1717 Halfpenny

[DaveG38]

Yesterday, I was happily annoying my bank by taking several hours sorting out my collection. One of the tasks that I did was to compare new and original examples of coins to see which I should keep or which ones are maybe different varieties. Whilst looking at my two 1717 halfpennies, I noticed that one of them seems to have been struck on a much larger flan the the other. The smaller is 25mm across, whereas the other is 27-28mm across i.e. noticeably larger. Also, the legend over the bust is as per Peck for the smaller flan type, but is aligned differently for the larger one.

Does anyone know if this halfpenny was struck on a larger flan? Peck doesn't say anything about this, apart from the proof which this clearly isn't (not unless it is a well circulated proof).

[Michael-Roo]

 

Hi Dave,

I remember having a conversation with Rob about this on here a little while ago. I have a 1718 which, at 28mm, is also larger than my other dump halfpennies. Apparently, as these were struck without the use of a collar a diameter range of 25-28mm is perfectly normal.

I've just now measured my 1717 copper proof too, that has a diameter of 26mm.

[DaveG38]

30 minutes ago, Michael-Roo said:

 

Hi Dave,

I remember having a conversation with Rob about this on here a little while ago. I have a 1718 which, at 28mm, is also larger than my other dump halfpennies. Apparently, as these were struck without the use of a collar a diameter range of 25-28mm is perfectly normal.

I've just now measured my 1717 copper proof too, that has a diameter of 26mm.

Michael,

Thank you for this. Does this mean that the larger diameter coins are thinner than the standard ones, due to the lack of collar, or is it that the flans were larger anyway?

[Michael-Roo]

 

Yes, thinner.

Same size/weight flans as the rest but squashed out to a slightly broader diameter.

[DaveG38]

OK. Thanks for that. Yet another variety in the collection!!!