Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Mr T

Accomplished Collector
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,079

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Mr T

  1. Posted

    I would echo the above sentiments about buying a book before anything else.

    If you're going to sell as well I'd be checking my change for anything worth selling as it seems like some of the low mintage commemoratives can got for a bit over face value.

    I use a spreadsheet to track my coins - it's not perfect but it does the job.

    • Like 1

  4. Posted

    On 5/22/2021 at 9:17 AM, Rob said:

    The question of the numbered strikings was addressed by Graham Dyer, former curator at the RM Museum in a 1982 article entitled 'Numbered Strikings of Victorian Bronze Coins, 1860-1868'. Whilst people are unlikely to have this, the important points are laid out in Michael Gouby's 2000 publication 'The British Bronze Coinage, Pence, Halfpence and Farthings 1860-1869' whereby Dyer has shown the improper fractions seen on a few coins relate to the total tonnage of bronze to that point (larger number) and the tonnage of that denomination (smaller number). As the BM has an example of an 1864 farthing with 236/11 (P1872) and there is a penny with 237/134 (P1662), using the consecutive numbers as a total for bronze output in tons, we can deduce the tonnage of halfpennies to that point, as after 236 tons of bronze struck there had been 11 tons of farthings and (using 237/134 as a reference point) 133 tons of pennies. ie, the remainder is 92 tons of halfpennies. 

    Further to the above, the introduction to the publication gives a little history, including some useful snippets, summarised as follows:

    Victoria was only happy with the portrait at the beginning of August 1860.

    The mint was very busy at this time with gold and silver and didn't have the resources to produce the number of coins required for the changeover. Consequently they gave Watt a contract for 1720 tons (including all three denominations) in the first week of Sept. Production was underway at the Tower mint by the end of the month. On the 15th October, daily output of halfpennies and farthings was just over 150K - 50K short of the 200K target. The deficiency was due to too many dies breaking, with an average of 30000 strikes obtained instead of the usual average of 60000. There was a need to reduce the relief on all three denominations at this point. The farthing was done, the halfpenny was 'very nearly ready', but the pennies required a further alteration, so at this point were still not in production. Nor had Watt started production by the end of November. The beaded border created a problem, with flaws appearing in this area regularly.

    Taking the above into consideration, it is hardly surprising there are fewer pennies extant than the other denominations for 1860. 

    Given the delay in getting the bronze coinage started, I would have thought they prepared 1860 dies for all three denominations. 1859 halfpennies and farthings are both scarce, and the halfpennies I have had of this date were all struck from old worn dies, whether 9 over 8 or not. So it is likely they intended to strike a good number of the smaller denominations in any case. As John pointed out, the halfpenny obverse was certainly used commercially. 

    It is beyond debate that they intended to change over to thinner, harder bronze coins earlier than they did, but as the decimal patterns of 1857-9 show, the bronze flans were prone to lamination. See below for the F689 edge. All 686s have this problem too. As these are both dated 1859, it is clear the problem was ongoing. Both are struck in bronze with a thickness of 1.5mm and are 27.5mm diameter. Freeman analysed the similar F686A to have 92.5% copper, 5% nickel, 2 % tin and 0.5% zinc, but this variation in alloy didn't cure the problem.

    For those unaware of what the numbered coins refer to, please see attached 1866 halfpenny showing 405 behind the head and 138 in front, i.e. 405/138. 

    F689 edge.jpg

    img608.jpg

    Where was it published? British Numismatic Journal?

  8. Posted

    On 5/5/2021 at 7:16 AM, Sword said:

    It's no surprise that George VI refused. Since, his brother didn't want to be King, why should he want a set of the coins?

    Edward VIII's abdication hurt George VI deeply. Hence he didn't allow the Duchess of Windsor or their future descendants to use the HRH title. George told his staff not to put phone calls from his brother to him. The coins of George VI faced the same way as George V, which simply ignored the fact that Edward VIII faced the "wrong" way.

    I read recently the request came in 1951 as well.

  9. Posted

    On 4/30/2021 at 5:17 AM, Zo Arms said:

    However....

    I have neither the knowledge nor experience to be taken seriously so these are purely amateur observations.

    Using Mal Lewendons photos in the thread '1874 half penny' 2015, the only concrete difference that I can spot is the pointing of the second T in Britt.

    Obverse 11 shows it pointing smack bang to a tooth. On obverse 12 the tooth is slightly to the left and the upright noticeably takes in some of the adjacent gap.

    Transfering this observation to the side by side obverses shown in Freeman, page 89, the difference can be seen with a shift of the eyes.

    You might be on to something, though I think obverse 11 and 12 are probably the same more of less - I looked for any appreciable difference that wasn't a comparative and all I could notice was that some coins had the R of BRITT pointing below the serif of the I and some had it in line. Both types could be seen on coins that were supposed to be both 11 and 12.

  12. Posted

    6 hours ago, copper123 said:

    On the subject of edward VIII coins can anyone confirm that when Edward asked for one of the four sets he was turned down by the royal mint , that must have felt like a right smack in the face .

    George V would have gone spare if he was turned down .

    I remember reading that though maybe it was brother that rejected the offer?

    I've noted to myself that the first stroke of the N in ONE helps with the 1909 penny.

  13. Posted

    On 3/21/2021 at 11:55 PM, Rob said:

    FEATURE

    The counterfeiting of British Victorian £5 gold coins in the 1960's

    The Public Records Office, Kew, has been recently given a "make over" and renamed the National Archives. Here are deposited the record books and official files of the Royal Mint. British law usually allows these to be examined after thirty years. One of these files, prosaically named: "Requests for examination of £5 pieces", Ref.2, allows us to find out about the glut of counterfeit £5 pieces which entered Britain in the late 1960's.

    The file is documented to cover the periods 1965 to 1969. It starts with a request, in November 1965, from the Customs and Excise to the Royal Mint to examine a 1887 £5 gold piece. This piece was one of a number imported from Kuwait by a Mrs.Akel, a Birmingham jeweller. It was alleged she was selling these pieces on to other small jewellers in the English Midlands. G.P. Warden, a principal scientific officer at the Mint, reported the piece was a counterfeit. This was based on the low weight and density of the piece, the incorrect number of millings on the edge and a number of visual defects on the coin. From the density of 17.05g/cc Mr.Warden estimated that the coin contained about 89% gold as against the 91.66% found in the genuine coins. The file contained a photograph of this coin and it is reproduced below.

    Photograph showing the 1887 Jubilee gold £5 ex. Mrs.Akel

    Type

    Weight

    Density

    Millings

    Mrs.Akel counterfeit

    39.7204g

    17.05g/cc

    188

    Genuine coin

    39.87549 to 40.00507g

    17.45 to 17.55g/cc

    184

    The file does not detail the visual faults of the counterfeit but examination of the photograph reveals a number. On the reverse, the body of St.George had not been completely "made" during the striking operation. Both The file does not detail the visual faults of the counterfeit but examination of the photograph reveals a number. On the reverse, the body of St.George had not been completely "made" during the striking operation. Both sides contained a large number of pimples and depressions. The pimples were especially noticable on the table next to the body and leg of St.George and on the bottom part of Queen Victoria's veil. There is also a small die crack visible near the top right hand side of the I of Victoria.

     

    image.png

    Sorry for the late response - thank you, very helpful.

  15. Posted

    I was flicking through my Davies and it looks like the threepence dies used for George V Maundy sets is incomplete (it starts with 3C for 1920).

    Anyone know what was used for 1911 to 1919? I know I can look (it looks like 1911 is 1A: https://maundy.co.uk/catalogue/product-details.aspx?id=nPLwqfwFJrE%3D; 1919 looks like 1B: https://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=168&searchlot=2237&searchtype=2) but just in case anyone has already looked and figured it out.

  21. Posted

    9 hours ago, 1887jubilee said:

    Yes you are onto something here. I have examined my extensive 1887 collection of 6d. There are as you say different obverses but not limited to the two you show. Even the reverses are not limited to the A-E in Davies. there being at least four of 1887 alone. For comparison I would like to see your obv. 2 if it is 1887. I only have one.

    Four different reverses for 1887? What are they?

  24. Posted

    On 3/5/2021 at 7:01 AM, coinkat said:

    The reverse is different... I would suggest substantially different. There was another thread I started under varieties that address the main difference between what I refer to as the type I Reverse which is the type we see on the pattern and the type II Reverse which is the reverse type on the other that was posted on this thread. There are significant differences in the detail of the horse, the dragon wings, the forearm of holding the sword. What I find puzzling is how this difference could go virtually unnoticed for the better part of 69 years. For these interested, the discussion is more developed on the other thread

    Related to http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/13797-1951-crown-type-i-and-type-ii-reverse/

     

×