Rob

1914 and 1922 seem to be the most difficult years to obtain in top grade. In low grades, there are no rarities. 1919 -1922 are quite difficult in full lustre, frequently they have streaky lustre in unc.

In that case Peter, keep your back covered in case you get surprised by 5th column patterns masquerading as currency pieces such as this Peck 606 If you are not careful, you may accidentally acquire one.

Another defining feature if present is the edge milling. Again a comparison between an uncirculated currency coin and a proof (both 1887 JH 6d's) shows how much the quality can degenerate. The proof on the right has very sharp milling by comparison.

While we are on the subject of proofs, it might be worthwhile to identify a few points which would determine whether a coin is a proof or not. Proofs will usually have a sharp rim/edge angle. Occasionally this is not quite perfect, but almost without exception results in no excess metal to the rims. In the picture the top coin is obviously the proof, the currency piece has excess metal. Both are uncirculated.

Yes please.

I see the link to another posting on this forum hasn't worked very well. The image I was trying to show was the picture with the 2 1876s. One was the proof and one a currency coin. The sharp angles on the numbers can easily be seen.

On a proof, the fields (the empty bits between the design) will be mirror like. The legend will be composed of letters with sharp angles rather than rounded edges like this. The design will often be "frosted" and not reflective at all like the picture below where the one on the left is a proof, the one on the right a currency piece with the same design. The currency piece is prooflike, but not a proof. The best way to interpret the picture is to view it as a reflectivity picture. The dark areas are the most reflective. You will see that the range of reflectivity is much less on the currency piece despite both pieces shown having full lustre. The prooflike nature also shows on the currency piece. A fully lustred coin without prooflike features will be fairly even in terms of reflectivity. Other features are also notable. The rims will usually form a sharp angle with the edge on a proof. If the edge is milled (not in the case of a 1901 penny) the milling will be much sharper, sometimes to the point where it almost cuts your finger) if you grip the edge. I will add, it is something that many people have difficulty identifying because full lustre does not constitute a proof. Post a picture and it will be easier to decide if it is a proof. If it is a proof, don't leave it in plastic as this will cause it to chemically react and also dont touch anything other than the edge with your fingers.

Should the 1843 description not read "Good flat flan with high points visible on inspection"?

I believe the fakes are thicker than the genuine item. That's only what I've been told though, I've never seen one.

Here are the two things to look for. On the obverse (heads side) the cross points between border dots and on the reverse, the I of farthing also points between border dots.

Assuming all are currency coins, they will be worth a couple pounds each at most if in perfect condition. If they are not in mint state, they are likely to be of no value (or a few pence at most) to a collector being very common. The only exception to this would be a particular variety of 1953 which is quite rare. To determine which type of 1953 you have it will be necessary to post a picture. To do this, you have to register.

No. I do have one in indifferent condition just as a representative piece, but prefer to direct my attention to the official mint output together with certain patterns from selected sources. If I found a perfect one I would be tempted though as they have a place in the numismatic history of this country.

Sorry, I've just realised I didn't put the denomination in the posting you refer to. That's because I know that Peter and Coppers know I collect shillings and halfpennies and I forgot others may also read it. It's far to easy to get absorbed in your own world.

It was lot 2358, listed as a straight 1732 1/2d. There is something special about early copper with copious amounts of lustre that I find difficult to resist.

Peter, you can still get your Anne and 1717 farthings for considerably less than the price of a lottery win. Try London Coins again. 5th March lots 882 and 883. Following on shortly from these two lots there is even a nice run of proof and pattern farthings should you feel the urge to improve standards.

I wouldn't bank on it. Colin may have fully documented and labelled his collection, but we have no means of knowing so. Unless Neil takes a ready made list and uses that for the sale, it would be reasonable to assume that many varieties will be missed because as a dealer he simply doesn't have the time to spend on learning about and correctly identifying 1700 farthings which were ultimately Colin's pet project. A few months ago he was selling some of Peter Jackson's unsolds from the Cheshire Collection and I purchased the 1732 as it was actually a 1732/1. When I pointed this out, he shrugged his shoulders and said he wasn't surprised because PJ as a dealer hasn't the time to check all the coins for overstrikes etc. That is a reasonable argument, and is clearly a common situation because in the last 5 months alone I have acquired 9 or 10 coins at auction or from dealers that were incorrectly described or insufficiently checked to accurately describe the variety. Only 2 of those omissions or incorrect attributions were in my view acceptable, the remainder being down to sloppy work on the part of the vendor or their agent. I have also seen many more that I was not interested in. Therefore, for the more astute observer, opportunities are likely to be there for the taking. Farthing collectors, fill your boots.

Hopefully someone will have the funds to buy it as a complete collection. Pie in the sky I know, but it would be a shame if the full collection were to be dispersed without full documentation of all the varieties. If I won the lottery tonight, I'd offer to buy it intact.

It would depend on the variety and grade. Register and then you can post a picture of both sides..

It's a 1956 halfpenny with obverse 4 (thicker rim and I of GRATIA pointing to right of border dot) and reverse C (L of HALF points between two teeth 1 of date to a tooth). Freeman assigned a rarity of R12 (1001-2000 known) but most people would be lucky to see more than 1 and it's seriously rare in high grade.

Good. I've just acquired the 3 issues and can see that they are very informative. What does the CD add to this list? Give me the email address anyway and I will sort something out when I have a spare moment. How much is it? Thanks. I can therefore add to that list 1861 6+G with the first 1 over a higher one assuming it's not on the CD. It's not the best coin in the world with only traces of residual lustre and struggles to make EF, but at least is clear.

I'm not familiar with that article, so you will have to fill me in on it. Some of the things match but not all. The date is wider on the short hair, narrower on the long. The triple incuse line is only on one side of the cross (nearest the bottom of the shield), the other side of the cross has 2 incuse lines. The wrist doesn't appear to be thinner at the narrowest point and any difference would have to be minute. Having said that, it does appear to be narrower over a greater distance i.e. the shape is different. The flagpole is non-existent on mine but that could be die fill. I'm not sure which incuse line near the shield base you refer to, but both have a short vertical incuse line of the same length to the left of the cross at 6 o'clock which goes approximately 35-40% of the distance to the join with the St. Andrew's cross

I should also add that although this feature also applies to Peck 1751 (Nicholson 390) it is not a currency use of a former proof die. P1751 has much of the linear circle missing and a mast connected to the flag on the ship. My piece has 99% of the linear circle and no top to the mast.

An unrecorded variety of beaded border reverse. Peck and Freeman both list only one type of reverse i.e. A. There are however at least 2, one with short hair (rare) and one with long hair (common). It is not just a case of die filling or weakness because the field is continuous underneath the hairline at the back of the head. A comparison of the two shows it clearly. Apologies for the toned reverse on the common variety.

Best picture for the 1738 is this link to the Nicholson pictures. This is the 1863, but a scanner doesn't show the amount of original colour remaining. If anyone knows how to get good scans of bronze and copper with a realistic colour for lustre, please let me know.

A couple of rare halfpenny duplicates for disposal as follows. Please contact me for big pictures. 1738 V/S in GEORGIVS (ex-Nicholson lot 249). Based on fairly exhaustive searches through past auction catalogues, this is the 3rd best example I have found. £375. 1863 Tall 3 Proof Freeman 293 (No specimen known!) of which I have found 4 examples. £495.