coinpictures

Got this in the mail today. After spending time examining the coin extensively with both a 10x loupe and my USB microscope, I'm pretty convinced the third farthing image is counterstamped and not machined. This would imply that whomever did the counterstamp had one of the third farthing dies. From the full coin shots, it looks like there might be a gap between the counterstamp and the host coin, meaning the penny could have been machined and a plug with the third farthing reverse inserted, but I cannot actually detect any gap, hence my including the closeup shots taken via microscope. You can see that there are no seams between the counterstamp and the host. If it was machined and plugged, the tolerances used were very tight. Definitely weird. But cool...

Picked this one up on eBay. Based on the seller's poor pictures it looked like it might be an AU with an outside shot at UNC (U.S. grading standards). Definitely not the latter, but I like the overall look. The date is funky though. 5/0? 0/5? Other? Not exactly sure what this is. Pics follow.

"None of mine are like that, therefore it must be artificially toned." I'll hand it to you, that's a novel approach. As far as the contention that the only time you ever see multicolored hues on coins is on proofs or prooflike pieces, as one who collects worldwide coins (not just U.K.), and specializes in toned coins, I can say without reservation that you are completely wrong. Now, you are certainly within your rights to not like the color from an aesthetic standpoint, in the same way that I don't like bright red copper, but the assertions as to artificial toning are off the mark...

Yeah, the 1/2 farthings offer a slightly larger canvas and details to enjoy, but the 1/4 and 1/3 farthings are my favorites just because they are so diminuitive. I have an 1854 1/2 farthing in NGC MS66 BN with lovely purple-blue toning. That will be going to Mark for imaging later this year. While not as vibrantly colored as this 1/4 farthing, the surfaces are wonderful. That 1770 1/2d is wonderful to ogle. It used to be the highest of 3 graded PL for the entire series until last year when someone made a 65 RD PL. I like mine better though, as the 65 had some spotting, not to mention it cost 10x what mine did... and I paid strong money for mine (it languished unsold in dealer inventory for quite some time, and then they put it on eBay and I was the only bidder... maybe I overpaid, who knows, but I love the coin). The coin below is interesting. It was sold in an NGC PF64 BN holder, but the dealer said he believed it was incorrectly holdered, and is actually a prooflike MS strike. I sent it back to NGC, and they concurred... it is now certified as MS64 BN PL. Considering that prooflike examples from this era are infinitely more scarce than proofs (in my experience at any rate), it was a very nice pickup for $250.

And lastly, the jewel of my fractional farthing collection. This is a case where (1) I think PCGS missed the boat on the grade (probably because of the tiny size of the coin)... if this were a U.S. copper of the same era, it would grade at least 2 points higher, and (2) even so, numerical grade has no bearing on the eye appeal of the coin. I bought it sight unseen and lucked out beyond my imagining... 1/4 Farthing, 1839. PCGS MS64 RB.

1/2d 1799. NGC MS63 BN. 1/2d 1770. NGC MS64 BN PL. While I'd been able to capture the details of the coin, any shot that conveyed the "liquidity" of the surfaces and the prooflike aspects of the coin had utterly eluded me. Nice diebreak on the reverse, and doubling of the first 7 in the date.

Photography by Mark Goodman. These are some of my favorite pieces, that I've never been able to capture to my liking despite hours of repeated attempts... so I finally gave up and sent them to a pro. I'm so pleased, that not only have I preordered his forthcoming Numismatic Photography book, but I'll be sending my entire fractional farthing collection to him for imaging. These aren't necessarily the highest graded pieces in the world, but they're my favorites. (split over multiple posts due to limit of 2 images per post) Farthing 1806. NGC MS62 BN. I'm a fan of purple/blue copper moreso than red, and I love the repunched digits in the date.

Thanks for the comments. I find it hard to determine what a fair price is for this particular type. Between Krause, Spink, Ebay results, true auction results, and current asking prices with UK dealers, these are all over the map. In solid EF I'm seeing prices anywhere from 125 pounds to 300 pounds. True UNC (by British standards) is 400 pounds and up. The asking price for this particular piece was 225 pounds. I offered 150 pounds and it was accepted. Assuming that there aren't any problems with the coin, even if it's just an EF, I think I did ok. Certified MS examples seem to be off the charts...

I may have jumped the gun on it, but it's one of the nicer ones I've seen. It's being sold as an UNC (at least by U.S. grading standards), and I think I agree. Color looks very original to me. A few minor rim bruises, but nothing near what I've seen on a lot of these. No wear that I can spot on the obverse. Looks like there might be some wear on the Britania's head on the reverse, or it might be weakness of strike. Opinions?

Actually it helps greatly! I really wish I could capture what this coin looks like in hand, because it is completely different from any other 1700s-early 1800s piece I've seen. The blue sheen is so liquid, it almost looks like the coin was made out of reflective plastic (if that makes any sense). I'm assuming then, that if this is not a proof, it was an early strike. Were there presentation strikes? As far as the 1806 1d is concerned, here are the pictures I have (NGC PF64 BN): I had assumed (perhaps erroneously) that the fields on a proof would be perfectly flat and not curve up towards the edges of the coin like this one does. Dealer pictures:

A bit of background: About a month back I bought an 1806 1d that NGC had graded as PF64 BN. The dealer I purchased it from was quite insistant that it is not a proof, but rather a business strike with PL surfaces. They've dealt with these coins far more than I have, so I'm not about to doubt their assertion. I have sent the coin into NGC for either confirmation or correction; will probably be a few weeks before I receive the results. Fast forward to today. I receive another coin that may or may not be a proof. It is a 1770 1/2d that NGC has graded as MS64 BN PL. It has the most prooflike liquid mirror surfaces I've ever seen on a coin of that age. The $64,000 question: How do you tell a proof from a business strike? Some pictures below. First 2 are from the dealer; the remainder are mine. Apologies for the crappy photography; I absolutely cannot capture the mirror surfaces.

I received an NGC MS63 1844 E/N Half Farthing today, and I cannot ascertain for certain whether or not NGC got it right. To my eye this coin looks simply like a repunched E rather than E over N. The pictures I've found online (none of them super close up) of the E/N variety show the crossbar of the N being obliterated by the middle stem of the E, which this does not have. Also, there's no trace where the right leg of the N should be... I have a return privilege, but it's a short window. Any help would be appreciated.