Michael-Roo

A Roman bronze, I think, but so badly corroded it would be hard to tell exactly.

Happy Birthday!

EF (or slightly better) for the first. GVF for the second?

Wise words, as always. Thanks Rob. One thing I would add: the underlying upright is much more evident when viewed though a loupe 'in the hand' than it is in these rather poor overly enlarged photos.

As is the case whenever the possibility of a new variety is suggested this example is what we have to go on for now. Maybe another, clearer, example will surface as a result of this post.

A darker photo for comparison…...

Here's another close up of the 1672 date together with the same area from the 1671 coin. The underlying upright certainly appears to sit in exactly the same position as the 1.

Interesting. I've checked. If we discount what appears to be an extra bit, behind, and to the left of the foot of the 2 then what looks like an underlying upright IS in exactly the same place as the 1 on the 1671 pattern. The 7 is the same on both coins too.

Good point Scott, but I suppose there's always the chance something else was entered in error first? Think of all the various letter overstrikes we see in early milled copper which have been made to correct spelling mistakes.

Its a George III copper halfpenny. This type was produced between 1770 and 1775.

Great. I'd not come across this before. Is the overstrike any clearer on your example? What do you think the underlying number may be?

Hi all. Today, for the first time in a long time, I've been looking through my farthing trays. I hadn't noticed before but one of my two 1672 loose drapery coins seems to have something going on underneath the 2 in the date. Photos attached.

The photos all feature different backgrounds too. Odd, as most ebay sellers tend to use the same set up each time they photograph a coin. This might not be of any consequence, but it could mean the images have been collected from more than one source.

Happy Birthday!

I wouldn't think so. Only worth a few pence. Interesting colour though!

Spink value for 'Fine' grade is £3. Yours is less than fine. The coin's value has also been reduced by it having a disfiguring counterstamp in the reverse field. Not worth anything at all I'm afraid. Sorry Patinap!

…..which only a mother could love…….

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1673-Charles-II-copper-farthing-no-stops-/321798493041?&_trksid=p2056016.l4276 ?????

The photos were lifted from Tony Clayton's site. http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/six1.html Searching Google Images for '1562 Milled Sixpence' I found the pics to be No.1 Row 1.

All the same, a nice bit of work.

Probably been told 'old pennies' are rare and has plucked a figure out of the air. Hilarious. Very honest. Says it belongs to the right person. Correct. If the grandfather looks after it for a few more years, no collector will have to suffer ownership.

Probably been told 'old pennies' are rare and has plucked a figure out of the air. Hilarious.

Because if you go to Tony Clayton's site, the first copper halfpenny illustrated with a right facing single bust is William III. There are three imaged, the first is in the author's collection and the second courtesy of Spink, but neither has any reference to rarity. The third is the DEI GRATIA, listed as three known and ipso facto is guaranteed to be more appealing to the money grabbing/rip-off merchant mindset. It has us talking about it for a start. I contacted the seller. The description has been changed. £2.99 opening price? Very optimistic!

Fair enough, mistaking an extremely worn George III copper for something else may be understandable, but why on earth would someone choose to identify it as the William III Dei Gratia halfpenny? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/161682379928?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2648&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Belated happy birthday P!