1772/1 Halfpenny

[scott]

can see the line that is the 1, in the curve of the 2, I laso have an 1771 for comparison on the placement, as you can see they more or less line up digit for digit, also the first 7 is possibly over as higher 7. showing die reuse?

Edited February 15, 2014 by scott

[copper123]

I would expect that coin to be a contemp forgery

weigh it and that will give you a better idea

[azda]

I would expect that coin to be a contemp forgery

weigh it and that will give you a better idea

A coin with that amount of wear will obviously already weigh less, but there certainly looks to be something under there. Curious question, but why straight away say it must be counterfeit? Is'nt it possible for a currency coin to be overstruck?

[Rob]

Why would a counterfeit be overstruck in the first place? It could be dated 2771 for all it matters. It doesn't have to be overstruck as it could just be a spot of die disintegration around the digit. I don't have any examples of a 2 over 1 which you might expect given they aren't particularly rare in good grade. Better example from the same die required.

[copper123]

Many contemporary forgeries of george III halfpennies have blundered dates n's reversed or letters out of alignment ect

The forgeries of george ii halfpennies indeed outnumber the genuine artical normally, so it ia actually rarer to find a worn genuine george iii halfpenny

[Peckris]

Many contemporary forgeries of george III halfpennies have blundered dates n's reversed or letters out of alignment ect

The forgeries of george ii halfpennies indeed outnumber the genuine artical normally, so it ia actually rarer to find a worn genuine george iii halfpenny

Forgeries on their own, or forgeries + evasions? I'd be inclined to think it was the latter. Trade tokens in the UK rendered contepmorary forgeries less necessary.

[copper123]

well , yes forgeries and evasions would outnumber the genuine coins .

Forgeries on their own would probably not, as you say, though they made up a very significant amount of the coinage back then

[bazvogue]

Hi to all i am new to this forum but i am not new to coin collecting although my main hobby is stamp collecting

Queen Victoria Commonwealth and Empire i do have a sizeable collection of Bitish copper coins from 1694 to

the end of stirling issues mainly Victorian British Bronze and copper coins of which i have some knowledge.

I am intrigued by these overstruck coins and i have this George 1 ha`penny overstruck 1720/1 shown below

I can find no info on this coin anywhere is it a forgery? new unlisted variety? or ??? your thoughts please gentlemen

Thanks Bazvogue

[Rob]

No, it's ok. Peck 821 refers. It is also listed in Spink's Coins of England and other references.

When the year ended, existing dies had their dates changed (sometimes) because the cost and effort of changing the last digit or two digits was much less than that required to engrave a new die.

Overdates exist for many years up to the end of the 19th century.

[Peter]

I can direct you to Colin cookes site where he has a section called collections.

Look at Dr Basil Nicholsons Collection of half pennies.

[scott]

anyone found one of these? 1722/1

[Rob]

anyone found one of these? 1722/1

Nicholson 190

[scott]

yea, unrecorded,other then that I know of no more :/

[Peckris]

yea, unrecorded,other then that I know of no more :/

If it's Nicholson 190 then it's hardly "unrecorded"

[bazvogue]

Thanks to Rob and Peter for the info on my George 1 1720/1 halfpenny

I googled up Dr Nicholsons halfpenny collection and scanned the 2 examples listed

I note that my example is slightly different in that the 2 in the date leans noticeably to the left

towards the 7 and the foot of the 2 is longer and curved.

Or could it be that my stamp collecting experience of looking at every stamp in the minuest detail

for the slightest fly dirt (philatelic term) is not relevant when checking coins?

Thanks Bazvogue

[scott]

yea, unrecorded,other then that I know of no more :/

If it's Nicholson 190 then it's hardly "unrecorded"

Nicholson sale item 190.. says unrecorded

any difference in details like numeral positions means its another dye.

[Peckris]

yea, unrecorded,other then that I know of no more :/

If it's Nicholson 190 then it's hardly "unrecorded"

Nicholson sale item 190.. says unrecorded

any difference in details like numeral positions means its another dye.

Yeah, but that was when it was being catalogued. Now it's been part of the Nicholson sale, it IS recorded!

[bazvogue]

Hi to all, is my 1821 George 1111 1/4d. shown below showing a raised dot after the date a known variety?

i have little or no interest in coins other than Queen Victoria issues for which i have some literature but no literature for any other reigns other than a woefully out of date Seaby`s Coins of England.It is my intention to check all my non Q.Vic stuff and see if i can put a price on it with a view to selling it off .

Thanks Bazvogue

i am going to check the 200 or so pre Queen Vic and god knows how much post Q.Vic copper with with a view to selling it off

[Rob]

Normal

[bazvogue]

George 1111 again this time 1822 1/4d. with strange numerals in the date especially the 1st 2 apears very large...

double struck? much different to the other 3 i have of this date. see below

Thanks Baz

[Rob]

Normal variation. The dates are all over the place from 1822 onwards. Frequently double or even triple cut digits.

[Peter]

Don't take Robs humblings.

I've never met him but kinda respect him.

I gave him a 1963 1/2d

Only 49 left.

Rob is a night hawk like my self.....well Scott....a treasure to the forum.

[Peter]

T Dog.....please