Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Bart9349, post: 1909315, member: 5682&quot;]Once again you have proven your keen observation. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Especially when one considers the 1717 farthing above is supposed to be a &quot;dump&quot; (or smaller) farthing.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s a real 1717 dump farthing below for comparison (note the break of the legend on the obverse and the placement of leaf on the reverse) [ATTACH=full]327126[/ATTACH] :</p><p>[ATTACH=full]327127[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]327128[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;The death of Queen Anne thwarted attempts to issue her farthing, but the need for a copper coinage was no less after the accession of King <u>George I</u> (1714–1727). The price of copper had risen, so the new farthings were lighter than the previous issue, at 4.5–5.3 grams. The farthings struck in 1717 looked slightly odd as they were smaller, and thicker than the previous issues, with a diameter of 20–21 millimetres, and they are known as <i>dump</i> farthings. Farthings of 1719–1724 are slightly larger, at 22–23 millimetres, but are of the same weight&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Other opinions appreciated,</p><p><br /></p><p>guy[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in