Colin G.

Teg, I have ploughed through my images of 1825 farthings, and many seem to have a larger gap between the I and the T, in fact I only 1 example of the smaller gap between the I and T and that is a very poor example, so the overdate on that coin cannot be seen. I have overlaid one of these coins onto yours and it looks to be a pretty good match!! Image 1 The A and I and the leaves match perfectly, and the T is now positioned over your underlying numeral, the rotation even aligns. All we need now is Rob's example to see whether there is another variety!! I think the overdate is visible enough to constitute its own variety on the site, so I will get it added.

This series is littered with double cut lettering, missing bars and serifs etc. Just another overcut letter I think. The rare ones seem to be those with cleanly cut and intact legend. Having said that, I just checked my 2 examples and one is 5/5 in the date and the other is T/A in BRITANNIA. That's one that Colin doesn't have on his site. The R over R is one of the more difficult examples to obtain, I have only seen one example to date, and that is the one in my collection . As you say there are a multitude of repunched numerals/letters in this series, but I have tried to restrict it to the major "obvious" differences at present. I am due to update the George IV section shortly with a few more varieties, and I have now got 3 different obvious 5 over 5 examples, 1 lower, 1 higher and one to the left. I am unaware of the T/A variety, have you got an image (1200dpi would be nice, and your approval to use your images would be even nicer!!)

As TEG says it is the 5 over 2 of which there are a few versions, in my opinion they are mispriced in coin books and are commoner than many people believe, although they are difficult to obtain in higher grades. I have to also say that my opinion is similar to Tegs in that it is a flaw on the 5 punch, because it does appear on coins with or without the overdate and also where different date spacings occur. Which implies it is not a die flaw, if it is a 5 over a 3 they produced the same effect on different dies by accurately positioning the 5 over the 3 in the same position every time. Is there a possibility that the punch was originally a 3 that was altered, I have to honestly say I do not know enough about the repunching process to know. The line appears too accurate to be just a flaw in my opinion, but I may stand to be corrected. I have left the varieties on the site at present because they do appear as differences that are clearly apparent to the eye, but I am hoping in time, I can obtain some clearer examples, although it may be a case of we will never know for certain.

Ah thats what it will be, it takes me so long to think what I am going to say it must have timed out I will have to plan ahead!!

Chris, I seem to have lost the ability to edit my posts, is this due to the recent changes on the forum, or did I press something in my options that I shouldn't have!!!

The brooch does only seem to have 6 jewels, but I could also persuade myself there could be a very weak 7th. The shoulder drapery where the K is normally positioned is also different from my other 1806 farthings. The area is generally a smooth recessed area between 2 raised ridges like a plan view of a canoe shape (if that makes sense ) this one has only the raised ridge to the top, with the area then grading into the field of the coin, perhaps there was some form of fill in the die in this area. The ship is similar to the others with three main sails and a separate small sail to the front. But it does appear in finer detail than my others, the 3 ropes to each sail are very clear and then one rope from the rear of the ship to rear sail (Forgive my poor sailing terminology - sails and ropes ) Into the possible variety pile for this one, with the others!!

Opinions wanted on one of my 1806 farthings, it has no "K" on the shoulder as is found on the currency farthings. The area is completely smooth, even under magnification no trace. I have seen them weak, but I have never seen an example without the incuse K other than the known ones (incuse dot, 3 raised dots etc.) Anyone have any opinions? 1806 Farthing

James, The Reverse 5 was added because I had seen an 1853 farthing which clearly had the B without serifs, it may be that this coin did in fact have the detached clover also. Again, if you want to provide me a scan (ideally of both obverse & reverse), I can get it put onto the site, and updated as no serifs and detached clover. I have no doubt there are plenty of combinations left to find, so the presence of a 5F is very possible.

Welcome Perkin, if its information and opinions you want you have certainly come to the right place and also welcome to the wonderful world of coin collecting!!

Well actually yours will become Obverse H when I get around to uploading it!!!

James, Thanks for the images, the 1845 is similar, but the size difference is more obvious, except the large date is the scarcity this time. But there is also reference to a mid sized version (just to complicate things, but I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing one). Just to give people an insight into how I make my comparisons, I have used your coin image. The reason I ask for the 1200dpi scans is that it allows me to see differences in detail that I think are noticeable, it also allows me to accurately compare date spacings etc. When comparing coins, I overlay parts of one image onto the other and then reverse the process. It is amazing how it highlights differences. My wife keeps reminding me what an anorak I am I have overlaid your coin onto two Obverse D images and the datal figures, the WW incuse and the beads do match, which would indicate this is the Obverse D prior to its repair work!! I have provided links to the images below. Image 1 Image 2 I really must make an effort to get out more

There are a lot of varieties of the larger date, but the visual differences are not obvious. This is further complicated by the various bead sizes/positions, which makes it difficult to categorise them. I have tried to list the types that have clear visual differences to prevent me from identifying each individual die variety (although I may head down this route at some point in time, probably many moons from now!!). I can see what you say regarding the date spacing and the fact that the 5 and 8 are closer like the Obverse D variety, and perhaps you have located the type D obverse variety prior to the repunched numeral. I have not yet come across that variety, so if you want to submit a 1200dpi scan I will get it added to the site and compare it to they Obverse D to see if it is a match I have tried to highlight the difference on the link below and have provided full sized scans of the Obverse A and Obverse B on the second link, but it is a large file so be patient while it opens. Colin Cooke used to point to the last 8 being higher as an indication, which can be seen, but it is again not obvious. 1858 Small Date Comparison 1858 Large and Small Date - Full size scans

James, That coin is the larger date variety (1A) on my site, it is amazing how noticable the difference is when you have the coin in front of you. I can e-mail you full size scans of the small date and large date coins if you want. It will enable you to see the difference.

Teg, Thanks for that, it has certainly given me more to think about, and answered a few questions in my mind, although it has raised a couple more

Looking at your coin I would guess that there has been no re-punching. It is just a die that has become very worn / clogged / filled. This has more effect on some parts of the die than others - and yours shows plenty of weak areas. "I have to admit I find it bizarre that the die has filled to leave a perfect 1, although it is certainly possible" When dies became weak they would re-punch individual letters or numerals. Dies were expensive. There are numerous combinations to explore - at what stage in the process was a particular letter re-cut? When making the original die - or as a repair? " The 1844 N over E half farthing has always baffled me. It is definitely the N that is struck over the E and this raises more questions. If the E was becoming worn, was there an intent to use the N to try and improve the appearance (if this was the reason it was a bizarre choice!!) Was it the fact that the N in REGINA required repunching and the worker stamped the last but 1 letter in REGINA when reversed leading to the mistake. A more likely theory I believe. Or was it just a complete foul up by the worker repunching the wrong letter in the wrong place" Below is another 1840 farthing, apologies for the large size - but you need it to see the detail. Most of this is all but invisible to the naked eye. Obverse legend all letters doubled. Makes me think that it has to be die-doubling. For me by far the most interesting part, W.W. (William Wyon) doubled on truncation. The date, Vic portrait and rev. do not seem doubled - in hand (even if the pics suggest it). "I have to agree it is a superb example, and the WW doubling does also raise questions in my mind. It is stated that when machine doubling occurs, due to the rotation it is more prevelant at the edges of the coin where the rotation is more severe. But in this scenario you would expect the outer areas of the portrait to have the same amount of doubling, which they do not. This then leads you to think that the die was formed in 2 stages, where the portrait was positioned and then the lettering applied separately, but again the fact that the W.W. forms part of the legend I find curious. I would also thought a 2 stage process impractical, in that surely the secong stage would impact upon the detail of the first. The pressure applied to form the incuse lettering on the die would surely distort the already positioned portrait or vice versa" I know I have had a book recommended to me by Denis R. Cooper before about this subject but I have been unable to locate a copy. Information on the die production/repair process is difficult to obtain and I am open to any suggestions of good websites or other resources that may expand my knowledge. Teg

Found this curiosity in a bunch of farthings purchased recently, the upright of the four has a much higher relief giving the appearance of the date as 1810. I initially thought it had been restruck using a 1, but I am unsure as to why this would be done with a 1 and not with another 4, or has it been manually recut? I have got to get more knowledge on the cutting/repairing of dies/hubs, any willing teachers out there? Thoughts anyone?

James, I am always hesitant about the unbarred A varieties. I know there are several that exist, but on many farthings, the horizontal bar is just much fainter than the two slopes of the A. Therefore on coins where I can not see clearly see the original surface of the coin I will not attribute them as unbarred A varieties. It is difficult to be certain on this coin because of the surface dirt which appears to be apparent within the letter A's on Britanniar. You may be able to confirm this with closer inspection. The A also does appear doubled, but unless the doubling stands out to the naked eye, I tend not to class them as a variety, due to the number of coins this is present on.

I must admit if it is a forgery, it is the best one I have seen, escpecially if the weight is also correct. This was just the sort of dilemma, I needed to discover before starting to catalogue items. It may be a case of trying to identify the regal issues, and noting coins such as this as an unconfirmed/possibly regal. I must admit my initial reaction on the images was that it appeared regal, but I can see Rob's perspective also. I have to admit without closer inspection I would not like to commit my opinion (Sitting on the fence with this one!! ) This has also raised another good point in that if people are happy to submit scans, if possible could they also include weights of the coins, if they have the facility available to them. I can appreciate many people may not want to submit this information, and do respect your individual decisions, I can also guarantee that any scans/information you provide will be treated with the strictest confidence. Teg, Would you be willing to submit scans of your coins? Teg, Is there something going on under the first N of Britannia on the second coin you posted to the forum?

All, I am looking to expand the site back to the next period. There are still many varieties that I have got to add on other dates, but I am interested in starting to collect and collate data on the 1771-1775 series. I am only interested in genuine coins and not the contemporary counterfeits. I know there are several identified varieties, but I am looking to expand this to the next stage. I know there are those who question the reasoning behind identifying varieties in this detail, but what can I say it is something I enjoy doing. If you have any farthings of this period, and are happy to provide images, can you contact me via e-mail. To allow accurate comparison, can you provide images of at least 1200dpi. I am not going to publish any of the images on my site without your prior permission, but will acknowledge your contributions if the images are suitable, and you choose to do so. The same also goes for any farthing varieties that you have for any later dates (excluding 1799-1807 because I have not yet decided how best to deal with the quantities of restrikes etc). There are many varieties that I have, but until I get confirmation from a second or clearer example, I choose not list them. If you could take the time to contribute, it would be appreciated

Thanks a lot!!! I have been looking everywhere, and the image you have provided does seem to match. This is really appreciated!

The letters look to me like they have been repunched, it is especially clear as you say below the U and the first two numerals.

James, If you want to email me a pic at 1200dpi, I will be glad to host the picture for you, and will provide a link on the board.

All, Does anyone know what plant the cape sparrows are perched on in the design of a South African farthing, I have looked but without success!!

I would welcome opinions on the attached image. It appears that the V in Victoria is actually an inverted A. I have provided an image of the coin and some magnified images. What do you think? I think I would like to see a clearer example to be 100% positive, so check your 1853 farthings!! This is the WWIncuse variety, and also only has a central stop after DEF.