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 Thursday at 08:22 PM 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 yesterday at 12:01 AM by Rob

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

11 hours ago, Zo Arms said:

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.

If you check my ebay listings, I have an F-275 Last 1 over 1 listed.

I also have an F-275 HIGHER F OVER F in F:D: listed.  I have never seen another  and had questioned Iain Dracott about it, but as he had not seen the purported F/P, he could not be sure whether my coin was actually what was identified as the F/P.

See attached image

 

[absence of uniformity]

On 8/14/2026 at 1:55 AM, Rob said:

 

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. 

Interesting information thank you.

Other than tonnes of coins being lost at sea what other possible explantion could explain very little remaining examples left today?

 

[absence of uniformity]

How accurate is the following likely to be ?

The exact reason so few 1861 5+G halfpennies were struck comes down to a strict "mismatch timeline" in the Royal Mint's production logs.

To understand why this specific pairing is an anomaly, you have to look at the overlap—or lack thereof—between the active lifespans of Obverse 5 and Reverse G in 1861.

The Royal Mint did not deliberately manufacture a single "5+G" layout. Instead, they were rapidly testing minor design variations to see which steel dies could withstand the brutal physical pressure required to stamp hard bronze.

Obverse 5 was an extremely brief experimental design featuring 15 leaves in Queen Victoria's wreath. It was phased out almost immediately in early 1861 in favor of the much more durable, standardized Obverse 6 (which features 16 leaves).

Reverse G was an intermediate, short-lived design choice where the mint engraver, Leonard Charles Wyon, experimented with completely omitting his "LCW" initials from the base of the rock.

 

Because the Mint was facing a massive backlog to replace millions of old copper coins, press operators on the factory floor did not stop production to wait for matching dies when a fracture occurred. They paired whatever functional dies were sitting in the spare inventory racks. [1]

The 5+G pairing was a complete accident. It happened during a tiny micro-window of time when an obsolete, left-over Obverse 5 die was pulled from a bin and matched with a newly prepared, short-lived Reverse G die.

 

The definitive reason the numbers are so low is catastrophic die failure. When these two specific pieces of steel met on the factory line, one or both of them cracked or shattered almost immediately under the pressure of the coining press. []

Rather than a sustained minting run, the 5+G is essentially a record of a production run that lasted mere minutes before the machinery was halted to replace the broken components.

 

The technical crisis regarding "die shattering" is well-documented in Royal Mint archives from the Great Bronze Recoinage of 1860. []

Mint Master records from the time note that switching from soft, pure copper to the harder, durable French bronze alloy (95% copper, 4% tin, 1% zinc) caused an unprecedented spike in broken equipment. []

The steel dies of the era frequently developed catastrophic stress fractures. This confirms why the Mint was constantly tweaking the thickness, borders, and leaf counts (like the move from Obverse 5 to Obverse 6) to find a design that wouldn't shatter the steel. [1]

 

During the Victorian era, coining presses were entirely mechanical. Operating logs indicate that when a die fractured, the priority was minimizing down-time to meet massive production quotas. []

Because the obverse and reverse dies are entirely separate pieces of steel fitted into a mechanical press, operators regularly substituted any working spare die that would physically fit the machine to keep it running.

The absolute lack of a uniform "5+G production log" coupled with the tiny handful of surviving physical examples proves that this pairing was an unintended transition—an emergency factory-floor substitution rather than an intentional batch design