Rob

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

Picture?

It looks like a broad rim. The reference is Davies 2412 which is a smaller reverse design (19.5mm) where he notes it has a broad rim. It certainly looks broader than normal. Davies prices it at x3 the normal variety, suggesting it is not that scarce.

I don't know about farthings, but there are a range of 1 types on halfpennies. A J, Roman I with wide and narrow serifs, top right, bottom left serifs both upright and slanting right, farthing size and bifurcated tops plus probably a few I haven't seen. You name it, there's probably one out there. Regards letter shapes, in the case of halfpennies just about every letter is overstruck somewhere and most letters with angular features are used to recut the legend. I suspect it is probably the same for farthings. A lot of letters were corrected using two part cuts e.g. a vertical in the form of an I plus a short cut for the horizontal features. Don't know if it helps, but should muddy the waters a bit.

These are double cuts on the various digits, not double struck. If they were double struck, the rest of the detail would be doubled too. It may be done to reinforce a weak letter on an old die or may be the result of successive punch actions imperfectly superimposed on a new die. In the case of the former, it is almost certain that the punch used to reinforce the character will not have precisely the same footprint.

Is this description any better? thought this 1690 hand is king william and a very must have to collection is beating silver collecters very dated and featured silver crown piece thought this is any coin on collecters silver coin and is coin

It looks like a filled die. There appears to be a slightly raised lump at approximately the same distance as the gap between the inner foot serifs where they join the main verticals on the A on a level just above an extension of the crossbar of the A. Play about with the contrast and brightness of the image and it you can see it. Weak or missing stops due to die fill are common.

The references to Wyon are in Hocking vol.2 and not vol.1, so he still could have missed it. Just thinking aloud, but it seems to me that with a range of options and views, the most likely one to be correct ought to be the one in the book which has the information sourced from the Mint itself. i.e. Hocking. It's not a guarantee of accuracy, but given that he worked for the Mint Museum and presumably had access to all the available information at any time he liked, then you would expect his account to be the most accurate.

Montagu also states Pistrucci. We know that Peck used Montagu references. It is possible that he took Montagu's statement as gospel without consulting the others. There are no Hocking references that I can think of in Peck.

From Hocking vol.1. Date of Currency Proclamation 14/11/1821 Ref. 1887. Farthing, first issue, 1821. Obv. GEORGIUS IIII DEI GRATIA. Bust laureated, and draped, to left. Rev. BRITANNIAR: REX FID: DEF: Britannia helmeted and draped seated to right, holding in her right habd, which also suports a shield, a laurel branch, and in her left a trident; by her left side a lion couchant,; in the exergue, the date. Plain edge. From Hocking vol.2 ref. 956 Matrix. Obv. (first issue), laureate and draped bust to left; legend, GEORGIUS IIII DEI GRATIA. See coin no. 1887. By W. Wyon ref. 957 Punch obv., as the matrix no. 956 ref.958 Die. obv. as the matrix no. 956 ref. 959. Matrix. Rev. (first issue), 1821. Britannia helmeted and draped seated to right with shield, laurel branch and trident; at her left side a lion couchant; date below: BRITANNIAR: REX FID: DEF: See coin no 1887. By W.Wyon Nothing you didn't know already. Sorry, no biography of Wyon.

Have a word with Paul Withers at Galata. He has/had a collection of them and lists about 30 publications on this topic. He's good for a chat if you want to learn more.

R over A and Y over F I just dont see it, all I see are obvious die flaws!!