Rob

A 1673 1/2d with A/R in CAROLVS, this is not a modified CRAOLVS die. Thanks to Teg for the heads up.

Colin had 2 of these. One in gEF sold for £520, one in similar grade to that above sold for £50.

and reverse

The obverse

Practically mint state with almost full lustre, a couple of very light toning spots to both sides and a trace of cabinet friction to the 3 or 4 highest points of both sides. A quality 5/3 by any standard, all over 2 a bonus. No overstruck 1672 examples to my knowledge are known.

It sounds like a three-halfpence issued for colonial use and should look as in thislink. They were first issued in 1834 and last issued in 1862 for general use, though there was a proof issue in 1870. 1840 is the rarest and thus the highest priced year for the Victorian pieces. Spink gives 2006 prices of £8-fine, £22-VF, £75-EF and £150-UNC.

No definite Soho proof 1807 halfpennies are known, all being attributed to the work of Taylor who had to make an 1807 obverse die rather than modify an existing one as was usually the case due to their absence. To my knowledge, to date, no proposal as to how this was done with proof has come to light. The following therefore is a new variety. Peck on p.383 states that it was uncertain how Taylor concocted the 1807 obverse for the restrike proof halfpennies. The answer is Nicholson 306. Despite having had this coin for the past two years, I only noticed yesterday that the 7 of the date has the features of a 6 on and around it. The actual die used for this pupose is clearly one with the broken jewel bust used on KH35, 36 and 37, but at present it is not possible to positively identify which die provides the definitive link due to polishing and partial recutting. The half way stage between an 1806 proof halfpenny and a die with fully recut characters is therefore an unrecorded new variety. The method used to create the new die was to fill in the 6 (along with other features of the die) and then punch in the 7 etc. This coin provides the link because it shows the 6 detail on the 7 as a result of the initial 7 being punch to less depth than the original 6. This is not seen on restrike 1807 halfpennies as all of the date and legend are fully recut to a greater depth with thicker angular letters and no trace of an underlying 6 is visible, an observation also made by Peck who clearly cannot have seen this piece. The 7 shown below has the underlying 6 positioned slightly higher so that the top of the six is above the 7 and the loop of the 6 is mostly in the angle. This project is currently ongoing.

You will need to register in order to post a picture so that an idea of value can be given. Fair is a grade and not very good so an 1860 bronze farthing in fair would not be worth much. If you mean fair as in pretty good nick it would be worth more.

Unlikely, but does anyone have or know of anyone who has a copy of Montagu sales 4 & 5 catalogues that they would be willing to sell.

According to ESC in the note at the bottom of page 184 the ordinary 3d's have a duller surface than the maundy money which is more prooflike with highly polished fields. The latter tone more easily and are often bluish or quite dark. Davies says the same thing.

Must be common, even I've got one.

Yes I am saying that. It is accepted that the rarity of the 1933 is a Freeman R18 based on those 7 examples known, and there is leeway to find more without this changing. The number available to collectors is much lower at 2, so to deface one would merely result in a loss to that person as the other coin would still be very collectable. Given that pieces such as these are often sold privately, it is more a case of right place, right time than the coin having a rational value. Every buyer and seller has an incentive to keep the price moving gently upwards. The 1935 crown rated R6 is the silver proof and the edge error. The basic model is as common as muck. Rayner quotes 714,769 pieces struck. As an aside, Rayner's rarity figures are quite suspect in places and I have heard in passing that he was influenced by a few collectors who doubtless had their own pieces in mind when it came to rarity assignation. e.g. ESC 1067A. I've got one, Colin Cooke had one, Spink are currently listing one on their website, the one pictured in ESC and a few others that I won't bother are more than the R6 rating given by Rayner, and interestingly Peck gave an R rating. Roman 1 1825 1/- is not R7, 1723 C/SS 1/- is not R5, the list is endless. Freeman also makes errors in both directions, so all of these rarity ratings must be treated with a pinch of salt.

Oh well I'll go and get the brasso then, that will make it glint. Just a hypothetical question. The 1933 penny is worth £30-40,000. The owner likes to keep his coins nice and shiny. As there is only one know in private hands would a drop of brasso actually make much difference in its value. Discuss. Gary £45K actually based on Mark Rasmussens list. The collector who bought it would not be interested in cleaning it and would leave that decision to the next owner, so the problem is purely hypothetical. Coins are only polished by those who know nothing about collecting. Should such a lunatic use Brasso, its desirability would diminish and be replaced by another rare coin and therefore I would expect its value to drop.

Anyone interested? And he polishes them normally, so you get even more for your money

Unfortunately, that is not going to be worth anything. They are a very common coin, especially in this condition as many hundreds of tons of coins were produced. Sorry if I disappoint you. For it to be valuable, you would be looking at something like this or approaching this grade with minimal wear.

From what you have written they sound in poor condition. The legend and date on 1797 pennies as struck is actually quite deep, so they are likely to be worth very little if the date is not clear. eBay has many examples listed starting at 99p which is more than they are worth, but is the best place to sell them. A dealer is unlikely to be interested. Post a picture of the best one and it would be possible to give a clearer idea of their value.

Has anyone out there got a Charles 2nd halfpenny that they can match to this reverse die? If so, please post it on this thread. Thanks.

Thanks Tom. I didn't realise there are 2 types so the next obvious question. Is this wide or narrow date?

Ah, but I think it's from 1675. I just have to convince people. And it will be done.

Thanks Teg. There are some glaring inconsistencies comparing the value of copper coined with observed date distribution so I will have to count up the number of different dates and their incidence that I can find in catalogues and on lists. In the words of Captain Oates, "I may be a while". However, the immediate reaction is that 1675 is a much rarer date for pieces that have an unambiguous 5 than the value of copper would suggest, even if your assumptions are wildly inaccurate. Although not backed up by any statistics (a situation I am now going to rectify), I would say that 1675 pieces where the 5 is indisputable are found in an approximate ratio of 2:1ish, maybe slightly more, compared to 1672 which is accepted as rare due to the limited production period. Against this it has to be considered that 1672 pieces are always touted as rare and this may result in more people trying to cash in based on that knowledge. I would say that 1673 is the given date in fully 80% of Charles II halfpennies sold and possibly more, which sits rather uncomfortably with the figures given by Challis. Again I will attempt to produce a more accurate figure rather than rely on guesswork. Whilst doing this, I will also note the number of farthings for each year from the same sources. This hopefully will generate some meaningful ratio for the two denominations. I don't have any idea for the numbers of readily identifiable dies for each year. The problem is one of quality and finance. Halfpennies are so much rarer than farthings and anything in reasonable grade costs a three figure sum, so I don't tend to buy them as I would the weekly shopping. Whilst this sheds no light on whether the CRAOLVS die survived until 1675, your postulated figures suggest to me that there are a good number of 1675/3 dies.

It sounds like a Charles 2nd 3d. and should look like this.

Could someone let me know what the Spink and/or any other reference is for this coin. Thanks.

Maybe MS60 stands for mostly smooth, say 60%

Maybe, the vendor probably isn't happy with the UNDELIMO edge

Thanks Teg. I may not be around to reply immediately to your response but will add the following to reinforce what has so far been written. There appears to be at least 4 distinctive styles of 3 (and may be more) which are obviously single punches and these are shown on the scruffy drawing which I append below and apologise for forthwith. There seems to be three types of 3 with a round back to the top section together with at least one type of flat top 3 as used on the 1673 proof Nicholson 017 and others. All of the 5/3 or blundered 3's depending on one's opinion appear to be derived from these 3 types of round back threes shown in drawing 1 below. Type 2 is as shown in the image previously posted and incidentally the least varied in 3D variation although the second clearest 5/3 type with a deep V on the top bar with the divergence taking place just above the mid point. Type 3 is the most obvious overstrike where the horizontal bar of the 5 comes out at the mid point and just above and is flat. This is as Nicholson 021. I have a much clearer image of this variety but won't post it to avoid filling the forum with pictures as you can only add 1 picture per post. Is it possible that this, or any other could be farthing 5 punches? You may be able to shed light on this. Type 4 is the one shown in my previous post which I listed on eBay and appears to be the most common. Type 5 is as the CRAOLVS at the start of this thread where the right hand section of the top bar starts to drop and forms a small V at the mid point. Type 6 is taken from the 1673 halfpenny in next week's DNW auction lot 1436 and is the same coin as listed on Colin Cooke's site which I sold him previously having upgraded to my existing piece. This has a poorly struck final digit with much of the bottom loop weak, but the top bar is very clear and the top curved section of the 3 can be seen descending into what can only be decribed as a T-bar in shape with the vertical part of the 5 in the middle and completely upright. Unfortunately, I have inadvertently deleted this image from my computer so can't show a better picture. Given the number of readily identifiable unambiguous 3 punch varieties, it seems strange to me that so many would need to be overstruck with punches of a different shape. The occasional messy 3 would be OK, but why so many? For your info, all of the above information has been taken from coins in VF or better with the exception of the CRAOLVS and one type 4. The other question in my mind is the length of time that copper was struck (1672-9). Given that only 1672,3 and 5 are known, I presume that other years were struck but bearing one of the 3 dates known. I also would not be surprised to hear of a 1673/2 as the 1672 dies can't all have been worn out. Rob.