1863 Farthing

[Badger]

Here is an 1863 Farthing with the 8 over a different style 8.

[Hello17]

looks like well arranged dirt to me. but thats My Opinion

[Peckris]

looks like well arranged dirt to me. but thats My Opinion

Dirt is a possibility, but you can see it also peeking over the top of the 8. From the distribution of it, I think could well be an underlying 8.

[argentumandcoins]

The underlying figure is the standard shaped 8 on Farthings. The re-punched 8 is peculiar to 1863 and 1864 as far as I can make out, even then it is not the only one used as the standard shaped 8 (thicker to the left side diagonal) also appears on these years.

Colin may well shoot me down of course!

[Badger]

It is definitely not dirt, here is a closer pic

It is the dot below lighthouse type.

I just checked on Colins site and he has it listed there, dot below lighthouse with fat 8 over thin 8, I should have checked there first, oops.

[Peckris]

It is definitely not dirt, here is a closer pic

It is the dot below lighthouse type.

I just checked on Colins site and he has it listed there, dot below lighthouse with fat 8 over thin 8, I should have checked there first, oops.

Thin over fat surely! The underlying 8 shows through so much it must be that way round?

[Badger]

It is definitely not dirt, here is a closer pic

It is the dot below lighthouse type.

I just checked on Colins site and he has it listed there, dot below lighthouse with fat 8 over thin 8, I should have checked there first, oops.

Thin over fat surely! The underlying 8 shows through so much it must be that way round?

I think the fat and thin terms are looked at in different ways. the 'Thin' you refer to is the thickness of the lines but I think the other way to look at it is the overall width of the 8?

The narrow (thin) 8 has thick lines and the wide (fat) 8 has thin lines. Just different ways of describing it I think??

[argentumandcoins]

Just looked at Colins site and it looks like I have an 1864 variety that is unrecorded lying in my spare stock.

It's a plain 4 with what he would describe as the thin 8 (an 8 the way we would write it).

The other 8's all look like the one on your 63 (a circle on top of a circle).

I'll get a picture up tomorrow if I get time.

[Peckris]

It is definitely not dirt, here is a closer pic

It is the dot below lighthouse type.

I just checked on Colins site and he has it listed there, dot below lighthouse with fat 8 over thin 8, I should have checked there first, oops.

Thin over fat surely! The underlying 8 shows through so much it must be that way round?

I think the fat and thin terms are looked at in different ways. the 'Thin' you refer to is the thickness of the lines but I think the other way to look at it is the overall width of the 8?

The narrow (thin) 8 has thick lines and the wide (fat) 8 has thin lines. Just different ways of describing it I think??

Reminds me of that US comedy "Soap" - the one that had an introduction listing all the recent events and ending "Confused? You WILL be..."

[Colin G.]

They used to be identified as small 8 and large 8. Colin Cooke redefined them as thin 8 and fat 8, which is a more accurate term because it is the width of the numeral that is obvious. The script is also different.

There is a a visual explanation on my 1862 page http://www.aboutfarthings.co.uk/Farthing%20-%201862.html

As for the overdate, I have always wondered what defines which digit is overstruck, take the example above, the fat 8 could have been the original digit, or the the thin 8 could have been depending on how hard the repunch was struck. If it was deeper than the original numeral it would appear to be on top, but if it was struck shallower it would appear to be below does that make sense?

The change in design of the 8 makes it easier to determine that the thin 8 was the original numeral because it was used up until 1862/3 then reverted back in 1865.

[Voynov_BG]

They used to be identified as small 8 and large 8. Colin Cooke redefined them as thin 8 and fat 8, which is a more accurate term because it is the width of the numeral that is obvious. The script is also different.

There is a a visual explanation on my 1862 page http://www.aboutfarthings.co.uk/Farthing%20-%201862.html

As for the overdate, I have always wondered what defines which digit is overstruck, take the example above, the fat 8 could have been the original digit, or the the thin 8 could have been depending on how hard the repunch was struck. If it was deeper than the original numeral it would appear to be on top, but if it was struck shallower it would appear to be below does that make sense?

The change in design of the 8 makes it easier to determine that the thin 8 was the original numeral because it was used up until 1862/3 then reverted back in 1865.

Hi,

I think this is an appropriate topic to ask:

to which of six types of farthing 1862 in www.aboutfarthings.co.uk is this coin?

Thanks...

[Gary]

They used to be identified as small 8 and large 8. Colin Cooke redefined them as thin 8 and fat 8, which is a more accurate term because it is the width of the numeral that is obvious. The script is also different.

There is a a visual explanation on my 1862 page http://www.aboutfart...20-%201862.html

As for the overdate, I have always wondered what defines which digit is overstruck, take the example above, the fat 8 could have been the original digit, or the the thin 8 could have been depending on how hard the repunch was struck. If it was deeper than the original numeral it would appear to be on top, but if it was struck shallower it would appear to be below does that make sense?

The change in design of the 8 makes it easier to determine that the thin 8 was the original numeral because it was used up until 1862/3 then reverted back in 1865.

Hi,

I think this is an appropriate topic to ask:

to which of six types of farthing 1862 in www.aboutfarthings.co.uk is this coin?

Thanks...

that looks like an overstrike as well, thin over fat 8 again.

[Voynov_BG]

They used to be identified as small 8 and large 8. Colin Cooke redefined them as thin 8 and fat 8, which is a more accurate term because it is the width of the numeral that is obvious. The script is also different.

There is a a visual explanation on my 1862 page http://www.aboutfart...20-%201862.html

As for the overdate, I have always wondered what defines which digit is overstruck, take the example above, the fat 8 could have been the original digit, or the the thin 8 could have been depending on how hard the repunch was struck. If it was deeper than the original numeral it would appear to be on top, but if it was struck shallower it would appear to be below does that make sense?

The change in design of the 8 makes it easier to determine that the thin 8 was the original numeral because it was used up until 1862/3 then reverted back in 1865.

Hi,

I think this is an appropriate topic to ask:

to which of six types of farthing 1862 in www.aboutfarthings.co.uk is this coin?

Thanks...

that looks like an overstrike as well, thin over fat 8 again.

Thanks. Any idea about value in similar grade, 5-6 pounds maybe?

[Peckris]

They used to be identified as small 8 and large 8. Colin Cooke redefined them as thin 8 and fat 8, which is a more accurate term because it is the width of the numeral that is obvious. The script is also different.

There is a a visual explanation on my 1862 page http://www.aboutfart...20-%201862.html

As for the overdate, I have always wondered what defines which digit is overstruck, take the example above, the fat 8 could have been the original digit, or the the thin 8 could have been depending on how hard the repunch was struck. If it was deeper than the original numeral it would appear to be on top, but if it was struck shallower it would appear to be below does that make sense?

The change in design of the 8 makes it easier to determine that the thin 8 was the original numeral because it was used up until 1862/3 then reverted back in 1865.

Hi,

I think this is an appropriate topic to ask:

to which of six types of farthing 1862 in www.aboutfarthings.co.uk is this coin?

Thanks...

that looks like an overstrike as well, thin over fat 8 again.

Thanks. Any idea about value in similar grade, 5-6 pounds maybe?

If it's 8 over 8, CCGB lists it for around £50 in VF (About right for yours). But only to a varieties collector - it's a very common date otherwise.

[Voynov_BG]

Thanks for the help!