Colin G.

I like the thrill of the bid, albeit I have forgot to bid on a couple of occasions

They used to be identified as small 8 and large 8. Colin Cooke redefined them as thin 8 and fat 8, which is a more accurate term because it is the width of the numeral that is obvious. The script is also different. There is a a visual explanation on my 1862 page http://www.aboutfarthings.co.uk/Farthing%20-%201862.html As for the overdate, I have always wondered what defines which digit is overstruck, take the example above, the fat 8 could have been the original digit, or the the thin 8 could have been depending on how hard the repunch was struck. If it was deeper than the original numeral it would appear to be on top, but if it was struck shallower it would appear to be below does that make sense? The change in design of the 8 makes it easier to determine that the thin 8 was the original numeral because it was used up until 1862/3 then reverted back in 1865.

I assume when you talk about the smell you are on about the foil test? Spit on a pice of foil and rub it on a silver coin, you get an sulphurous smell.

Kath, I would be happy enough to vouch for Derek (Red Riley) if it gives you any comfort.

I did a couple of years as a salesman, but I was not pushy enough I now work in Building Control on commercial projects (before you all start having a go at me about dodgy extensions)

Go to lunch early on wednesday 4th, Colin. Thanks for the heads up!! I find the level of regulation as frustrating as everyone else, I try to take a reasonable common sense approach

And when we've done that, can we move round to HR and Compliance ? I work in compliance

I think you would need to magnify to at least x60 to be definitive. It is surprising what die cracks can resemble, but once magnified we will have a better idea

I wouldn't worry the rate I am going, I will have retired before it gets published I must set aside some tim from every day life, I must set aside some time from everyday life, I must........

I have come across similar things on farthings, that have seriously resembled additional numerals, and allsorts, but when I sit back and think about it and get my level head on, I always find a plausible explanation. I am not discounting it as a 1, but I will reserve judgement until a magnified clear image is provided.

Spoilsport but there is more!!

Definitely not, it is a toothed border both sides. The way some of the teeth look isolated like beads is a common feature on toothed borders and the one that causes confusion, but I can guarantee that the coin in the photo is not a mule. I can identify them visually because I am examining them all the time, but I now have a definitive way of checking which will help collectors, but I am hesitant to release the information at the moment because I am working on putting a book together of varieties and it will be detailed in the book.

It looks a bit ropey to me I was thinking Chinese copy

That looks very similar to some of the 1895 Old Head farthings, the dies must have been polished which gives a "proof like" effect with some mirroring to the fields, and a very clear strike. I believe them to be very early strikes.

I might be able to do you a deal on some farthings If there is anything the shop that catches your eye, drop me an e-mail and we can sort something out. Thanks Colin

I never used to see the fascination with these, but since owning a few, they are fascinating little insights into previous owners, and the route the coin has taken. I would definitely purchase more farthings with these if I could find them

Okay devil's advocate time....I do agree with much of your sentiment, but Lustre can be subdued, so I can have two coins that are both uncirculated with full lustre, but one will look different to the other. I will always try and highlight this as subdued lustre, but it is still technically a BUNC coin in my opinion. I do however try and keep the classification BUNC for only those coins that I feel have true full lustre, otherwise I will indicate as UNC with 90% lustre or similar. This is the only product I can find in my stock which is described as ABU, and this is due to the fact that this coin is BUNC to the eye, but when scanned/photgraphed, a slight patch of lustre is missing to Victoria's hair, so I do not feel it should be classed as BUNC. Do I now describe this as UNC with 99.9% lustre? I can see the issue being raised but have never personally seen it as a major issue. If this annoys collectors, then I might be willing to change this to UNC with "almost full lustre" or similar. The last thing I want to do is rub you lot up the wrong way Do you honestly see this example as a major issue, I really do value your opinions guys? http://aboutfarthings.co.uk/shop/product_info.php?products_id=550 As I say, I do the best I can and also would gladly accept returns if buyers are unsatisfied, but it does not just seem that big an issue to me. I know there are those who take this a step too far, but we will never get concensus on this so I think it will always be a case of if you don't like the dealer's way of listing stock, and are not happy with their grading then do not use them, and let them know the reason why the coin is being returned (because mistakes do happen ). That is exactly what I do and would not expect anything less from anyone buying from me. Now I will hide behind my monitor and wait for the backlash

Tried that route before without joy It is not urgent I will wait for Paul or Bente to return

Yes I forgot the obvious information - He wrote the Galata Guide on the Farthing Tokens of James I and Charles I

Does anyone have any links to Tim Everson, I am trying to contact him regarding a Richmond farthing. If you can help, PM me. Thanks

Red, I heard the same that the planchets had the edge lettering struck before the Obverse & Reverse being struck, so it was an entirely random outcome.

I think there may be a logical explanation for some of this. Two pound coins seem to get collected by non-collectors as curiosity pieces ( I know my mom has quite a few) due to the commemorative designs, and as times become harder, they end up getting churned back into circulation. This may also explain why quite a few of them end up in surprisingly good condition.

I use Adobe Dreamweaver to create my website, it is nice and simple to use, once you get into it, and web hosting depends on how reliable you want the site to be and what traffic you are intending to get. You can grab a domain name for about £5 a year, hosting can be anything from free (if you have advertising banners from other companies) up to a pretty penny for a major hosting account. For something personal you should be able to get a decent set up fairly reasonably. I use siteground and can give you a link which will entitle you to a years hosting for $9.95 (I think you also get a free domain name), which is their usual monthly price for a good hosting account. You can try it for a year and renew, pack it in, or move elsewhere. I have to admit I would also get a months free hosting out of it They do tutorials and the support has always been excellent!! You can either upload your own site from any web design package, or use their own creation templates, but I have never tried this so do not know how good it is. Have a look and see what you think, the most important thing to remember is it can be quite time consuming, but great fun!! The same offer applies to anyone else who wants to have a dabble!!

If the prices on pennies are too high -- there are always farthings and halfpennies. Oi!! don't encourage them all to collect farthings you will push the prices up and give me more competition for purchases

You are correct it is Obverse 5, the easiest way to distinguish between Obverse 3 and 5 is that Obverse 3 has a full brooch, whereas Obverse 5 only has a partial brooch visible. It is also Reverse C