Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

I bought this 1879 Halfcrown from ebay months ago, and found date style of this one is a bit different from other 1879 Halfcrown, don't know whether it is down to worn or not.  Would like to seek advice from other members if this coin has problem.  Thanks.

UK 1879 Halfcrown Die 3C Obverse1 (small).jpg

UK 1879 Halfcrown Die 3C Reverse1 (small).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The date looks OK to me. The numbers are somewhat fatter due to wear I think.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced about the limited amount of wear having much infuence on the interiors of the "8" or "9" even allowing for the inside edge to be slightly bevelled - images of similarly worn coins appear to have larger interiors and I have not ( in ten minutes) been able to trace any currency examples with an 8 or 9 similar to Bruce's specimen.  However, an 1879 proof does seem to have slightly thicker 8s and 9s to currency examples. In Bruce's specimen, the "7" is also thicker than normal, but some variety in this character does exist in currency specimens, so why not thicker 8s and 9s.  Perhaps useful to check the size and weight of the coin.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, Half said:

I'm not convinced about the limited amount of wear having much infuence on the interiors of the "8" or "9" even allowing for the inside edge to be slightly bevelled - images of similarly worn coins appear to have larger interiors and I have not ( in ten minutes) been able to trace any currency examples with an 8 or 9 similar to Bruce's specimen.  However, an 1879 proof does seem to have slightly thicker 8s and 9s to currency examples. In Bruce's specimen, the "7" is also thicker than normal, but some variety in this character does exist in currency specimens, so why not thicker 8s and 9s.  Perhaps useful to check the size and weight of the coin.

That's my concern since having it on hand.  By the way, just measure it again, it's 14.1g and 32.1mm, so should be within the tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1232516378_1-Copy.jpg.0e068dde55e7319b86b6b1333eba1819.jpg935038058_img-Copy.jpg.27f804166851e3c1032104461938bfa4.jpg

 

Your date is on the left and the date of an example sold by London Coins Auction is on the right for comparison. 

If you balance the coin on a finger and gently tap on the edge with another coin, you can hear if it rings like silver. Copper coins and nickel coins sound very different to silver when tapped this way. (Try out on some scrap coins and you will see what I mean). Wear a glove if the coin still has residual lustre and you want to be extra careful. (Obviously, you won't want to do that with an UNC coin). The coin should be genuine if it is made of silver. 

 

Edited by Sword
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....or try the magnet slide test....the eddy currents in silver ( the best conductor) oppose the magnet and it will slide down very slowly.

You have to be careful with alloys- it all depend on what the additive metal does with stopping electrons moving about.

If copper is 100 conductivity as a datum, silver is 105.

Aluminium is around 71.

Brass is a _big_ surprise- mainly copper, but the zinc binds the electrons, so it's only around 30 at best....

Solder- lucky to get 10.....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another “typical”:

 

BCE8E2D0-C81D-4A4E-B9E3-4C4A80D8C794.jpeg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks fellas! 

Personally I don't get too bent out of shape or size of datals/date, and other bits such as dentil shape and regularity - that is unless they are severely out of line. The OP coin does not match digits in coins I am familiar with but must confess that unless remarkable just don't get too excited by them. You will notice that the datals on mine vary from the OP and that posted by Sword.

The rest of the coin looks acceptable for a somewhat worn specimen, and I like the 1879 date for some reason which is possibly because there were some silver of that date which are a bit scarcer (ie shillings).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×