1773 farthing query

[bagerap]

I've been trying out a new camera set up for coins and using some hard to capture pieces to test focus. When I checked the results, I thought I saw this as a 1773/3 although I had it listed as Obv. B, Rev 2.

Any thoughts (apart from the fact that it's a washer 🙄)

[bagerap]

A picture might help.

[Rob]

That's a wrongun.

[Peckris 2]

50 minutes ago, Rob said:

That's a wrongun.

Agreed - the portrait looks too big and Britannia too small for a genuine one.

[Rob]

The shield rim is what drew my attention, along with the very thick groundline, the numerals, portrait size......... 

[bagerap]

That's the answer I was hoping for. Evasion or counterfeit?

[Rob]

Don't have any reference books for them.

[copper123]

The  rather weird shield is a real givaway - its a contemp fake

Edited September 13, 2018 by copper123

[bagerap]

Another counterfeit from the same shoot. 1774 halfpenny that's 1.1 gram underweight and the date is unusual.

[copper123]

This time the puffy lips and the thin  britannia.

You would think a gram underweight was nothing , why not make it a five gram fake .

Might as well be hung for a sheep and not a lamb

Edited September 13, 2018 by copper123

[Peckris 2]

1 hour ago, copper123 said:

This time the puffy lips and the thin  britannia.

You would think a gram underweight was nothing , why not make it a five gram fake .

Might as well be hung for a sheep and not a lamb

One of the reasons for those fakes & evasions was the drastic shortage of small change - it wasn't all about making a fast buck. (Though I'm sure some of it was).

[copper123]

At one time around 1790 small change was often given by weight  very few legal coins were in circulation

[rooneydog]

Even though I have the book (Contemporary Counterfeit Halfpenny etc) I struggle to identify what these could be 😕 but it is possible that the 1774 halfpenny is coin Y family but do not hold me to that. Out of the numerous counterfeits I have I have probably only identified 1 ☹️

[Paddy]

45 minutes ago, rooneydog said:

Even though I have the book (Contemporary Counterfeit Halfpenny etc) I struggle to identify what these could be 😕 but it is possible that the 1774 halfpenny is coin Y family but do not hold me to that. Out of the numerous counterfeits I have I have probably only identified 1 ☹️

Could you give more details on the book you have? The only reference I have is for Evasions in the Withers Token book, but it does not help with the counterfeits much.

 

[rooneydog]

32 minutes ago, Paddy said:

Could you give more details on the book you have? The only reference I have is for Evasions in the Withers Token book, but it does not help with the counterfeits much.

 

https://wordery.com/contemporary-counterfeit-halfpenny-farthing-families-roger-a-moore-9781642558579?cTrk=MTAwMTkxNDI2fDViODkxZjdhMGExMjg6MToxOjViODkxZjZlNzg2MzU3Ljc5NDI1OTAyOjNmYTY0ZTI0

[Peckris 2]

7 hours ago, copper123 said:

At one time around 1790 small change was often given by weight  very few legal coins were in circulation

Probably - no, certainly - why trade tokens were struck so widely.

[Michael-Roo]

 

A scarcity of small change in the 1790s wasn't anything new.

Here's my nicest token from the mid previous century.

 

 

[copper123]

One of mine common but nice looks like it might be from the same engraver , note the R 😊😊😊

Edited September 15, 2018 by copper123

[jelida]

The ‘R’ is for David Ramage I believe. Worked at the Tower, but responsible for a lot of tokens.

Jerry

[Madness]

[Silly joke removed]

Edited September 15, 2018 by Madness

[Rob]

2 hours ago, jelida said:

The ‘R’ is for David Ramage I believe. Worked at the Tower, but responsible for a lot of tokens.

Jerry

This is a moot point and I'm not convinced. It is also part of a much broader question.

Rawlins was in Bristol making tokens in 1652 whereas Ramage was employed at the mint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rawlins Note the lozenge stops so characteristic of Rawlins' work. However, both Rawlins and Ramage studied under Briot, so the pair will undoubtedly have learned and practised similar skills and methods. Ramage also used lozenges, but I can't make a case for Rawlins ever using mullets.

It is somewhat unhelpful that Ramage and Rawlins share the same initial for their surname. With Rawkins in France from 1648 to 1652 following the Civil War, there is no debate about the engraver of the 1651 patterns, nor the significance of the mullets. As the resident engraver at the mint for the duration of the Commonwealth, the R is unambiguous in the case of the early three pillars dies and those of the Cromwell farthings for the simple reason that Rawlins was known to be elsewhere, but from the restoration in 1660 things become a little muddy. The reinstallation of Thomas Rawlins as chief engraver would lead one to think that the R referred to him in every instance post-1660, but with David Ramage also employed as engraver at the mint and having similarly signed the dies with an R, the jury is out. The three pillars was a symbol of the Commonwealth and as such, unlikely to find favour in the court of Charles II.

It is very tempting to say that anything with 5 pointed mullets was done by Ramage, but all the pattern farthings and the 1651 pattern halfcrown use both a mullet and a lozenge in the legends. This is not unexpected as a former pupil of Broit's. The early 3 pillars dies had an R below the central pillar. This P473 (which has both mullets and a lozenge on the obverse, as do the other 3 pillars dies) has a disturbed area in the field below the central pillar when angled best towards the light and this is commensurate with a filled die. Further clues may lie in the pattern farthings P474, 483 & 484. The first has a large bust with both mullets and a lozenge in the legend; the second has a smaller bust, signed R below, and only lozenges in the legend; the third uses the same smaller bust punch, but isn't signed and is a different die with the bust entered lower on the die and uses both a lozenge and mullets in the legend. If anything is to be interpreted from this, it is that Rawlins consistently used lozenges but not mullets. I also think it is reasonable to say that those with mullets were done by Ramage. 

If everybody gets their copy of Peck out , they can contribute an opinion. Discuss.

 

[Coinery]

I sold my Peck, Rob, but very interesting bit of detective work.

Love the colour of @Michael-Roo‘s token 👍

[Diaconis]

 

On 9/16/2018 at 3:14 AM, Rob said:

This is a moot point and I'm not convinced. It is also part of a much broader question.

Hello Rob,

Interesting post. Here are some thoughts.

"Rawlins was in Bristol making tokens in 1652 whereas Ramage was employed at the mint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rawlins Note the lozenge stops so characteristic of Rawlins' work. However, both Rawlins and Ramage studied under Briot, so the pair will undoubtedly have learned and practised similar skills and methods. Ramage also used lozenges, but I can't make a case for Rawlins ever using mullets."

Let's take Rawlins' Armstrong farthings (1660-1) as an example of his work at the lowly farthing scale.

Almost sketch-like engraving with flourishes, fluidity, flamboyance, depth, and perspective.  Harp with Angel and the temerity to put your initial on the St. Edwards Crown. (I feel that the hard-working subservient Ramage would not even have considered such a thing, his 'R' usually being located below the main design.)

Ramage, on the other hand, was more deliberate, less artistic in design and largely 2 dimensional. Ramage preferred Irish Harp with Bird. It looks like a Dodo. Certainly far easier to carve than a delicate Angel. His initial below the main design and as you point out the use of mullets.  The above pattern (P387 1656) also bears a striking resemblance to the City of Bristol (COB) farthings. Michael-Roo's 1657 example also exhibits many elements in common.

I like to think that Ramage was behind the COB farthings and shipped ready-made dies to his past employer to get him up and running and earning money upon his return from exile in 1652. Perhaps also hedging his bets, should the monarchy return. It can't have been easy for Rawlins, having to keep his head down upon his return to England, set up shop in Bristol, obtain the tooling, make the dies, and then produce what by his standards, seems such substandard work. What better than ready-made dies, dated 1652?

At the moment, I tend to sit on the Ramage side of the fence on this one, I can't see Rawlins hand in the COB farthings.

"With Rawkins in France from 1648 to 1652 following the Civil War, there is no debate about the engraver of the 1651 patterns, nor the significance of the mullets. As the resident engraver at the mint for the duration of the Commonwealth, the R is unambiguous in the case of the early three pillars dies and those of the Cromwell farthings for the simple reason that Rawlins was known to be elsewhere," also stylistically, the poorer engraving, the use of  Bird on Irish harp on centre pillar, exactly like the 1651 patterns. I can't recall Rawlins ever adopting the Bird on harp?

"The reinstallation of Thomas Rawlins as chief engraver would lead one to think that the R referred to him in every instance post-1660, but with David Ramage also employed as engraver at the mint and having similarly signed the dies with an R, the jury is out. The three pillars was a symbol of the Commonwealth and as such, unlikely to find favour in the court of Charles II."  I fully agree, he was also occupied with more important work to do at that time, the 1661 Coronation medal for example. Yes, too busy, and too careful, not to be seen associated with any Commonwealth propaganda. More likely that the disaffected Ramage's continued to produce the three pillar designs and perhaps, as has been said before,   his son continued using his father's dies (e.g P473 - P477 / 480...) 

I agree that the mullets do seem to be a good indicator of Ramage's work to be viewed along with other stylistic considerations and historical context.