Colin G.

The fat 8 is the more common variety, with the narrow 8 being scarcer. However neither are anywhere as scarce as the 1862 fat 8. Interesting to see that NGC have listed this minor variety.

Link added. Full time job you have as "link inserter"

It looks too even for lustre, perhaps an attempt at falsely applying lustre to a toned coin?

Welcome to the forum, I have to admit those Gothic florins are quite appealing

Really enjoyed that

Apparently this is a case of bad journalism, the finder and landowner have not waived their reward, a press release from the museum was misinterpreted Bet that made the finder panic when he saw it!!

Very crazy indeed, this is the result of pressure that is applied when a significant find is located. Supposedly for the benefit of the public and museums, but you try and gain access to study any of them in the near future. A portion will end up on a display somewhere, with the remainder locked away in a drawer never to see the light of day again. I could understand it more if it was an artefact of historical importance rather than a hoard of coins. Our system is one of the best in terms of its approach to finds, and encouraging responsible detecting. Compare this to systems in many other countries where no reward is given and all finds are expected to be submitted to a government body....a far smaller percentage ever get recorded with a vast majority never being declared. There is legislation put in place for a reason, why is it not followed.

And they are two books that I would definitely recommend

Welcome to the forum, there is a great wealth of knowledge on here. I am more of a bronze/copper collector, so I cant really offer much in the way of advice on the literature. In fact my only real advice would be forget about halfcrowns and collect farthings

I know some finds Norfolk way that have been in a very sandy soil can come out in that type of condition as detecting finds. Admittedly not very often but it does happen. I have had a couple before that have been similar, I would choose the Thames find every time, purely because of the stability issue.

CC is definitely still the resource in this area, I have built up a bank of images of the series and continue to do so, however trying to sort them at the moment is a distant pipe dream. As Scott says the earlier series needs serious commitment for anything worthwhile to be generated in terms of a catalogue. Colin Cooke's lists are still the leading authority in this area as Peter says.

I agree that some of the flatness across Britannia's face is due to weak strike, because the wear would be beyond the depth at which the remainder of the coin is worn, but there is definitely wear down that left hand side where the toning is present, albeit not a great amount!!

I had a low bid at this one, the dry verd on this one made me a bit cautious, sometimes these can be really powdery if they are detecting finds. The Thames finds always seem a bit more stable. I was tempted but held back. I would guess at the winner being Ray Hamson of http://www.stuartroyalfarthingtokens.com/

In my opinion there is wear evident along the length of Britannia from her head down her left side to her left ankle. Admittedly the weakness makes this more difficult to determine, and whilst the wear is marginal, but in my opinion it is evident. The same is also evident along the laurel and cuirass on the Obverse. I have to admit if I was technically grading I would not be as harsh as GVF, but I would struggle with calling this Mint State/UNC....and whilst it is a common date, decent examples of lustrous George II farthings are notoriously tough.

Rob I just clicked on it and the auction popped straight up no problems

Many happy returns to both of you!!

I agree they look too regular to be die flaws, but you never know. I wonder if they may have been some form of marker for numeral placement if the datal figures were being recut, but they don't seem to line up with anything so maybe not A similar thing occurs on some 1873 farthings but they are angled rather than straight

They are getting almost as popular as pennies and Charles I shillings on this forum

Thanks and happy birthday to the others who share this fantastic birthdate

I was planning to do this exercise for the Harington farthings mainly due to the poor quality privy marks on the band of the crown and beneath the crown to see if they could be verified by cataloguing the dies.

Actually I would say the same, mine have always been very helpful when I have the odd blonde moment

I use FileZilla, the host name usually starts with ftp. instead of www.

If only it was that clear cut...it seems this topic always gets dragged down to a level that is too simplistic. I agree that a "two pronged trident" or a "filled 2" might not be a "variety" as we typically define one. But what does constitute a variety? It is not that easy a question to answer when you try and establish a set of rules that apply across a series/denomination. Are the punctuation differences in the James I and Charles I farthings a true variety? How about the Charles II pattern farthings, where legend position is the indicator. The varieties of 1881H farthing which are predominantly established through the style/position of the H. Would the "rounded top" lighthouse variety of 1881H farthing be worthy of inclusion? Why are we happy to define a minor tweak to the main design, a grained edge, a change in alignment or material used as a type or variety, but if the same thing happens in relation to other aspects, such as the legend or date it is dismissed so easily. When does a different strike material become an error or a different type? It is a subject that is a lot more complicated than people think at first glance. When you actually try and catalogue a list of varieties, using a defined set of parameters it becomes exceedingly difficult. I am not saying that anyone is necessarily right or wrong, but I would always be willing to listen to someone's opinion and read how or why they established the parameters they have before dismissing it as not following the "norm" It is often by studying these features that additional knowledge on die sequencing and coin production/design becomes apparent. Defining the two Reverse designs for the copper Victorian Farthing series was only possible through cataloging and studying the design intensively and establishing a recurring pattern. Any of the individual features allocated to the identification could have been dismissed as being insignificant reworking of the dies, however as a collective group of features they help establish a new design type.

I must admit I thought the estimates/reserves in the farthings I looked at were over the top

Stuart that is my approach too, paper envelopes scribbled on and then you can review when you get time