Copper Halfpenny Help

[RB-NB]

Hi Everyone,

Hoping that someone can help with this one

So far I have gathered its a copper halfpenny just by going by the size (28mm)

Can anybody help identify the date?

Anymore info would be great!

Thanks.

The pictures are not that good, sorry!

https://ibb.co/sCxFWfm
https://ibb.co/wskHBBD
https://ibb.co/n11CLVd

Edited August 24, 2019 by RB-NB
typo

[Rob]

1698

[RB-NB]

3 minutes ago, Rob said:

1698

Thanks Rob.

I was way off i could make out the 16 but the others look like zeros to me 🙄 

[oldcopper]

Could be the far commoner 1696 with a different 6. You may have trouble selling it as the rare '98.

[Rob]

42 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

Could be the far commoner 1696 with a different 6. You may have trouble selling it as the rare '98.

I think you might be right. I went for 8 based on no visible top to the 6 and its position relative to the exergue line, but having spent half an hour looking, the limited number of 1698s I can find all have a smaller top loop to the 8 than seen on the 9 and it is quite a thin line when compared to the 6/9 loop. Given the limited striking period in 1698, the low output and by extension the limited number of dies employed, it would therefore seem more likely to be 1696.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Rob

[oldcopper]

23 minutes ago, Rob said:

I think you might be right. I went for 8 based on no visible top to the 6 and its position relative to the exergue line, but having spent half an hour looking, the limited number of 1698s I can find all have a smaller top loop to the 8 than seen on the 9 and it is quite a thin line when compared to the 6/9 loop. Given the limited striking period in 1698, the low output and by extension the limited number of dies employed, it would therefore seem more likely to be 1696.

I think both the recent decent grade ones (the Bates and Pywell-Philips) were both from different dies and had thinner 8's. Doesn't mean there aren't other dies out there, but it would be a massive figure if it was an 8.

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=316038

and the Pywell-Philips one:

[Rob]

I don't think we can say anything about W3 halfpenny dates (or legends) that could be considered abnormal given the variety of fonts and character sizes used. Look at the size of the 0 used on some 1701s, or the Roman vs Italic 1s. It isn't limited to farthing and halfpenny size characters either, because there is a 1699 (Nicholson 120) with a ludicrously large inverted V for A. If anything is abnormal, it is a coin without inconsistencies.

[JLS]

On 8/28/2019 at 12:29 PM, Rob said:

I don't think we can say anything about W3 halfpenny dates (or legends) that could be considered abnormal given the variety of fonts and character sizes used. Look at the size of the 0 used on some 1701s, or the Roman vs Italic 1s. It isn't limited to farthing and halfpenny size characters either, because there is a 1699 (Nicholson 120) with a ludicrously large inverted V for A. If anything is abnormal, it is a coin without inconsistencies.

Agreed, I am collecting these at the moment and a normal coin definitely has some legend oddities. For the Peck 705 variety there seem to be a large number of die combinations, despite the odd combination of As for Vs in the obverse legend and the large O in the date. The large O punch seems to have been prepared to cover up a misplaced 1 or for a 1701/1699 overdate (both appear to exist), and then used liberally to make new dies.