Michael-Roo

I see it was decided the front of the crown is fine as it is and not in need of any remedial work. Charles as created via the medium of Etch-a-Sketch…..

1969/1970: 1860 and 1861 bun pennies. Worn almost flat, but I still have them.

Hi Johnshan. Milled coinage (circa 1670). Groat (fourpence).

Can we see your 1694 unbarred A's 1/2d please Scott? I'm curious to know how one which came in a job lot for £4.99 looks!

Here I am having returned from studying my 1730s halfpennies yet again. I can report I have a second 1739 single exergue! More worn than my first example, but the variety is as clear as day. I also note the coin looks very similar to Rob's partial second exergue 1739. Both have the same stubby legend letters. Both have Britannia's branch shorter than it should be. So, as one coin (Rob's) has the second line still partially visible, and the second (mine) doesn't, this may lend weight to the soft strike and/or retooled date area argument. It would also certainly suggest the variety isn't as rare as has been thought. This second coin of mine is also missing the top section of Britannia's lance and, on the obverse, the R in Georgivs is also stubby and oddly formed. Photos are attached...

Is this one acceptable as an unconfirmed variety? There is a specimen graded fine in the Nicholson collection which he was pretty certain about but he had hoped to see a better example in order to confirm it. I see both Scott and Michael Gouby also have examples but, unfortunately, the condition of each is rather poor. My own coin is the best of the bunch (see attached). The single line is clear and I can find no trace of a second (which would suggest a filled or worn die). I'm also including here a photo of the exergue and date of one of the other 1739s I have for comparison. The double line is unmistakeable on this second coin. I'd be most grateful for your thoughts, and would like to know if any other forum members have one of these too. Ta.

It's the crown on the JH portrait that makes it look silly (IMO) and is why that portrait was so unpopular at the time. You might be interested in this adaption I did in Photoshop, showing it without the crown (apologies for the JPEG artefacts): JH %22artists impression%22.jpg To my mind, it looks more dignified. Also, in Peck there is a plate showing a pattern for a bronze JH portrait where she's wearing the same crown as on the Old Head bust, i.e. much lower on the head - it looks so much better. Like it Chris. Certainly looks better than the original.

Rob, after reading your very interesting notes regarding the reworking of dates and possible subsequent smoothing of the original exergue I went back and took another look through my halfpennies of the 1730s. Here is my 1738. Normal issue but, different numerals to yours, and no evidence of a second line! As nowhere have I found mention of 1738 'single exergue' as a recorded variety it could be this is a specimen which proves your theory.

I see slight differences to the obverses of our coins too. Compare the tie ribands and the distance between the II and the top of George's head .

I see a hint of a line similar to mine also... Hi again. Please see my earlier reply to Scott. The mark you indicate on my coin is a tiny scratch. It is incuse, not raised as would be the case if it were part of a second exergue line. If you compare our coins you'll also notice they are different reverse dies. The date numerals are different, as too are the positions of each of Britannia's hands in relation to the letters. The stop after the A is also further away on mine. Fascinating stuff, and Rob's notes certainly give us plenty to think about.

Thanks for the photo Rob. Not as bad as you suggest. Nicely struck, and a different reverse die to mine. Scott: Thanks for the note. What looks to be a scrap of a second exergue line is in fact a tiny scratch. Hard to tell from the photo but its incuse, not raised as it would be if the remnant of a line.

Thanks Rob. Do you have a photo? Also: I was just now looking at the photos I've included in my post. Do you think there's something going on underneath the R of Rex?

Yes! 1660 would be great .

Here y'go…... http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/great-britain-1934-wreath-crown-copy-coins/117636_1905360743.html

Obviously, I wouldn't want to diss anyone in the absence of solid evidence but, I do think it worth pointing out, the history suddenly goes from loads of car parts to wreath crowns. Have you also noted how each example looks exactly the same? Same soapy surface. Same wear to the bust. If I'm wrong I apologise unreservedly. Maybe they're kosher. I don't know...

Excellent. That's my evening sorted then.

Nice Metcalfe photo. Regarding this recent splurge of fantasy and repro coins produced and offered in editions of 18/20 or whatever: 3D printers are now capable of executing these from a powdered precious metal base. Something to consider?…...

Either way, a truly horrible specimen. Wouldn't give it house room…..

Maybe a tad better than that?

Certainly not as late as 1707. All hammered coinage was withdrawn from circulation in the 1690's. That's not to say it didn't come from your wreck. It may have been a pocket piece/curio carried by a member of the crew. Who knows? Either way, a very nice find.

And now, famously, the go to guy for all things budgie related.

I did post images of this one on an earlier thread a little while ago but, on the back of my recent thread regarding the 1673 no stops farthing and Scott's concerning the BRITA NIA halfpenny, I thought it might be worth putting them up again here. Another rare and recognised early milled variety. Unbarred A's and the I over an inverted V? The few examples I've seen are in a grade comparable with my own coin. If any forum members also have one of these I'd love to see some photos. Ta!

The better of two from my collection. Clear missing stop and a particularly nice reverse. Possibly also portrait one. Please see Colin Cooke's excellent notes on the 1694 varieties. All currency coins viewed during his research were portrait two apart from a single 'no stop after Maria' which was portrait one. Portrait one otherwise occurs for proofs BMC 623 and 624 only. The little differences mentioned in the notes and visible in photographs could suggest my coin is portrait one.

It is also worth noting the design and size of Britannia is different on this coin to that which usually appears on the reverse of most 1694 1/4ds.

All obverse stops omitted. Single exergue line. Rated extremely rare by Colin Cooke.