1723 farthing, QUIZ - what's going on?

Teg

Hi,
What do you see on this coin, and how has it happened?

Teg

spinaker2000

the green crud???

Teg

<< <i>the green crud??? >>



Is that the incredible Hulk's Alter Ego?

Teg

Sylvestius

Got a nice big scratch on it too.

MacCrimmon

<< <i> Got a nice big scratch on it too. >>


I think those are clash marks from Britannia.

Green crud? Hey, just a little copper oxide....unfortunately. Otherwise, nice copper. A long term soak in xylol and then a long term bath in Blue Ribbon would probably rid most of the green 'problem'.

AndyBruce

Spacing of the letters? In particular the first 'N'!

Teg

<< <i>Got a nice big scratch on it too. >>


as there is no similey with this - what scratch.?
Or is "BIG SCRATCH" a friend of the "green crud"?
Teg

farthing

Interesting double spear and arm on the reverse!
Enough doubling on the other devices - a pivot point that appears to be about 7 at the rim

MacCrimmon

Are these double dies and clashing common on these coppers?

CIVITAS

Very interesting. I'd say it was just double struck, but I don't see any doubling on the legends or dates. And as farthing pointed out, it looks like there's a pivot point. I was not aware that British minting processes of the 18th century included the hubbing of dies from a master hub. Based on the 'E' on the obverse, it looks as though legends and numerals were still punched by hand. A neat piece.

Teg

<< <i>Are these double dies and clashing common on these coppers? >>



Clashing is quite common.
Die doubles are rare / easily mistaken for double strikes.
Mac..
as you know what you are talking about, could you "explain" this coin?

Teg

lordmarcovan

I'm with MacCrimmon on this one. The obverse has a clashmark. The semicircular mark by the R in "REX" is from Britannia's shield. Interestingly, there does appear to be some doubling on Britannia's face, as well as the spear and branch.



<< <i>A long term soak in xylol and then a long term bath in Blue Ribbon would probably rid most of the green 'problem'. >>


I agree with this as well. Blue Ribbon could work wonders on the greenish patches. I have no idea what xylol is.

That is a great-looking "dump" issue copper, green crud nothwithstanding. I'm not used to seeing 'em so nice. I like it.

Teg

<< <i>Very interesting. I'd say it was just double struck, but I don't see any doubling on the legends or dates. And as farthing pointed out, it looks like there's a pivot point. I was not aware that British minting processes of the 18th century included the hubbing of dies from a master hub. Based on the 'E' on the obverse, it looks as though legends and numerals were still punched by hand. A neat piece. >>



Thanks,
I knocked this up recently - it attempts to show how dies were produced in the 18th century.
(I used a 1774 Obverse counterfeit for the base!)




So if B1, needed more than one impression - central motif doubled, legends single.

Teg

Teg

<< <i>I'm with MacCrimmon on this one. The obverse has a clashmark. The semicircular mark by the R in "REX" is from Britannia's shield. Interestingly, there does appear to be some doubling on Britannia's face, as well as the spear and branch.



<< <i>A long term soak in xylol and then a long term bath in Blue Ribbon would probably rid most of the green 'problem'. >>


I agree with this as well. Blue Ribbon could work wonders on the greenish patches. I have no idea what xylol is.

That is a great-looking "dump" issue copper, green crud nothwithstanding. I'm not used to seeing 'em so nice. I like it. >>



B*gger,
I am red / green colour (color) blind, so I had no idea about the green crud!
Maybe get someone else to do the xylol soak - would I know when it worked?

Lord M. I think this is a great coin, many George I are -****impossible****- to find in high grade.
I don't class this as a "dump" issue, I think that only 1717 and 1718 coppers are "dump"

Teg

Conder101

Teg, I would agree with your chart for late 18th century but I the early 18th century They would have stopped at B2 and used that to strike coins. Raising the positive punch (C) and then hubbing the coining dies (D) would have most likely not have been possible due to insufficiant striking pressure. The full hubbing of dies probably had to wait until the advent of the steam press in the 1780's. (Here in the US we made a few attempts at doing full hubs in the 1790's and early 1800's but they were unsuccessful and required much hand refinishing before they were usable. Full dies hubbing had to wait until 1836 here.) So you are right, the die this coin came from received an extra punch from the central device punch at the B1 stage. I would refer to it as a repunched Britainia rather than a doubled die. Doubled DIE implies that the entire die was impressed twice and not just one part of it. (Even though the doubling may only show on one part) While repunching implies that only part of the die such as a letter or device has received multiple impressions.

MacCrimmon

So, it would appear that 2 or more impressions were effected at stage B1 "before" the lettering was punched.

My impression is the first (right-most) impression to the hub was first and it appears to have been too light. The die worker then attempted to "re-impress" over the light hubbing and missed creating the slight 'pivot hub' error.

That is why the mass of the design is not doubled; it is under the final impression. This is similar to the early U.S. mints efforts except that the entire central designs were impressed, and then the lettering was cut resulting in the 300-odd different early cent varieties.

Xylol? Same as Xylene.....a very toxic solvent for organic matter on copper, or any metal for that matter.......CAUTION - CAUTION - CAUTION!!!! ONLY USE THIS STUFF IN A VERY WELL VENTILATED AREA!!! AM I CLEAR?

If you have a glass beaker or jar with a metal screw top, place the S-3662 (non-dump ) into the xylene or acetone and let it sit for at least a week. Remove and brush with a camel hair brush, or lightly dob with real cotton puffs (like the wimmin use for make-up). Repeat if needed.

Then dob some Blue Ribbon onto both surfaces and let it sit for awhile. Brush again....brush again, etc. If needed, repeat the xylene steps, and the BR again. Once the stuff is 99% gone, or however much is possible to remove, dip in xylol again to remove the bulk of the oil from the farthing and the lightly brush on a "micro-drop" of BR to both obv./rev. This final ultra-thin coating of BR will protect the copper from any further atmospheric/moisture problems.

Again, that is a very nice Geo. I farthing. In fact, it would be interesting to study the head design of the "real" farthings/hapennies and any of the Hibernia issues....did they use the same central punches/letter punches?

Teg

<< <i>Teg, I would agree with your chart for late 18th century but I the early 18th century They would have stopped at B2 and used that to strike coins. Raising the positive punch (C) and then hubbing the coining dies (D) would have most likely not have been possible due to insufficiant striking pressure. The full hubbing of dies probably had to wait until the advent of the steam press in the 1780's. (Here in the US we made a few attempts at doing full hubs in the 1790's and early 1800's but they were unsuccessful and required much hand refinishing before they were usable. Full dies hubbing had to wait until 1836 here.) So you are right, the die this coin came from received an extra punch from the central device punch at the B1 stage. I would refer to it as a repunched Britainia rather than a doubled die. Doubled DIE implies that the entire die was impressed twice and not just one part of it. (Even though the doubling may only show on one part) While repunching implies that only part of the die such as a letter or device has received multiple impressions. >>



Hi - conder101,
Wonderful to get informed debate on this. I am still trying to learn.

Tricky, tricky, tricky,
Who knows?
Yes they could / would have stopped at B2 for short mintages.(according to Peck)
I think that the steam press argument does not compute! It was good P.R. of its day.
After the mint used steam presses for production ,it still used screw presses for die manufacture!.
The biggest problem here was the slow up-take of crucible steel - used for die manufacture.

The best reference book - bar non - is

"The Art and Craft of
COINMAKING
A History of Minting Technology
Denis R Cooper"


Were any Conder tokens produced on a steam press?

Unfortunately the minting process was often shrouded in secrecy.

I am very interested in minting techniques after 1672, please let me know other any info you have!

Teg

MacCrimmon

Early America had huge problems with obtaining much less manufacturing high quality die steel. It was very brittle, and great care had to be exercised when annealing the steel between hubbing.

This impurity-ridden steel contributed to the very short life of many dies. It seems they sourced the early ingots from England, but there a cutoff at some point. I can't recall the exact history, but I'm sure Conder101 has multiple texts at his disposal.

coinkat

A decent example... and I believe there is die clashing but I am confused as to what is out there away from the bust where there is what appears to be clashing but it doesn't seem to follow the reverse design. Do you see what I am writing about? It is the area well below the chin...perhaps it is just a dies crack.

The reverse to me looks to be a double die. Even some of the most highly sought after double dies in US coinage like the 1935 DDR Buffalo and the 1946 DDR WLHalf feature only portions of the coin that doubling is obvious. I like the coin. Here in the States, I would think such a coin would have a premium.

I looked in Coincraft and it is not featured.

MacCrimmon

<< <i>Do you see what I am writing about? It is the area well below the chin...perhaps it is just a dies crack. >>


I believe that's also a clash remnant of Britannia's arm.

coinkat

As I see it, there is the area of Britannia's arm that can be seen that is the most destinctive. The other is next to the bust of George I and that may be Britannia's shield unless there is a die rotation

Sylvestius

Just goes to show you, i never even noticed the doubling. But i generally don't look for stuff like that. Quite a pronounced example though!

Teg

Hi,
to finish this thread off.
1) Clashed dies on George I head.
2) Green cud. I will try and find some chemical suppliers here in the UK - do some experiments before tackling this coin. At the moment I have no idea where to find Xylene, or B.R. - may have to settle for acetone (nail polish remover).
Thanks for all the safety warnings, I do have a chemistry degree - this makes it even more necessary.
The worst sound I have ever heard was from a first year chemistry practical.
A scream that froze your blood!
The killer was that it was from the floor above our lab.
Third year student pipetting concentrated Ammonia (dumb, dumb, dumb), removed the top half of his tongue.
Don't play with dangerous chemicals!.
3) The E in REX is struck over a much lower E. If you know it is there - perhaps you can see it. Otherwise - very tough.

4) Double die. I was impressed how quickly you worked this out. Most UK collectors would have said double struck.
There is not much awareness here of double dies, off hand I can't think of any catalogued examples.

This type is not catalogued anywhere, Colin Cooke (Farthing GURU) has never seen another one.
Not much interest in these "funny goings on" in the UK. I bought this for about $180, as a straight 1723. George I are not easy in good grades.
I love it - but it is not worth big money!

Teg

coinkat

I like this one and just because it may not be worth big bucks today doesn't mean that it will always be that way. Die varieties are the wave of the future... it is already happening in many US series.