Michael-Roo
-
Posts
1,540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
53
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Store
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Michael-Roo
-
-
2 hours ago, azda said:
So where's the nick in the field?
If photoshopped out that would be a big 'no-no'.
-
Another I have (though a lower grade than the first coin). Type 4 in your illustration of seen varieties?
-
-
11 minutes ago, copper123 said:
this is nice
Saw that in the other thread too. Yes, much better than your 1909, particularly breastplate detail etc.
One thing though: give your scanner a wipe!
-
1 hour ago, copper123 said:
As we are on the subject of farthings heres one my edward collection 1909
the obverse is close to perfect
It might be worth your while comparing this with Paulus's coin (above). The hair detail looks to be worn away on your coin, though I suppose it may be that it was struck from a knackered die?
-
1
-
-
That looks right to me too. many thanks.
Its a 5 over 3 / normal obverse.
-
A lighter image of same...
-
On 11 March 2006 at 0:43 PM, Rob said:
Thanks Teg. I may not be around to reply immediately to your response but will add the following to reinforce what has so far been written.
There appears to be at least 4 distinctive styles of 3 (and may be more) which are obviously single punches and these are shown on the scruffy drawing which I append below and apologise for forthwith. There seems to be three types of 3 with a round back to the top section together with at least one type of flat top 3 as used on the 1673 proof Nicholson 017 and others. All of the 5/3 or blundered 3's depending on one's opinion appear to be derived from these 3 types of round back threes shown in drawing 1 below.
Type 2 is as shown in the image previously posted and incidentally the least varied in 3D variation although the second clearest 5/3 type with a deep V on the top bar with the divergence taking place just above the mid point.
Type 3 is the most obvious overstrike where the horizontal bar of the 5 comes out at the mid point and just above and is flat. This is as Nicholson 021. I have a much clearer image of this variety but won't post it to avoid filling the forum with pictures as you can only add 1 picture per post. Is it possible that this, or any other could be farthing 5 punches? You may be able to shed light on this.
Type 4 is the one shown in my previous post which I listed on eBay and appears to be the most common.
Type 5 is as the CRAOLVS at the start of this thread where the right hand section of the top bar starts to drop and forms a small V at the mid point.
Type 6 is taken from the 1673 halfpenny in next week's DNW auction lot 1436 and is the same coin as listed on Colin Cooke's site which I sold him previously having upgraded to my existing piece. This has a poorly struck final digit with much of the bottom loop weak, but the top bar is very clear and the top curved section of the 3 can be seen descending into what can only be decribed as a T-bar in shape with the vertical part of the 5 in the middle and completely upright. Unfortunately, I have inadvertently deleted this image from my computer so can't show a better picture.
Given the number of readily identifiable unambiguous 3 punch varieties, it seems strange to me that so many would need to be overstruck with punches of a different shape. The occasional messy 3 would be OK, but why so many? For your info, all of the above information has been taken from coins in VF or better with the exception of the CRAOLVS and one type 4.
The other question in my mind is the length of time that copper was struck (1672-9). Given that only 1672,3 and 5 are known, I presume that other years were struck but bearing one of the 3 dates known. I also would not be surprised to hear of a 1673/2 as the 1672 dies can't all have been worn out.
Rob.
Forgive me for resurrecting an ancient post but, Rob, could you id which 5/3 this is please? many thanks.
-
-
-
I'm sure William Devane will think that 'spiffing'……..
-
-
1
-
-
Should any of us ever feel the urge to go out looking like a twat help is at hand…..
-
12 hours ago, Paulus said:
Boooo! Down with the Shuttle!! Up with the Fleece!!
This is a Suffolk one ( PAYABLE AT P. DECKS POST OFFICE BURY .XX. )
Now, now, Paulus let's not fall out over minor differences when we could just as easily focus on that which we have in common…. 'All hail the plough!!!'
-
Another token. Norwich 1794 this time. Edge plain.
-
Not bad for a 17th century farthing token. Even shows a little residual lustre.
-
2
-
-
I noticed that too (Google images), though the tall, house-shaped structure, between the towers seems to have gone awol since the 1790s…..
-
I often pop in here to admire the beautiful and diverse token designs, so here's one from me.
'Payable by N Todd Denton Norfolk'
-
1
-
-
This 1674 farthing has all sorts of extra bits and pieces….
-
1673 farthing, no obverse stops, reverses A & B.
-
Indeed Peter, a very lucky find. Colin Cooke himself stated, in all his years of collecting, the best he saw was a good fine. The example he kept for himself (reverse A) he only graded as fine, and even this might be judged a little optimistic these days. Here is my reverse A (narrower date) coin, and then the two reverses side by side for comparision.
I know you are a farthing collector too, do you have a 1673 no stops you could put up for viewing?
-
Always good to hear there are other fans of the early milled copper varieties out there!
This is the best I've seen, and certainly much better than my reverse die A example.
-
Here's the obverse again, taken this time under a desk lamp.
-
Not an 'acquisition of the week' but certainly recent.
No stops obverse and the second reverse die showing a wider date spacing.
An example sold by LCA in December last year http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=151&searchlot=2310&searchtype=2 was described as 'possibly close to, if not the finest known example of the type'. This new one I've found is better.
-
2
-
1860 Bronzed Proof Penny
in British Coin Related Discussions & Enquiries
Posted
Maybe its a strand of fibre?