How rare is this Geo IIII farthing? Lloyd, aethelred, anyone?
Teg
Posts: 135
Nice farthing - not a great photo.
Fun question:-
1) What is it?
2) What is it worth?
3) Is Peck wrong?
I ask Lloyd as the Brit Copper expert, and Aethelred as a George IIII guru.
Or I could be talking bowlarks.
What do we think?
Teg
Fun question:-
1) What is it?
2) What is it worth?
3) Is Peck wrong?
I ask Lloyd as the Brit Copper expert, and Aethelred as a George IIII guru.
Or I could be talking bowlarks.
What do we think?
Teg
0
Comments
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
WNC Coins, LLC
1987-C Hendersonville Road
Asheville, NC 28803
wnccoins.com
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
A very nice coin.
Collecting:
Conder tokens
19th & 20th Century coins from Great Britain and the Realm
The reverse legend is small - the FID and DEF are close to each other. There is a lot more gap either side of them.
I'm writing this at 4:25 AM so help me ... what's the game then ?
Here is a pic of one of Colin Cooke's farthings for comparison...
L
Collecting:
Conder tokens
19th & 20th Century coins from Great Britain and the Realm
Is the lettering on both sides smaller?
L
BRITTANIAR on the CC pic starts at the 7th denticle from the saltire. Teg's starts at the 10th, The first and second leaves point to both sides of the 'A' on the CC piece while they point to the middle of the 'A' and the middle of the 'N' on the Teg piece.
That reverse image of Brit. is definitely somewhat elliptical but Lloyd nails it, in that FID: DEF: is definitely "squished" with the colon of DEF being 10 denticles high on Teg's piece, but only aligned with the 5th dent. on the CC piece. There's also the remnants of a hot-cross bun on the trident.
<< <i>Well, for variety disection, here we go!
BRITTANIAR on the CC pic starts at the 7th denticle from the saltire. Teg's starts at the 10th, The first and second leaves point to both sides of the 'A' on the CC piece while they point to the middle of the 'A' and the middle of the 'N' on the Teg piece.
That reverse image of Brit. is definitely somewhat elliptical but Lloyd nails it, in that FID: DEF: is definitely "squished" with the colon of DEF being 10 denticles high on Teg's piece, but only aligned with the 5th dent. on the CC piece. There's also the remnants of a hot-cross bun on the trident.
Who do you think you are, Michael Jackson?
However for all "spot the difference" fans there is still some way to go.
This is Peck 1418 [EXR] "Trial Farthing". He notes "Exactly as the current farthing except that DEF: is much closer to FID:, hence the last colon is farther from the lion's nose than on the current piece."
Note he says "Exactly", not often that Peck gets it wrong!
Trial -------------------------------------------------------------Current
(I know this was a sneaky question - but just think. If Lloyd had seen this on a dealer's table for $30, he would have thought - that coin's not quite right. He would have bought it - researched it - and sold it to someone like me for a lot lot lot more! It pays to have a good eye)
Back to the differences - they have never been published before - so have a look and tell me what you see.
teg
(1) The second "1" in the date lacks a bottom serif and the date is narrower.
(2) Britannia is somewhat skinnier and shorter and the trident is farther removed from the teeth.
(3) There is almost a full colon after GRATIA, while the standard issue has a full stop there.
(4) There is one less ribbon below the knot.
(5) The lion has a larger head and broader snout.
I'm probably missing some of then yet but work calls very soon...
Unfortunately I do not have a copy of Peck
Collecting:
Conder tokens
19th & 20th Century coins from Great Britain and the Realm
Did you pull the wool over an innocent dealer's eye's
or was you held to ransom by a variety fiend ?
L
Wybrit
(1) The second "1" in the date lacks a bottom serif and the date is narrower.
Yes but the date varies quite a lot between different 1821s.
(2) Britannia is somewhat skinnier and shorter and the trident is farther removed from the teeth.
Absolutely!!!
(3) There is almost a full colon after GRATIA, while the standard issue has a full stop there.
Just the way the light caught a spot on the photo - not there on the coin
(4) There is one less ribbon below the knot.
Another great spot - the ribbon is there but very weak - I have not seen that on any other GEO IIII farthing
(5) The lion has a larger head and broader snout.
Yep - and bigger paws.
Farthing
"Different number and placement of the leaves on the reverse."
Yes very different
How the heck did Peck miss all of those?
It is a very different reverse die!
Peck 1418 he calls it a Bronze trial piece - there is a picture in the back of the book.
He lists the British Museum as the only know location.
I know of one other specimen, plus this one in my collection - makes three known coins!
I would not be suprised if more turned up - but it has to be RARE. (Peck did not have one, it has never appeared in a major farthing sale or catalogue.)
Lloyd,
I bought it from a dealer (as 1418) - it cost 4 x more than the other 1821 (Peck 1407) in the picture!
But with only two known outside the BM - I think it was a bargain!
Teg
Great coin... Is there any way of documenting of knowing whether these dies were used as part of the 2.7 million that were issued for general circulation?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I don’t think they would have used these dies for mass production.
The real interest of coins like this, for me at least, is the insight they can give to the History and minting process used at that time.
First the disclaimers – I don’t have all my reference books here, I am no expert – and any points below relate specifically to farthing production.
Farthings from 1672 – 1775 were all designed and manufactured in essential the same way.
An engraver would produce one set of “master punches” - one with the Kings Head on, another with Britannia. These would be the same size as the finished coin, and all the features raised.
They then went through a series of steps to produce the working dies.
First a sunken matrix was made. You hammer the master punch into a softer metal to make an impression – you then punch in the letters for the legend – and the date. You then harden the metal.
You could use this as a die – and sometimes they did.
More commonly they produced a “working matrix” that is a raised punch – that would look the same as the final coin.
They then used this to produce the sunken working dies.
The whole point of the exercise was to preserve the original master punches, by using them as infrequently as possible. There are a limited number of times you can hammer one piece of metal into another.
Then came the industrial revolution. Matthew Boulton, steam driven presses, and new methods of die production. Due to the volume of coins he had to produce the old way of copying dies took to long – and initially this was one of his major worries. He then acquired a copying machine. (Probably late 1790s).
The copying machine worked on the same principal as a toy you could buy when I was young.(younger)
The toy was a pencil attached to some levers / cogs, and another lever with second pencil on it. Anything you traced with the first pencil was reproduced by the second.
This machine was probably used for farthing dies 1799 – 1807.
Now after all the above I get to the point!
If you change the gear ratios on the copying machine it will produce a copy either much bigger – or much smaller than the original. All farthings 1821 and later were produced like this.
The original engraving is made much larger than the farthing. The copying machine is then used as a reducing machine to produce production dies.
This has many advantages. You can produce far more detailed coins by this method. You can also take one original engraving, and make penny, halfpenny and farthing sized dies.
There is one major disadvantage. They found that some designs that looked fine on a large scale, were unbalanced or just did not look right on a much smaller scale.
So – my theory is, that the Britannia reverse (by William Wyon) – shown on the “trial piece” was approved by the Mint in its large size. They then went through the reduction process and produced some trial pieces.
Evidently they did not like what they saw. So the changes we have been documenting above were made.
Peck lists another trial piece, Obverse only, Reverse blank. As normal except that there is less space between the letters of GRACIA, so that the last A lies under the point of the shoulder, and it does not have a stop after it.
Peck lists this first (1417) then the trial above (1418). As the first trial seems to be only concerned with the spacing of the letters, I guess that was all he looked for on the second trial. Unusual as he was a great observer of detail.
To finish. I think it is surprising that they went to so much trouble for a small copper coin – but then Wyon and Pistrucci (the obverse) were artists and perfectionists. It is even more surprising when you know that this issue was produced in a great rush – you would have thought the first attempt would have been good enough.
I am sure that Wyon did not have to start Britannia again from scratch. If you look for example at the dots above the date exergue line (base of Brit) they are the same on the 1821 trial, and on 1826 currency.
Picture attached.
Finally finally – you often see farthings of GEO IIII with a “scratch” under Georges chin. I have seen UNC examples listed with this as a staple scratch. It is caused by clashed dies, the mark corresponds to the fold of cloth over part of the shield (see 1821-1826 picture).
The die clash can be seen on this photo of an 1825 (D over U in DEI variety!)
Teg
1821-1826
1825 D / U