Halfpenny ID check

[Zo Arms]

Very pleased with the comments on the 14 + N above. Thank you.

Not eBay. A Canadian seller. 19 Dollars Inc postage. Converts to around £11. Expected end of Nov.

[Mr T]

So in Iain Dracott's article in the November Coin News - I'm assuming that the C1 and J1 reverses he talks about are the C# and J# from his 2004 articles?

[Zo Arms]

11 hours ago, Mr T said:

So in Iain Dracott's article in the November Coin News - I'm assuming that the C1 and J1 reverses he talks about are the C# and J# from his 2004 articles?

Will try and pick up a copy tomorrow. Is it an update to his 2004 work?

[secret santa]

1 hour ago, Zo Arms said:

Will try and pick up a copy tomorrow. Is it an update to his 2004 work?

Let me know if you can't and I'll send a scan. I don't like to criticise but the penny section contains numerous narrative descriptions that really need photographic examples and there are a few errors, such as 1861 pennies with the "2" in various positions !!!

[Mr T]

7 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

Will try and pick up a copy tomorrow. Is it an update to his 2004 work?

I haven't looked closely to see if there is anything new but it's just a two page summary of new farthing, halfpenny and penny varieties since Freeman.

[Zo Arms]

On 11/6/2021 at 6:40 AM, Mr T said:

So in Iain Dracott's article in the November Coin News - I'm assuming that the C1 and J1 reverses he talks about are the C# and J# from his 2004 articles?

Seems like a fair assumption to me. The C1/# is mentioned in conjunction with 1873, so highly likely. Paired with 7, 3 now known. Guessing Martin's and Gary's are included.

A new obverse. 11*. And a couple of unique pairings, now have siblings.

If J#  has now become J1 but was formerly known as J,  I can't see that becoming confusing. Ever.

So, yes. An update on his previous article.

[secret santa]

Dracott describes the article as an update to his 2004 article but it's inconsistent to arbitrarily replace #suffixes with 1. He also describes 1873 7+C1 as a new die pairing with 3 known. I assume that this is the same as the previous 7+C# which was unique at the time of his 2004 article but, in theory could be an additional die pairing if C1 is "new" and different from C#.

The new article deserves expansion together with photos to illustrate the new varieties.

[Zo Arms]

It was the 8 +C# that was unique in his 2004 article. He doesn't list a 7 + C#. 

In a thread started by Gary "NEW UNLISTED VARIETY 1873 HALF-PENNY" Dec 8th 2008, his is the first known, with Martin listing a second, further down the thread. A new pairing since 2004.

But yes. Inconsistent to give it a second, different suffix. 

Could it just be a typesetting error? The 1862 mistake in the penny section. Parings instead of pairings, at least 3 times.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Zo Arms
Typesetting

[secret santa]

My apologies - you're quite right. I need to keep out of this as this is not my area of expertise.

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

For what it's worth, I have 1 8&c# and 2 7&c#

[Zo Arms]

1 hour ago, secret santa said:

My apologies - you're quite right. I need to keep out of this as this is not my area of expertise.

A little harsh on yourself. All views are valid. I'm a relative newcomer and had to flick between the new Freeman, the new and old Dracott and the threads here, to make sure that I was correct. And to check that there was no C1.

Are his penny listings useful?

[Zo Arms]

Also find it strange that Mal Lewendon's 1875 obverse 13# has no mention. 2005.

[Mr T]

So 11* is new - probably need a photo to make sense of it but a recut tie ribbon and overlapping berries make it sound a bit easier to diagnose than Freeman obverses 11 and 12.

1877 13+N also looks new though I'm not sure what the comment is getting as the obverse and reverse are both well-known.

1880 15+O* also looks new but based on the comment about all four die pairings, 15*+P* would seem to be the die. Or maybe it's meant to be 1881 where 15+O* was reported by him in 2004. Also I assume O* is Dracott O#.

Nothing new in the farthings that I can see.

[secret santa]

15 hours ago, Mr T said:

So 11* is new - probably need a photo to make sense of it but a recut tie ribbon and overlapping berries make it sound a bit easier to diagnose than Freeman obverses 11 and 12.

I'm inclined to take this with a pinch of salt. I'm not totally convinced that there's a deliberate design difference between obverse 11 and 12 let alone an additional obverse 11*. A high resolution photograph of a high grade example is essential before we accept this.

[secret santa]

On 11/7/2021 at 7:32 PM, Zo Arms said:

Are his penny listings useful?

Not really - subjective descriptions without photographic evidence (such as Michael Gouby's) are fairly meaningless, in my view.

[Mr T]

10 hours ago, secret santa said:

I'm inclined to take this with a pinch of salt. I'm not totally convinced that there's a deliberate design difference between obverse 11 and 12 let alone an additional obverse 11*. A high resolution photograph of a high grade example is essential before we accept this.

I don't disagree, but the comparators did seem more helpful than the subjective neck thickness and nose hookedness.

Does anyone have Iain Dracott's details to get some more information?

[Zo Arms]

A little help please. Thinking this is obverse 13. I'm using the last colon of F:D: as my identifier, in relation to the linear circle. Sellers photo.

Alternatively, confirmation that it's not 11, would be equally helpful.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Zo Arms
Addition.

[Mr T]

Not sure - of the notes I've made for myself the only thing I can make out well enough is those bottom two berries and I think on obverse 13 they should be different sizes, whereas on obverse 11/12 they are the same size.

[Bernie]

11 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

A little help please. Thinking this is obverse 13. I'm using the last colon of F:D: as my identifier, in relation to the linear circle. Sellers photo.

Alternatively, confirmation that it's not 11, would be equally helpful.

It looks like a 13*, let's see the reverse ! is it J, K* or L ?

[Martinminerva]

2 hours ago, Bernie said:

It looks like a 13*, let's see the reverse ! is it J, K* or L ?

What is 13* and its reference? Not Mal Lewenden's 13# ?? (Now 2 known, I understand). The latter has the two Ts of BRITT touching.

For me this is obverse 11, but willing to stand corrected with further info on 13*...

I agree that the reverse and date would be good to see to help tie it down!

 

[Bernie]

5 hours ago, Martinminerva said:

What is 13* and its reference? Not Mal Lewenden's 13# ?? (Now 2 known, I understand). The latter has the two Ts of BRITT touching.

For me this is obverse 11, but willing to stand corrected with further info on 13*...

I agree that the reverse and date would be good to see to help tie it down!

 

Obverse 13* and 13#, the same, just stating that it differs from 13. Obverse 13 has 133 border teeth, 13#/* has 132 teeth

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

18 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

A little help please. Thinking this is obverse 13. I'm using the last colon of F:D: as my identifier, in relation to the linear circle. Sellers photo.

Alternatively, confirmation that it's not 11, would be equally helpful.

Based on the image, I don't believe it to be an obverse 13 which has uneven berries nor an obverse 13# where the upright of the R's point to a tooth.

Comparison of the image of the coin in question with images of obverses 11 & 12 and the corresponding respective descriptors lead me to believe it is an obverse 11.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[Bernie]

2 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

Based on the image I don't believe it to be a 13 which has uneven berries nor a 13# where the upright of the R's point to a tooth.

Comparison with images of 11 & 12 and the descriptors lead me to believe it is an obverse 11.

How do you explain the wide colon dots after F:D:

[Martinminerva]

8 hours ago, Bernie said:

 

19 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

A little help please. Thinking this is obverse 13. I'm using the last colon of F:D: as my identifier, in relation to the linear circle. Sellers photo.

Alternatively, confirmation that it's not 11, would be equally helpful.



It looks like a 13*, let's see the reverse ! is it J, K* or L ?

 

Definitely not 13* or 13# then - back of bun and TT in BRITT wrong (see Mal Lewenden's pic below).

Also, don't think it can be 13 as the visible berries are the same size - markedly different on 13, but same size on 11 and 12 as was pointed out above. Colons a fair shout, though, and not sure I can explain, unless wear or re-entering could account? I'm still going to plump for 11...

 

 

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

57 minutes ago, Bernie said:

How do you explain the wide colon dots after F:D:

I reexamined the images and still think it is an obverse 11. To my eyes the spacing of the F:D: (letters and colon) match closer to obverse 11 than 12.

Possibly slightly reminiscent of obverse 13 which I eliminated due to the lack of uneven berries.

I also don't see the spacing as similar to obverse 13#, which, as I stated in the original post has the uprights of the R's in BRITT and REG pointing to a tooth. The coin in question has those 2 features pointing to spaces.

Again however, images can be deceiving, although unintentionally, and the best assessment is done coin in hand.