Halfpenny Obverse 5 die flaw

[absence of uniformity]

Hi, Can I ask please; (I have tried myself to find the awnser without success) Can anyone please confirm whether any other obverses show the die flaw shown in the attached image in the halfpenny series?

I have taken the image from @secret santa website, thanks again for this great source of info.

I found a halfpenny which I think is 5+G die paring the coin also appears to show 1st 1 over 1.

5+G is listed as R16 but I cant find reference to this pairing showing the 1st 1 over 1.

The coin looks to be in ok condition, slightly rarer pairing with the added bonus of the 1st 1 over 1.

 

Thanks.

 

[absence of uniformity]

Here is the coin in question; 

The die flaw leads me to beleive its Obverse 5.

The only two reverse options for a obv5 coin is E or G and the lighthouse does not match that of a Reverse E.

The images show the flaw on the forehead and the lighthouse of Reverse G and the 1st 1 over 1.

 

[absence of uniformity]

On the LCA website I just found an example of 5+G that appears to show the 1st 1 over 1, but the coin was not listed as such.

Of the 51 to 100 known surviving specimens that is potentialy two of this minor die variety that exist.

[Peckris 2]

I have the Obverse 5 1861 halfpenny (the dink in the forehead is the giveaway), but pretty sure the shield and lighthouse are different. In my database it's listed as 5+G which means yours would be 5+.E ?

 

[absence of uniformity]

29 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

I have the Obverse 5 1861 halfpenny (the dink in the forehead is the giveaway), but pretty sure the shield and lighthouse are different. In my database it's listed as 5+G which means yours would be 5+.E ?

 

I'm not sure I think it is G the coin I have by the difference in the shape of the lighthouse, also reverse E has L.C.W above the 8 & 6 in the date.

From what I can see the ace of clubs to the left of lighthouse is on G and not E.

The rock to the right of the lighthouse on my coin is different and appears to match better with G.

Edited 4 hours ago by absence of uniformity

[Rob]

I am not aware of any other obverses which show a similar flaw, but that is only what I have seen.

The lighthouse is reverse G because the shape is more of a gaussian distribution with a pointy hat. E has straighter sides.

I know 6+G exists with the first 1/1 as I used to have one, but the recut is lower, not higher.

I do wonder if your coin has been slightly double struck on part of the flan, as the obverse rim shows a slight discontinuity(?) at 11 o'clock with another between 1 and 2. That could account for the crazy date alignment which is what sticks out most to me,, unless I am seeing things.

[Rob]

FWIW, this is my 5+G. The obverse die is close to destruction and the coin somewhat spotty, but all features are clear.

[Peckris 2]

yes, now I think it's 5+G which makes me doubt what mine is (my picture is a blow up of a lifesize scan, so it's not clear). However I think mine is more likely to be 5+G also, as the features for Reverse E simply don't ring true.

[absence of uniformity]

10 minutes ago, Rob said:

I am not aware of any other obverses which show a similar flaw, but that is only what I have seen.

The lighthouse is reverse G because the shape is more of a gaussian distribution with a pointy hat. E has straighter sides.

I know 6+G exists with the first 1/1 as I used to have one, but the recut is lower, not higher.

I do wonder if your coin has been slightly double struck on part of the flan, as the obverse rim shows a slight discontinuity(?) at 11 o'clock with another between 1 and 2. That could account for the crazy date alignment which is what sticks out most to me,, unless I am seeing things.

Ok thanks, according the Richards site there is also 1861 6+E F2766+E 1st 1 over 1

I dont think you are seeing things, the date alignment is what caught my attention initially.

There appears to be some doubling on E and Y of penny aswell.

[Zo Arms]

The dent in the forehead is unique to obverse 5 but not all obverse 5's have it.

However, all obverse 5's have the scalloped, middle top leaf.

For 1861 there is a range of recut, first and last 1's. Some rakish angles too.

For 5 + G, Dracott lists an F over P in F.D.

 

[absence of uniformity]

17 minutes ago, Rob said:

FWIW, this is my 5+G. The obverse die is close to destruction and the coin somewhat spotty, but all features are clear.

That a nice really nice example, its interesting mine doesnt show any of the die cracks and the flaw on the forehead less pronounced on yours? If its R16 does that mean all the obverse 5 coins come from the same single die? Surely if multiple dies were in use more coins would of been struck? Its also surprising a die would deteriorate after only strikng a 100-200 coins.

 

[absence of uniformity]

1 minute ago, absence of uniformity said:

That a nice really nice example, its interesting mine doesnt show any of the die cracks and the flaw on the forehead less pronounced on yours? If its R16 does that mean all the obverse 5 coins come from the same single die? Surely if multiple dies were in use more coins would of been struck? Its also surprising a die would deteriorate after only strikng a 100-200 coins.

 

Do you think this to do with the change over from copper to bronze? And the difference hardness in the metal?

Thanks

[absence of uniformity]

19 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

yes, now I think it's 5+G which makes me doubt what mine is (my picture is a blow up of a lifesize scan, so it's not clear). However I think mine is more likely to be 5+G also, as the features for Reverse E simply don't ring true.

Without knowing for sure if the coin has the flaw on the obverse but the lighthouse doesn't match that of G I'm thinking its probably E?

[absence of uniformity]

12 minutes ago, Zo Arms said:

The dent in the forehead is unique to obverse 5 but not all obverse 5's have it.

However, all obverse 5's have the scalloped, middle top leaf.

For 1861 there is a range of recut, first and last 1's. Some rakish angles too.

For 5 + G, Dracott lists an F over P in F.D.

 

Thanks for this info. Is there images online of the F over P in F.D do you know?

The F over P in HALF looks like a die flaw to me just a blob/apostrophe of metal making the F look like a P.

I was wondering if 1861 5+G F2755+G F over P in F:D: ?R20 Is a clearly defined P?

Thanks

[Zo Arms]

10 minutes ago, absence of uniformity said:

Thanks for this info. Is there images online of the F over P in F.D do you know?

The F over P in HALF looks like a die flaw to me just a blob/apostrophe of metal making the F look like a P.

I was wondering if 1861 5+G F2755+G F over P in F:D: ?R20 Is a clearly defined P?

Thanks

Dracott lists as 1 known. I know of no images

If you're going down the Halfpenny Road, have a read of the halfpenny ID thread. You'll learn plenty.

[Rob]

3 hours ago, absence of uniformity said:

That a nice really nice example, its interesting mine doesnt show any of the die cracks and the flaw on the forehead less pronounced on yours? If its R16 does that mean all the obverse 5 coins come from the same single die? Surely if multiple dies were in use more coins would of been struck? Its also surprising a die would deteriorate after only strikng a 100-200 coins.

 

 

3 hours ago, absence of uniformity said:

Do you think this to do with the change over from copper to bronze? And the difference hardness in the metal?

Thanks

Given the scarcity of it, I would think a few dies are involved. Most of the metal composition/flan preparation/striking force issues were solved in the multitude of patterns struck in the previous few years, with some types only known with laminating flans for example. Never underestimate the Mint's ability to produce a number of rogue batches from time to time. In the mid-1840s, they were only getting a couple thousand from a die pair. A quick perusal of Linton's article in the BNJ regarding the 1848 halfcrowns is quite enlightening regarding flan quality for much of the decade. ‘The half-crowns of 1848’, 29 (1958-59), p.191-93.

According to records, 91872 halfcrowns were struck in 1848. The mint had 13 obverse dies available at the end of 1847, all dated 1846. A further 16 (presumably unfinished) 184(-) were made in 1847, but not required, leaving them available for use in 1848. A potential 29 dies for the 91K struck, but only a handful of the unfinished dies (2 or 3) were completed and dated 1848, most being 1848/6. (One can assumed to be dated 1847, just to test the die batch). The previous year, a total of 22 obv. dies were used to destruction for an output of 367,488 coins. Hardly a long life by normal expectations.

Again, there was an 1848/7 in the Adams collection which was possibly 8/7/6, but not conclusively so in hand. Similarly for the 1849/7/(6?). All very interesting, but requiring much speculation until clearer examples come to light.

 

The 1849 in particular, was a real dog of a coin, but even so, unambiguous for the 9/7.

 

Just because it has been given R16, it is only a reflection of the percentage of coins examined during research relative to other 1861s. What if a ton or two of output was lost at sea following despatch? We don't know. 

Edited 30 minutes ago by Rob