Halfpenny ID check

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

8 hours ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

I'd like a second opinion on what I believe to be another 1861 6 & b half penny. Although low grade, I think it can be identified. It is NOT an obverse 7.

It appears to have the die break above the R in REG as well as a bit more of the O in HONI SO. Additionally, although difficult to capture in an image, I think there is evidence of a double incuse line. All indicative of an obverse 6.

All comments appreciated.

Thank you

 

 

Sorry, all.

I'm unable to edit, but I did intend to say Obverse 6, and reverse F as previously discussed...

Thank you

Edited February 25, 2022 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[mrbadexample]

10 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

Thank you, I did mean 6 and F though...

Obviously a reverse F, was looking for confirmation on Obverse. Thank you for that.

Only checked the obverse. 

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

1 hour ago, mrbadexample said:

Only checked the obverse. 

Understood... and Thanks again

[Zo Arms]

I knew what you meant.

I put a lot of faith in the REG F D colons as it's usually all I have to work with.

They are saying to me, obverse 6. Definitely not 7. And REG to far from circle to be a 4.

Re the flaw above the R in reg. If I'm looking at yours correctly, it appears to be above the hollow of the R whereas on mine and Bernie's it's above the leg.

For some reason the top leaves and the forehead are shouting 5 at me?

I see no reason why there shouldn't be a 5 + F out there.

I can fully understand the problems I present to these pages now.

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

33 minutes ago, Zo Arms said:

I knew what you meant.

I put a lot of faith in the REG F D colons as it's usually all I have to work with.

They are saying to me, obverse 6. Definitely not 7. And REG to far from circle to be a 4.

Re the flaw above the R in reg. If I'm looking at yours correctly, it appears to be above the hollow of the R whereas on mine and Bernie's it's above the leg.

For some reason the top leaves and the forehead are shouting 5 at me?

I see no reason why there shouldn't be a 5 + F out there.

I can fully understand the problems I present to these pages now.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the input.

Regarding the possibility of obverse 5, I dismissed that option because the coin in question does not have the scalloped top center leaf that I have seen on all obverse 5 specimens whether or not they have the indentation flaw on the forehead. Conversely, I have not seen that scalloped top center leaf on any other obverse other than an obverse 5.

Ergo, in my opinion,  it is not an obverse 5.

[mrbadexample]

1 hour ago, Zo Arms said:

Re the flaw above the R in reg. If I'm looking at yours correctly, it appears to be above the hollow of the R whereas on mine and Bernie's it's above the leg.

For some reason the top leaves and the forehead are shouting 5 at me?

Note to self: look harder.  

I thought the die crack above the R matched but can now see it's in a different place. I don't see a flaw in the forehead where I would expect to see one for obverse 5 though.

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

37 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

Note to self: look harder.  

I thought the die crack above the R matched but can now see it's in a different place. I don't see a flaw in the forehead where I would expect to see one for obverse 5 though.

Obverse 5 does not always display the flaw in the forehead, however every obverse 5 I have seen has the scalloped top center leaf, whereas I have never seen that top center scalloped leaf on any other obverse than on an obverse 5.

I would not necessarily use the die crack above the R as a determinant, however I believe that there is enough other evidence to confirm the obverse as an obverse 6.

[Mr T]

I only had a brief look but in my notes I had obverses 4 and 5 with the rotated D in F:D: and obverse 6 having the straight D in F:D: (from Dracott's articles I think).

I didn't look too closely at which obverse it actually was but the D looks a bit rotated to the right.

[mrbadexample]

F314 8+J I think?

 

[mrbadexample]

Reverse:

 

[Martinminerva]

Correct! 

[Zo Arms]

Just a quick one. Views on this one please. Obverse 4 or 6.?

I'm thinking a 4. Don't think there's enough of the honi so O showing to be a 6 and REG is to close to the linear circle.

 

Edited June 11, 2022 by Zo Arms
Cropping

[Bernie]

Almost 100% a 4

[Zo Arms]

Thanks for confirmation Bernie. I'll post the reverse when it arrives.

[Zo Arms]

Arrived this morning. Freeman 272. 4+F. R17. 

[Zo Arms]

Evening all.

Mr Freeman gave the above coin, F272,  4 + F a rarity rating of R17. 51-100. Dracott gives it a 6 rating, which means extremely rare. 5 known to him at the time of his article.

Given that Freeman admits that his scale is an educated guess. And that some years have passed since Dracott wrote his findings, does anyone have a rough idea of the quantity of F272's known please?

London coins have only sold 2, that I can see..

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

I have 2 in my collection and 1 in my spares.

Total 3 in my possession right now.

[DaveG38]

12 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

Evening all.

Mr Freeman gave the above coin, F272,  4 + F a rarity rating of R17. 51-100. Dracott gives it a 6 rating, which means extremely rare. 5 known to him at the time of his article.

Given that Freeman admits that his scale is an educated guess. And that some years have passed since Dracott wrote his findings, does anyone have a rough idea of the quantity of F272's known please?

London coins have only sold 2, that I can see..

I have one in my collection. F grade only.

[Martinminerva]

I have owned two of these. Perhaps R17 is a tad generous?? Nevertheless, still a scarce pairing.

[copper123]

At a guess freeman looks about right it could easy be 51-100 though after what collectors have said above

[Zo Arms]

Thanks.

Maybe he is about right then. I only ask as I've just found another one. Awaiting delivery. Graded EF.

Was thinking that if I'm fortunate to have 2 then maybe they were not so rare after all.

It's the 1956 4 + C that's eluding me. Not hide not hair anywhere.

[Martinminerva]

39 minutes ago, Zo Arms said:

It's the 1956 4 + C that's eluding me. Not hide not hair anywhere.

Agreed! I have been looking in vain for this pairing for years! I only know of four specimens that have been documented.

[copper123]

The main trouble with halfpennies is they were not hoarded as much as pennies  so  there are relatively few around the victoria halfpennies also suffered from heavy usage and few have even clear dates these days .

A good halfpenny collection is even harder to put together than pennies because at least there are still quite a few pennies around , there again there are more  varieties in the penny series  mostly of 1860 , 1861 and 1862

Edited September 17, 2022 by copper123

[DaveG38]

10 minutes ago, copper123 said:

The main trouble with halfpennies is they were not hoarded as much as pennies  so  there are relatively few around the victoria halfpennies also suffered from heavy usage and few have even clear dates these days .

A good halfpenny collection is even harder to put together than pennies because at least there are still quite a few pennies around , there again there are more  varieties in the penny series  mostly of 1860 , 1861 and 1862

Personally, I prefer halfpennies. There are plenty of varieties, especially in the 1700s series, and, unlike pennies, they go back to 1673, at least in copper form. 

[Peckris 2]

1 hour ago, copper123 said:

The main trouble with halfpennies is they were not hoarded as much as pennies  so  there are relatively few around the victoria halfpennies also suffered from heavy usage and few have even clear dates these days .

Also, they were demonetised a good 2 years before pennies.