Half Penny 1799: proof or not?

[Num-con]

Good evening, I'm new here and I would show this penny to receive your opinion. It shares the features of a currency coin, but the colour, the relief and the die flaws makes me think of a proof or prooflike coin. It has the ship with 5 gunports.

And, also: what happened to the rim of the reverse?

 

Thank you in advance🙂

[Num-con]

[Num-con]

[Num-con]

[Num-con]

[Num-con]

[copper123]

It might make it easy if you have a copy of peck 

does look like a raised dot on georges shoulder if that helps

[copper123]

that would go back into the melting pot as a badly struck coin if the mint were doing their job right 

[Rob]

Currency. Too many things wrong for a proof. Using Peck's arguments for proof examples, the 1 should be clear of the sea, no flaws and should have a grained edge (which both currency and proofs have). The rims aren't good enough either. Peck also states the currency as having a grained edge in a deep groove, whilst saying the proof is merely grained. Normally this means light oblique graining in the centre of the edge, not in a groove. However, if it wasn't in a groove, there would be no reason to mention the other criteria as this alone would suffice. Muddy waters here.

Prooflike examples are frequently encountered, but that is normally an early strike using fresh dies. Not surprising if you think about it, as a resetting of the press will probably require the force to be adjusted to reflect the new positions of the dies, which despite being nearly there, are inevitably going to be a few microns out as a minimum. Think physical length and diameter together with the depth of the relief.

Edited Friday at 08:03 PM by Rob

[Num-con]

Good morning, and thank you for your opinions! After doing some research, I was also leaning towards classifying it as a currency issue, but I wanted to get some authoritative views before "closing the matter." What about the break on the reverse rim and the die flaw on the drapery at the front of the shoulder? Are both due to die wear, or does the reverse break have a different origin? I haven't found any other specimens showing a similar feature. Thank you very much for your input; I am fascinated by these coins—which I find very beautiful—and I am trying to learn more about them.

[Rob]

Looks more like a faulty flan than die. Lamination along fault layers due to trapped impurities in the mix are reasonably common, even today. Lumps on the surface are predominantly due to poor storage and resulting rust on the die which then flakes off when used, leaving an area of raised spots. This area can be any size up to an including the whole die face. If you search for rust spots or lamination on the forum, you can see many examples of these features.

[Num-con]

Many thanks for your answer, Rob. I really appreciate it

I'm just getting into this coinage, so I could ask for your help again.

[copper123]

By the way , its a nice coin well struck and atractive

[Num-con]

2 hours ago, copper123 said:

By the way , its a nice coin well struck and atractive

Thank you for your comment, I like it as well, I also  find the reliefs and the colour particularly attractive. 

[Peckris 2]

Yes, that's an attractive halfpenny, and a unique type (the first regal halfpenny since 1775, as there wasn't a cartwheel halfpenny in 1797 sadly; then there was a gap until 1806 when a new smaller design was issued). I've always liked that single year type too.

[Num-con]

True! It has a beautiful style and I prefer it to the 1806 type 

Edited 18 hours ago by Num-con

[Paddy]

I like that there are variations with the 1799. I have 3 - 5 incuse gunports (which seems to be the most common), 7 relief gunports and plain hull. The best is probably this 5 incuse: