1806 Gilt Farthing

[joey]

g'day all

I am looking at an 1806 Gilt Proof Farthing.It appears to be Peck 1387.It looks to be quite a nice coin but one aspect of it has me a bit confused.It appears to be an overdate.It looks as though the 6 is over a 7 in the date.I have included a couple of photos the dealer sent me.Do you get overdates in proof coins?I can't find anything in any of my books.If anyone out there has struck this before,or has any opinions it would be very welcome.

[azda]

I don't think its anything over the 6 Joey, probably a small mark next to it. I've enlarged your OBV picture

[joey]

I don't think its anything over the 6 Joey, probably a small mark next to it. I've enlarged your OBV picture

Thanks azda that could well be the case.It's pretty hard to say with these things until you get them in your hand.If I end up buying it (I most probably will)I will let you know for sure.

[Colin G.]

I don't think its anything over the 6 Joey, probably a small mark next to it. I've enlarged your OBV picture

Thanks azda that could well be the case.It's pretty hard to say with these things until you get them in your hand.If I end up buying it (I most probably will)I will let you know for sure.

Looks like some sort of scuff rather than an overdate, none recorded......yet!!

I know its a bit cheeky but if you get chance, I wouldn't mind images of your proof farthings when they arrive if you are willing to let me have them, I will recognise the contribution on the website if used (unless you want to remain anonymous)

Nice farthing

Edited August 17, 2011 by Colin G.

[joey]

I don't think its anything over the 6 Joey, probably a small mark next to it. I've enlarged your OBV picture

Thanks azda that could well be the case.It's pretty hard to say with these things until you get them in your hand.If I end up buying it (I most probably will)I will let you know for sure.

Looks like some sort of scuff rather than an overdate, none recorded......yet!!

I know its a bit cheeky but if you get chance, I wouldn't mind images of your proof farthings when they arrive if you are willing to let me have them, I will recognise the contribution on the website if used (unless you want to remain anonymous)

Nice farthing

Yes Colin I will do that no problems.I will send the dealers photos,they will be better than anything I can capture.

[Peckris]

g'day all

I am looking at an 1806 Gilt Proof Farthing.It appears to be Peck 1387.It looks to be quite a nice coin but one aspect of it has me a bit confused.It appears to be an overdate.It looks as though the 6 is over a 7 in the date.I have included a couple of photos the dealer sent me.Do you get overdates in proof coins?I can't find anything in any of my books.If anyone out there has struck this before,or has any opinions it would be very welcome.

Nice proof, very nice.

It definitely doesn't look like an overdate, more like a mark or blemish. You'd have to ask yourself, when striking proof coins in 1806, why on earth there would be any 1807 dies (yet), and why - for a proof - they would use it!!!

[Rob]

I'm not totally convinced yet. Reasons being:

1. The G at 2 o'clock looks weak at the base. If a proof, this would suggest a later striking, but could also suggest a filled currency die.

2. The shoulder detail on Britannia shows clearly on the Peck plates for the reverses of KF14 & 15, but doesn't show on KF13. This could be bad image reproduction but needs to be borne in mind.

3. The rock detail below the shield at the right looks weak compared to the plate image of KF13, 14 & 15. If point 2 applies, then the rocks on the plate would also be expected to be a bit weak.

4. The olive branch looks weak on the leaves and the bit below the hand looks to have worn away somewhat. This could be a later striking from a polished die, though the leaves on KF14 & 15 are detached, so this rules them out.

5. The middle trident prong on the plate impinges on the angled bar of the N which it doesn't on your coin. Colin Cooke's piece matches the Peck plate despite being a grotty image.

6. The right hand prong looks considerably smaller than the KF13 image and so further away from the N.

I can't make out whether the hair detail is right. Don't rule it out, but check very carefully. The edge should be diagonal cuts in the centre of the edge and not in a deep groove. That appears to be ok in the image, but should be the first check.

Forget the 6/7, but if a flaw, it wasn't on any of the obverse dies recorded by Peck. The jury is out at the moment.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Rob

[Colin G.]

I'm not totally convinced yet. Reasons being:

1. The G at 2 o'clock looks weak at the base. If a proof, this would suggest a later striking, but could also suggest a filled currency die.

2. The shoulder detail on Britannia shows clearly on the Peck plates for the reverses of KF14 & 15, but doesn't show on KF13. This could be bad image reproduction but needs to be borne in mind.

3. The rock detail below the shield at the right looks weak compared to the plate image of KF13, 14 & 15. If point 2 applies, then the rocks on the plate would also be expected to be a bit weak.

4. The olive branch looks weak on the leaves and the bit below the hand looks to have worn away somewhat. This could be a later striking from a polished die, though the leaves on KF14 & 15 are detached, so this rules them out.

5. The middle trident prong on the plate impinges on the angled bar of the N which it doesn't on your coin. Colin Cooke's piece matches the Peck plate despite being a grotty image.

6. The right hand prong looks considerably smaller than the KF13 image and so further away from the N.

I can't make out whether the hair detail is right. Don't rule it out, but check very carefully. The edge should be diagonal cuts in the centre of the edge and not in a deep groove. That appears to be ok in the image, but should be the first check.

Forget the 6/7, but if a flaw, it wasn't on any of the obverse dies recorded by Peck. The jury is out at the moment.

Looks good enough to me, I think a lot of what you are noticing are results of the image. The G on this type is never a true curve and always has almost a recess to its base which may be giving the effect of weakness. As you say Britannia's hair is worth a check, and the edge, but on the whole it looks okay to me.

[bilnic]

I can't explain why, but something is yelling "restrike" at me.

We know that some of the Soho dies fell into "other hands", and I wonder whether this might be a 1807 die used to restrike after the date had been altered to 1806.

As I said, only a thought, but also a possibility.

Bill.

[Rob]

I can't explain why, but something is yelling "restrike" at me.

We know that some of the Soho dies fell into "other hands", and I wonder whether this might be a 1807 die used to restrike after the date had been altered to 1806.

As I said, only a thought, but also a possibility.

Bill.

Restrikes are plain edge whereas this piece clearly has some edge graining. A clear image of the edge would establish what it is we are looking at. Taylor acquired the RENDER collar for the halfpennies, but this was worn out and so the metal was forced out between the gaps on the few restrikes struck with the collar. Other than these, all known are plain edge. Taylor had a problem with his plain edge collars, or at least with the halfpenny one, as it was prone to opening up during striking leading to double struck pieces with the detail frequently rotated by a few degrees and vertical tell-tale marks crossing the edge at the point where it opened. I can't say much about his farthings as I only have one example - a P1285.

[joey]

When this coin arrives I will get some close-ups of the points mentioned and send in the photos.Just having a look at Colin Cooke's 1387, from what I can see of the G of DG the base has a slight flaw.

[joey]

G'day all.I have just received my 1806 farthing.I have included some close-ups of the points mentioned by Rob.Also azda and Colin were spot on with the 6 over 7,it must have been something on the lens or on the surface because there is no sign of a 7 in real life.As you will see on the photo the G of DG has e flaw at the base,but looking at Colin Cooks P1387 there appears a slight flaw there also.The edge is grained with no deep groove.The hair is waved.The olive branch leaves appear strong and attached.The stem below the hand is quite strong.The trident appears to touch the N but not impinge on it.Hope the photos come out ok.

[Rob]

G'day all.I have just received my 1806 farthing.I have included some close-ups of the points mentioned by Rob.Also azda and Colin were spot on with the 6 over 7,it must have been something on the lens or on the surface because there is no sign of a 7 in real life.As you will see on the photo the G of DG has e flaw at the base,but looking at Colin Cooks P1387 there appears a slight flaw there also.The edge is grained with no deep groove.The hair is waved.The olive branch leaves appear strong and attached.The stem below the hand is quite strong.The trident appears to touch the N but not impinge on it.Hope the photos come out ok.

These look good. I think Colin is right re the images in Peck and on CC's site. If you look at Cheshire collection lots 2516-8, here you can see that there is general agreement. The possible spanner in the works is the hair detail. Joey's coin looks to be the earlier strike as the 4th ridge in from the right is a continuous line, which it isn't on the 3 lots in the Goldberg sale. That's the only difference I can see. Thoughts anyone?

[azda]

Do you have a full picture to upload Joey, we do like nice coins here

[Peckris]

Do you have a full picture to upload Joey, we do like nice coins here

When he says "full", Joey, he means the size of St Paul's Cathedral

[azda]

Do you have a full picture to upload Joey, we do like nice coins here

When he says "full", Joey, he means the size of St Paul's Cathedral

[joey]

Here is a shot of the obv.Photography is definitely not my thing.This is a scan.I dont think it is what you are after but is the best I can do.I will have to send the rev separately,the two together go over the 150K

[joey]

Here's the rev scan

[Peckris]

Here is a shot of the obv.Photography is definitely not my thing.This is a scan.I dont think it is what you are after but is the best I can do.I will have to send the rev separately,the two together go over the 150K

Whatever - it's a bloody gorgeous little coin

[Cerbera100]

Here is a shot of the obv.Photography is definitely not my thing.This is a scan.I dont think it is what you are after but is the best I can do.I will have to send the rev separately,the two together go over the 150K

Whatever - it's a bloody gorgeous little coin

Here here! And unfortunately way beyond my pockets at the moment

[joey]

Hope that is more like you wanted azda

[joey]

And the reverse.