Wrong year lines, British farthing 1838-1860 [solved]

Hello — I sent a modification request earlier today but Peter replied that this needs to be done by a master administrator. So here I am…

My request about N#5501 :

Modify the year 1860: the photo provided shows the Second Portrait ("Bun Head"), bronze, and it should be moved to the relevant page (N#5500). The copper First Portrait 1860 issue is actually quite rare, not at all in the price ranges mentioned. Some Numista members entered their coin here instead of on the Second Portrait page.

Delete the year 1864 since 1864 is the Second Portrait, bronze. 

Consult any British catalogue, especially the Standard Catalogue of British Coins. 

Peter's reply:

This will need doing by a catalogue master admin, so please can you open up a forum post in the relevant section. Thanks

I will invite @peterjhalford for the clarity.

I take it that 1860 first portrait exist, but the photo we have is wrong. Photo comes from auction sale, and both of you would have been able to remove it: 

I have just requested that.

For 1864, request was fine, I just removed it.

Thanks Jarcek,

The values for the line 1860 are for the “Bun Head" (Second Portrait). On Tony Clayton's page for the farthing, the values for the First Portrait are as follow (in £):

F 1600    VF 3750    XF 7000    Unc — 

His values mostly come from the Coin News magazine (as he points out at the top of the linked page).

Sorry to go against the grain but both Spink and aboutfarthings.co.uk list the 1864 issue as a first portrait issue (Obv 3, Rev A) and note that is was a proof specimen.

https://aboutfarthings.co.uk/catalogue/uk-farthings/victoria-1838-1901/victoria-young-head-1838-1859/1864-farthing-specimen/

radrick007

Sorry to go against the grain but both Spink and aboutfarthings.co.uk list the 1864 issue as a first portrait issue (Obv 3, Rev A) and note that is was a proof specimen.

https://aboutfarthings.co.uk/catalogue/uk-farthings/victoria-1838-1901/victoria-young-head-1838-1859/1864-farthing-specimen/

Yes, you're right. I saw that too late and, before resubmitting it, I was going to investigate further because it was obviousy not meant to be a circulating issue. I think the year line should say “Specimen”.

Peter just added the 1864 line but this time with the mention “Sp# 3950 Specimen Proof”. In the previous version, 1864 was presented as if it was a circulating coin. Thanks Peter.

Technically, the whole page is Sp#3950 so to enter that in the year line reference field is redundant.

Good point. I just sent yet another correction to remove the Sp #.