The piece is from George I, but the size is less than 1 inch, about .75". According to my references, halfpennies are at least 1" in diameter (26mm) It's also too light to be a half penny. However, it has the half penny design. As you can see, the V is in the proper position for a half penny. But, it's too small and too narrow for a half penny. This is the design for the farthing, but as mentioned previously, it's not the correct measurements. As worn as it is, it could be underweight, but it's only 19.05mm in diameter, on par with a farthing.
Well, Great Britain is supposed to be your specialty, so I can't see the value of asking for information here, since you're the expert at $19.95 coin valuation services.
Maybe it's a worn half penny? Someone ground the edges? That would account for the smaller diameter and also loss of weight.
This is at least the third time today that our expert has had a question, but could not be bothered to even google and attempt to answer himself. Perhaps his expertise only kicks in when money is on the table. I wonder where his posted references came from; surely they were not taken from a certain pirated copy of Krause.... I fully admit that I know very little about such coins, but learned of something called a "dump issue" after a quick google search. While I cannot read the date, and this alone would not account for the extra small diameter, but if added to your suggestions, it very well could explain it, or at least be a start.
I know what the "dump" issues are, however, the dump issued halfpennies were only 1mm smaller than the regular issue and had the same weight. Basically a slightly thicker planchet with no change in weight. I read counterfeiting did exist in that time frame. I've looked at dozens of worn halfpennies and farthings, and mine almost has a brassy look to it. Is it possible were looking at a contemporary counterfeit?
I would agree with contemporary counterfeit, or "non-regal" issue as collectors like to call them. It's pretty close as far as these usually go, but look at the face. With the exception of the nose, from top of forehead to bottom of chin is basically a straight line. That is not correct at all and doesn't seem to be something attributable to wear. Call him Blockhead George
I kind of think it matches more to this imitation coin: http://museumvictoria.com.au/collec...on-coin-halfpenny-george-i-great-britain-1719. Isn't Google Great?
Certainly. In American numismatics we call them "evasions." The economics of minting made coppers pretty much a loss for almost everyone who tried them. The Woods Hibernias and all the rest just were hopefuls. But people needed small change; copper coins meet a necessity. So, locals of various kinds, times, and places, made their own (underweight) coppers. To avoid being charged with counterfeiting - and being drawn and quartered: ouch! - they blundered the legends: "Georgius Blah-blah-blah" or "George Rules Britons Isles" or anything but the Regal Name. It was not until Boulton and Watt at the Soho Mint that coppers became profitable for the makers and the users alike. This was always a dusty area of economics, even for the free market people. Compared to most of us here, Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises knew next to nothing about money qua money. However, recently published, you can find THE BIRMINGHAM BUTTON MAKERS by George Selgin. He tells the story of how private machinists and inventors created the first truly modern coinage. And just to say, also, even the standard numismatic references hardly say much. Everyone focuses on government money. The Breen Encyclopedia has more citations, but Breen, too, had his own myopia.
Breen's myopia concerning his numismatic research was the least of his problems..... I agree though its probably a contemporary counterfeit. This timeframe of UK numismatics was a period of great change, due to inflation. Small coppers became unprofitable, the penny could no longer be produced as a silver coin, etc. So, into this time of uncertaint people produced their own change, however they could. This same period produced the wonderful Conder Token series for basically the same reason.
For completeness: George Selgin's book is called "Good Money", with subtitle "Birmingham Button Makers, the Royal Mint, and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage, 1775-1821". It is a very interesting read, and I recommend it for anyone who is interested in numismatic history -- not just British coinage.
