1697 Halfpenny, BRITA NIA

[scott]

having 2 examples, I wanted your thoughts on this one.

my first example, from being in the ground the general green and other markings from being in the ground effect that area as well as effect other areas such as the shield

2nd example. Thoughts, Letter placement seems different, but that could be due to lack of detail on example 1

[Michael-Roo]

Its difficult to tell. The letter N does appear to be missing in each of the photos but then so too is Britannia's forearm, hand, and sprig.

Nice finds if they do indeed turn out to be examples of the missing N variety though as very few are known.

[Coinery]

Different reverse dies, definitely!

Are there any images of a confirmed BRITA NIA available? That would be useful for further comparison.

[Michael-Roo]

http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/nicholson_part2.html

Coins 102 and 103 here described. 102 refers to the Peck example. 103 is unconfirmed.

Unfortunately, neither photograph is clear enough to confirm as viewed on screen.

[scott]

it says there are 2 dies in the collection, and they also have the missing arm and sprig, what seals it in regards to the second example is how clear the lettering is.

[Michael-Roo]

Believe me when I say I'm WILLING these to be missing N Scott. I love the William 1/2ds and find the varieties fascinating. What troubles me is how common it is to find coins from the series which display areas of strike so weak as to render portions of the design and legend all but non existent. Another thing to consider would be this: if the variety is as super rare as Peck and Nicholson say it is, how were you able to discover two new ones so easily?

I'm not dissing your coins, just being level headed about them. If both are BRITA NIA I'll be as pleased as you.

[scott]

well these were found a good time apart from each other, not like a flood of them, so in rarity terms still rare, whenever i go about looking at early milled i check the collections on colin cooke. and do my research. some coins are not even listed there yet exist, Peck missed a fair few as well.

I used that to make up my mind so to me, they are missing N given my knowledge, and research, and given the notes in the Nicholson collection, it was debated then, and is now, and I have the same approach as you, level headed.

whats odd is nobody spotted the missing letter and corrected it in the first place.

Edited October 10, 2014 by scott

[Michael-Roo]

You're quite right! Pre 1797 1/4d and 1/2d copper is a great series. Lots to look out for and still new things to be discovered. I'll dig out some of my own oddities and post on here as we go.

[Michael-Roo]

PS: You like your early copper varieties. I don't suppose you have a 1673 no stops farthing too, do you? I'm still hoping for other forum members to come forward with other examples.

[scott]

no I dont have one of those, charles is expensive when you get above washer

[Peckris]

having 2 examples, I wanted your thoughts on this one.

my first example, from being in the ground the general green and other markings from being in the ground effect that area as well as effect other areas such as the shield

2nd example. Thoughts, Letter placement seems different, but that could be due to lack of detail on example 1

Interesting, enough to make me change my mind. They certainly look as though they are the same as the Nicholson examples, but if push comes to shove, I'd tend to agree with Peck and say this particular variety is probably down to die wear/damage.