct for an A too.

This series is littered with double cut lettering, missing bars and serifs etc. Just another overcut letter I think. The rare ones seem to be those with cleanly cut and intact legend. Having said that, I just checked my 2 examples and one is 5/5 in the date and the other is T/A in BRITANNIA. That's one that Colin doesn't have on his site.

I've seen another. Alex Anderson had one slabbed by CGS in UNC at the Harrogate Coin Fair recently, but I don't know what grade number it was given. That was obvious too from a distance.

Not sure why Scottishmoney removed his phone number as it is freely given on his website and in his auction catalogues and worked ok recently. It's a business number as opposed to a private one.

Forgot about Allan. His email address is coins@britishcoins.com. This worked a couple of months ago. He is based in Cold Spring Minnesota, phone number is xxx.xxx.xxxx note: edited out phone number

Since you mentioned it, I took a closer look and on the obverse at that point is the G of DG. It looks at though something had dropped on it, but didn't pierce it. It is just a small bump on the reverse at the S. But all the more reason to have it checked by the professionals. Thanks for your help, Rob, and thanks to everyone who gave me information today. It really helps a lot. Usually when it's small and round it's an attempted piercing because it requires quite a bit of force aimed at one point to make this type of mark. This won't help it's value, though in that grade will still be desirable and an attempted piercing would give further credibility to it being genuine as this was usually contemporary. You might struggle to find someone in the States who is familiar with this coinage. The grading companies make a lot of mistakes on British coins ranging from inaccurate grading through to inaccurate attribution with cases known of cleaned, artificially toned and forgeries - so I would give them a miss despite their claims. This is basically down to not being familiar with the coins they are looking at. What you need is someone who can tie the dies to known genuine pieces at the microscopic level. If you know how and where it was acquired it would be helpful as this would possibly lead to a provenance which could be checked against old sales catalogues. It looks good enough to have been in a few quality collections and high enough in grade to be illustrated.

I would like to revise the grade upwards to EF on the obverse with the reverse nearly there. With the exception of a few marks on the orb it looks pretty much as struck. I hope the round mark by the first S on the reverse is not a repaired piercing.

First of all it is a Scottish Unit produced from 1637-42 by Nicholas Briot. The size is correct for a unite and the weight seems about right for a Scottish Unit. Spinks 2nd edition gives a price in VF of £1500, but that was 2003 and prices have increased since then. Coincraft gave a figure of £2400 in 1999. The picture isn't good enough to establish how much wear there actually is, but it certainly is VF and probably good VF so will be worth in excess of £2000. An example of this coin sold at DNW on 28/9/06 lot 986 for £2200 + premium of 17.625%. It was about extremely fine, but had been cleaned at some time and had scratches. This therefore seems a reasonable ballpark figure. I don't have exact figures for purity, but it will be about .915, i.e. 91.5% gold with the balance made up of most likely copper or silver. All of this comes with the caveat that first of all, it would be necessary to establish that it is genuine

It's a crown (5 shillings).

She should have accepted the money. It's a reasonable price for a coin that doesn't quite make fine and judging by the marks on the rim has previously been mounted. The price in the current Spink for an 1845 is £50 in fine for both varieties of edge, but the mounting marks will reduce the value. She certainly wasn't being ripped off.

Coming your way shortly.

I'm inclined to lean towards a very good forgery. All of the detail appears to be slightly thicker in appearance, including that which isn't at the high points which is what you would get from a casting. i.e. the original design at just about the same size as the genuine thing, but tooling in the detail to give a sharply defined design would increase the thickness of most lines. The Britannia punch with the blobs for leaves would almost certainly not be blobs on the original punch. The ties are slightly thicker on the suspect one as are the lines in the hair, even allowing for wear.

Talking like that, they'll all look broad rimmed. Another drink anyone