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.

Sign in to follow this  
DrLarry

Are we scared to List unusual examples for fear of losing MONEY?

Recommended Posts

I would like to start a new and I think, important feed.  I want to ask you to consider if we are losing out on greater understanding of coins in our collections because people are hesitant to be upfront about oddities, errors, over stamping, and other varieties? I have many examples of 1 type of strange coin in my collections it may be for example an 1860 penny where there is what appears to be an R under a B in BRITT.  I sit around looking and looking for pieces to confirm this but hesitate to ask others.  Am I hesitating because I want to be the first to find something and as a result miss out as a group activity to compare and share? If I look at a coin and see something odd I have a tendency either to pass it off as a singular error when it could be something others have seen.  In the spirit of openness I would like to start to share my strange coins and hope that I do not upset anyone but undermining some economy associated with collecting, simply because I would hope think that we collect because of interest in the subject not just how much some coin is worth.   

I will begin with the 1846 shilling with three colons after    REG :. 

The R under B in the 1860 penny 

the Possible B under R half penny 1862  could be just a die run but seemingly corresponding to the "strange sticky out bit" commonly seen on 1861 and 1862 half pennies in BRITT. 

CM180523-115300002 (400x351).jpg

CM180523-115339003 (365x400).jpg

CM180516-175512001 (243x400).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware people were reticent to post these. If it is unambiguous, then very little goes unreported. If it is a maybe, then further research is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob said:

I wasn't aware people were reticent to post these. If it is unambiguous, then very little goes unreported. If it is a maybe, then further research is required.

well it is not perhaps even reluctance it maybe that some strange things seem too strange. LIke the shuttle on the top of the 1879 penny.  Luckily the post was spotted and another came up.  Then there was real investigation for the reason behind such a strange large addition of metal, and in the raised metal lumps and bumps section of the Freeman book the very obvious existence of this strange type is not mentioned.  

DSC_1519 (300x169).jpg

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems clear on some 1879 pennies that this area has been ground down so making the indentation flush with the surface of the coin once again but the scar can still be seen. 

 

And people do seem a little guarded at times which seems to run a little contrary to the purpose of a forum, so I can only surmise that there must be some reason why.  

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem to me is one of ambiguity. Anything less than mint state has effectively had the surfaces interfered with, whether it be wear, or mechanical adjustment, so one has to be a little circumspect when trying to assign a feature to something specific. A corrected letter is one thing that is likely to be reasonably clear in just about any grade, but any design modification as opposed to the legend needs to be much clearer to make a claim. i.e. you need to work with something close to as struck in order to eliminate post-mint damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rob said:

The problem to me is one of ambiguity. Anything less than mint state has effectively had the surfaces interfered with, whether it be wear, or mechanical adjustment, so one has to be a little circumspect when trying to assign a feature to something specific. A corrected letter is one thing that is likely to be reasonably clear in just about any grade, but any design modification as opposed to the legend needs to be much clearer to make a claim. i.e. you need to work with something close to as struck in order to eliminate post-mint damage.

but in that very issue I find a fundamental difficulty that even I in much of my own research have discovered and I am just a amature sleuth.  The lustre, on a high end pennies or other bronze obscures a lot of what would be recognisable as errors, only with circulation is this "cover" removed.  Circulation will of course alter the surface of a coin and the randomness of the wear has to also acknowledge that a coin has a design which can "direct" some of the cuts, scratches and other such elements, however if a pattern appears over and over again this would become less and less statistically the underlying cause.  Also as I have found for myself in hundreds of cases the grime coverts up a multitude of overstamping errors and significant alterations of the type of lettering and size of lettering used.  I am afraid that I still have not got my head around the idea that if there is wholesale alteration from one font type and size to a completely different type then such examples are varieties in the true sense of the word. And yes I know all the arguments you "old boys" apply but it seems to me that the reason for collecting coins and understanding their history is less about the coin than it is about how much it is worth.  

If lettering is repunched a set of punches is prepared as in the case of the bronzes by the engraver to be used on his design.  If then these prove to have a flaw or to create a technical problem with use which results in them having to be re- punched then for sure in my mind this is an interesting aspect of the coins history in the making.  Yet as I have discussed with Jerry on the N over Z 1860 there are a number of alteration with this die, smaller letters changed, and the N of PENNY  also shows that the N is over a Z on the second N making a double N/Z in some cases which is picked out by the die flaw.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit also to essentially destroy most of my coins in the process of discovery.  Most of what I find lies covered and it's a bit like an archeological dig sadly the top layer is removed in order to get back to the underlying.  I do believe that the Royal mint are fully aware of the science of circulation and know full well that once a coin comes off the presses it matters not one iota because at that moment anything they may have done to the coin , evidenced by the coins themselves will never be seen by the millions and millions of times it is handled.  Hence if you want to disguise something the very best way to do this is not to bother at all.  Only with microscopes and digital imagery can we begin to see these unobserved aspects of a coins history.  I of course keep a few mint condition coins and I can still see the indentations below the lustre but then again I am looking for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe there is any conspiracy or similar sinister thing going on. Plenty of people here - as Rob points out - post details of unusual details on their coins. I think many of us though distinguish between human intervention (= item of interest) and accidental die damage (= less interesting, at least to some of us).

I'd posit that the two examples you've shown - the triple dot colon and the lighthouse splodge - are both examples of the latter. Some collectors might get excited by these and collect them, or even compile listings. Others like myself would not. It's all a matter of personal taste. 

(I'd just add that, on closer inspection, the triple dot phenomenon may be a case where the first attempt was badly misaligned and repunched, but because it was 'only a colon' there wasn't a great effort to eliminate traces of the first attempt. However there are so many instances of filled dots and all the gradations in between, that even if it was a correction, I personally wouldn't get excited by it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

And yes I know all the arguments you "old boys" apply but it seems to me that the reason for collecting coins and understanding their history is less about the coin than it is about how much it is worth.  

I very much dispute this. However you must recognise that to many collectors, the 'history' surrounding a coin is tied up with the actual (intended) design on it, plus the social and economic milieu that prevailed at the time of striking, plus major factors in changes to the coinage (the William III 'Great Recoinage', the 1816 Recoinage, Matthew Boulton, tokens, shortages, forgeries, changes of metal, etc etc), plus rarities, plus patterns and proofs - in fact there is so much to endlessly interest us that very often minutiae such as accidental die damage is left a long way behind. Obviously we are all different, and some collectors ARE very interested in such things especially if not recorded elsewhere, so live and let live I say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Peckris said:

I very much dispute this. However you must recognise that to many collectors, the 'history' surrounding a coin is tied up with the actual (intended) design on it, plus the social and economic milieu that prevailed at the time of striking, plus major factors in changes to the coinage (the William III 'Great Recoinage', the 1816 Recoinage, Matthew Boulton, tokens, shortages, forgeries, changes of metal, etc etc), plus rarities, plus patterns and proofs - in fact there is so much to endlessly interest us that very often minutiae such as accidental die damage is left a long way behind. Obviously we are all different, and some collectors ARE very interested in such things especially if not recorded elsewhere, so live and let live I say!

no offence intended in the "old boy" comment it was used merely to point out long term members and novices and  some difference in approaches, and yes you did comment on them.  I suppose in the last year I have become interested in the idea of the Royal Mint marking coins in some way in order to protect against forgeries and it may well be this that I might be finding.  The fact that the same images appear as far back as the great re-coinage of the late 17th C or even prior to this time with milled coinage is either my brain tricking me or has something in it( the idea that is, not my brain).  It is a welcome aside to this that makes me find strange things in styles of lettering and overstamping.  The history of that 46 shilling is that it seems a die fracture occurs and for some reason an attempt is made to fix it by grinding down and re-punching as you say.  It surprises me a little they would go to such an effort.  

I think the main reason as I have mentioned before is that if there is some type of simple device used then it serves to aid us in the detection of fakes.  It is most unlikely that the RM would ever admit to using such devices because if I am not mistaken they still may be using it well certainly I find it within the early decimal series it seems to get more complex with the advent of the new computer aided systems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

I suppose in the last year I have become interested in the idea of the Royal Mint marking coins in some way in order to protect against forgeries and it may well be this that I might be finding.

The problem here is that if such marks are imperceptible not only to ordinary people spending money, but also the local and police authorities, it's self-defeating; how would anyone detect a forgery to begin with? And why major on base metal coins anyway - surely the effort would have been put in to stamping out forgeries of silver and gold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do not think they are indiscernible to authorities I am sure partly with the advent of the Banks identifying forgeries in a certain vicinity might allow the law to act upon an area with some forces to identify the sources.  My feeling is if my silly old brain within a few months of collecting pennies a few years back can detect it then the trained eye would find this much easier.  It is not an expensive process to ink and chemically alter the surface by etching   and really can swiftly be incorporated into the minting process at limited cost so if the pattern remains undetected then why fix something that is not broken.  the human brain is as good as any computer at detecting non random patterns once trained.  That it has remained a secret does not surprise me a great deal there are many aspects of history that have been so plain in view that they may not have been noticed for hundreds of years.  As I say  only with the advent of a new technology do we get to see something that may be knowledge known to a select few not that I am saying the system is failure proof.  The other interesting thing is that ....oh sorry I am getting away with myself.  perhaps after another few years of research I might be able to validate my views LOL  at least I have voiced them for posterity. 

It is common in silver in fact the effect is marked in silver and have been doing quite a bit of work on crowns and half crowns of William III

18 minutes ago, Peckris said:

The problem here is that if such marks are imperceptible not only to ordinary people spending money, but also the local and police authorities, it's self-defeating; how would anyone detect a forgery to begin with? And why major on base metal coins anyway - surely the effort would have been put in to stamping out forgeries of silver and gold?

.....I have limited access to gold and chemistry more complex on the basis of its chemical inter nature.  I think in silver it is more common than the base metals I just have more examples of the latter to play with.  I also think that it is expressed more in the transition to bronze simply because of the change on the technique and the chemistry hence why I saw it in the bronze first. although I might also add that the counterfeiting of copper coins in the later 1700's must surely have been one of the most deliberate acts using base metal to make a few pounds, most are obvious fakes but to an illiterate population easily accepted.  Counterfeiting has to adapt to not be caught and coinage to adapt to counter the counterfeiters. Certainly I seem to have found a ever more complex pattern over time applying new layers to the weave.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these differences were security related then they would need to be applied to all dies and not just one, so clearly would need to be present at every stage leading to the finished die, i.e they should even be on the dinner plate size master design used in conjunction with a reducing machine.

To make a die takes time and therefore costs money. That they should rework a die to extend its life should not be surprising. It has always been done. You also have to consider that partially dated dies were produced in batches, with the last digit or two entered by hand prior to 1882.

The fact that you destroy the coins removing the various layers surely means you are gaining an insight into the integrity of the flan, not the die which has its design imparted on striking, with every bit of wear removing the evidence. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In south Africa pink rand circulates around the townships knowingly safe so long as it remains in the closed economy, once outside it becomes worthless.  Pound coins were imperceptible until it becomes economically damaging and leads to wholesale withdrawal with new and more complex security markings I was looking at some today and are a range of security aspects to the coin some base like the bimetallic process others obvious like the one pound twice in ever side and the date which you cannot see with the naked eye together with some more complex elements which may be only viewable by the checking machines in banks and the RM , the assay office make such devices I am sure the same could be argued for the RM in the past.  If you know the algorithm used to create such a device then you can as an authority spot it.  Economies have always to a lesser or greater degree had counterfeit coins in circulation they are taken serious when the levels reach a certain point otherwise they are left 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rob said:

If these differences were security related then they would need to be applied to all dies and not just one, so clearly would need to be present at every stage leading to the finished die, i.e they should even be on the dinner plate size master design used in conjunction with a reducing machine.

To make a die takes time and therefore costs money. That they should rework a die to extend its life should not be surprising. It has always been done. You also have to consider that partially dated dies were produced in batches, with the last digit or two entered by hand prior to 1882.

The fact that you destroy the coins removing the various layers surely means you are gaining an insight into the integrity of the flan, not the die which has its design imparted on striking, with every bit of wear removing the evidence. 

 

yes for a long time I had considered that the design has to be die related but over time I am not so sure that is the case I think the pattern shows a rotational symmetry which allows it be present across the coin in different forms.  I believe now that it is part of the blank planchet cutting or the rolling or pressing out which are then treated and etched the design then applied .  Whilst areas which show it are ones which for some reason or another happen to roughly correspond to the underlying pattern.  For example the Lions head in the shield and the drapes of the under the seated britannia. I had toyed with the idea that this was in someway an addition made by the engravers but I do not really think this to anything more than a confluence. The geometry is rather fascinating to me and I have reconstructed a large portion of it but do not have the brain power to compute the weaving of the three major elements of it which are (i think) created using a Wolf Net which allows the 3D to be transferred into 2D flat designs, 3D images into 2D plane  were part of the new methods of designs as far back as the renaissance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DrLarry said:

.....I have limited access to gold and chemistry more complex on the basis of its chemical inter nature.  I think in silver it is more common than the base metals I just have more examples of the latter to play with.  I also think that it is expressed more in the transition to bronze simply because of the change on the technique and the chemistry hence why I saw it in the bronze first. although I might also add that the counterfeiting of copper coins in the later 1700's must surely have been one of the most deliberate acts using base metal to make a few pounds, most are obvious fakes but to an illiterate population easily accepted.  Counterfeiting has to adapt to not be caught and coinage to adapt to counter the counterfeiters. Certainly I seem to have found a ever more complex pattern over time applying new layers to the weave.   

Not so. It was done to counteract the drastic shortage of small change - which is also why the trade token issues became so widespread. The fact that the fakes are so obvious was to 'evade' the strict laws against counterfeiting, and there is a huge demand for them in the US. If forgers had wanted to make money they would have done as they did from 1816, which was to silver wash copper forgeries of the silver denominations. The forgeries (or 'evasions') of 18th Century coppers wouldn't have made the forgers much if any money as they contained roughly their own weight of copper value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Peckris said:

Not so. It was done to counteract the drastic shortage of small change - which is also why the trade token issues became so widespread. The fact that the fakes are so obvious was to 'evade' the strict laws against counterfeiting, and there is a huge demand for them in the US. If forgers had wanted to make money they would have done as they did from 1816, which was to silver wash copper forgeries of the silver denominations. The forgeries (or 'evasions') of 18th Century coppers wouldn't have made the forgers much if any money as they contained roughly their own weight of copper value.

yes agreed in part but the first attempts to rectify the problem with currency after the stoppage on the 1750's with numerous references to the counterfeit problem in the GII's. Also later   in the 1770s  the issues in 70 to 75 led to an even greater forging.  True there may have been a still great need for the lower denominations but it would seem the  initial coppers were made to appear to all intents to deceive the penalty being deportation it was after all treason so it has to be worth someone's effort and risk.  Later when the strictness of the law forbade this first round  but seemed to look less harshly on "tokens" was it not then that the creation of the non regal series including tokens like Britons glory, and the alfreds and the many others I find it a joy to collect came into circulation?  It was not until the 1780's that the tokens "Condors" began to be released issued locally the earliest copper tokens I have is from 1730's. 

Whatever the reasons be they the need for the lower denominations in the 1770's because of the circulation of the worn out later 17th C early 18th C coppers there existed an opportunity for some to make money.  If I am reading Peck and the soho book correctly and atkins it is a fine line between the needs and the lucrative counterfeiting of copper, especially for circulation in the colonies. I have never held the position that it makes that much money but I know from the few hundred examples I have that the weight varies from as much as 3 grams almost below the copper level to usually about 1 gram difference.  Obviously it did make money for some businesses the Machin's Mills coppers found in various horads attest to a similar process in the US of counterfeit Williams and Georges.  you do not have to make a lot of money for the risk be be worthwhile in the end if the weigh value of the copper can give two half pennies for the melt value of one G II half penny then I am sure someone did the maths the net weight of a regnal is about 9.3 grams or so most of mine are 6 or 7 grams =/- 1 gm.  The earliest of the trade tokens I have are from the early 1700's from ireland.  I have a few of the George II non regnals and they are also about 2 grams light.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DrLarry said:

yes for a long time I had considered that the design has to be die related but over time I am not so sure that is the case I think the pattern shows a rotational symmetry which allows it be present across the coin in different forms.  I believe now that it is part of the blank planchet cutting or the rolling or pressing out which are then treated and etched the design then applied .  Whilst areas which show it are ones which for some reason or another happen to roughly correspond to the underlying pattern.  For example the Lions head in the shield and the drapes of the under the seated britannia. I had toyed with the idea that this was in someway an addition made by the engravers but I do not really think this to anything more than a confluence. The geometry is rather fascinating to me and I have reconstructed a large portion of it but do not have the brain power to compute the weaving of the three major elements of it which are (i think) created using a Wolf Net which allows the 3D to be transferred into 2D flat designs, 3D images into 2D plane  were part of the new methods of designs as far back as the renaissance 

I am sorry, Larry, but I just can’t relate any of this to the known realities of blank manufacture and striking.

We firstly have to accept that the only effect that the die can have on the blank in striking is to reflect the surface contours of the die, by causing metal flow in the blank under pressure that enables the die design to be accurately represented. Anything beneath the surface of the die is irrelevant, and when you refer to design being removed  leaving ‘scars’ you must be referring to the die being altered by filling of die features, if this happened , probably followed by polishing of the die (the field) any ‘scars’ would be seen best and perhaps only on a high grade coin. You do seem to have accepted this in now suggesting (elaborate and pointless) treatment of the blanks. There is nothing but your conviction to support this, no mint records of the complex and elaborate process that would need to be applied to million upon million of blanks, the majority of which were sourced for the RM by external contractors ( Watt, Heaton and possibly others). Given the costs and time and equipment involved there would undoubtedly be records, and given the pressure on production in the early bronze years that necessitated outside contracts why would you waste time and effort on a secret process of internally ‘etching’ blanks with a secret design that even on destructive analysis of the coin remains invisible to the vast majority of observers?

But I do welcome your pics of die and letter repairs that can be seen by conventional close-up photography, it would be nice to see the 1860 B/R close-up.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jelida said:

I am sorry, Larry, but I just can’t relate any of this to the known realities of blank manufacture and striking.

We firstly have to accept that the only effect that the die can have on the blank in striking is to reflect the surface contours of the die, by causing metal flow in the blank under pressure that enables the die design to be accurately represented. Anything beneath the surface of the die is irrelevant, and when you refer to design being removed  leaving ‘scars’ you must be referring to the die being altered by filling of die features, if this happened , probably followed by polishing of the die (the field) any ‘scars’ would be seen best and perhaps only on a high grade coin. You do seem to have accepted this in now suggesting (elaborate and pointless) treatment of the blanks. There is nothing but your conviction to support this, no mint records of the complex and elaborate process that would need to be applied to million upon million of blanks, the majority of which were sourced for the RM by external contractors ( Watt, Heaton and possibly others). Given the costs and time and equipment involved there would undoubtedly be records, and given the pressure on production in the early bronze years that necessitated outside contracts why would you waste time and effort on a secret process of internally ‘etching’ blanks with a secret design that even on destructive analysis of the coin remains invisible to the vast majority of observers?

But I do welcome your pics of die and letter repairs that can be seen by conventional close-up photography, it would be nice to see the 1860 B/R close-up.

Jerry

Thank you Jerry for your opinion I appreciate the time to reply. I don't really see it as elaborate fantasy in truth I do not know what process results in the pattern. I always recognised a serious problem in understanding this. I also expressed a degree of reticence at the die imposed theory and had postulated alternatives. I think the best thing is for me to improve my process of imaging this, collate all the evidence and submit it as a serious research proposal. Or alternatively write a very interesting and novel book on mental health. I will of course list the examples of the 1860 penny. I have a couple of examples one with the tail one with internal metal of the underlying letter altered. 

I have taken a little time to read references to boulton's interest in a strange etching technique which he purchased the patent and a few obscure references to a unique process as part of the minting process. Heaton purchased some of the the machinery from the soho mint after it sold. Blanks historically where predominantly struck by Birmingham companies as you say under contract to the mint. I enjoy the challenges as long as those that challenge me do so from a position of fully understanding the ideas. However I do accept that collectors will not wish to waste time looking at the idea if they cannot see beyond the very obvious flaws in the concept. As I say in many places this same inertia prevented me looking at the physical evidence but I have acknowledged the difficulties and still try to understand what might be there. I am a generally sceptical person, I am generally evidence driven and will endeavour to apply all the normal parameters I would apply to resolve any unknown. It is hard to remain open minded but I will try to stay flexible in my approach. Thanks for your input. Larry 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jelida said:

I am sorry, Larry, but I just can’t relate any of this to the known realities of blank manufacture and striking.

We firstly have to accept that the only effect that the die can have on the blank in striking is to reflect the surface contours of the die, by causing metal flow in the blank under pressure that enables the die design to be accurately represented. Anything beneath the surface of the die is irrelevant, and when you refer to design being removed  leaving ‘scars’ you must be referring to the die being altered by filling of die features, if this happened , probably followed by polishing of the die (the field) any ‘scars’ would be seen best and perhaps only on a high grade coin. You do seem to have accepted this in now suggesting (elaborate and pointless) treatment of the blanks. There is nothing but your conviction to support this, no mint records of the complex and elaborate process that would need to be applied to million upon million of blanks, the majority of which were sourced for the RM by external contractors ( Watt, Heaton and possibly others). Given the costs and time and equipment involved there would undoubtedly be records, and given the pressure on production in the early bronze years that necessitated outside contracts why would you waste time and effort on a secret process of internally ‘etching’ blanks with a secret design that even on destructive analysis of the coin remains invisible to the vast majority of observers?

But I do welcome your pics of die and letter repairs that can be seen by conventional close-up photography, it would be nice to see the 1860 B/R close-up.

Jerry

here are a few of the strange things happening around the B on three 1860's 

CM180516-181958022 (169x300).jpg

CM180516-182244024 (169x300) (2).jpg

CM180516-183548026 (169x300).jpg

CM180515-223042003 (169x300).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jelida said:

I am sorry, Larry, but I just can’t relate any of this to the known realities of blank manufacture and striking.

We firstly have to accept that the only effect that the die can have on the blank in striking is to reflect the surface contours of the die, by causing metal flow in the blank under pressure that enables the die design to be accurately represented. Anything beneath the surface of the die is irrelevant, and when you refer to design being removed  leaving ‘scars’ you must be referring to the die being altered by filling of die features, if this happened , probably followed by polishing of the die (the field) any ‘scars’ would be seen best and perhaps only on a high grade coin. You do seem to have accepted this in now suggesting (elaborate and pointless) treatment of the blanks. There is nothing but your conviction to support this, no mint records of the complex and elaborate process that would need to be applied to million upon million of blanks, the majority of which were sourced for the RM by external contractors ( Watt, Heaton and possibly others). Given the costs and time and equipment involved there would undoubtedly be records, and given the pressure on production in the early bronze years that necessitated outside contracts why would you waste time and effort on a secret process of internally ‘etching’ blanks with a secret design that even on destructive analysis of the coin remains invisible to the vast majority of observers?

But I do welcome your pics of die and letter repairs that can be seen by conventional close-up photography, it would be nice to see the 1860 B/R close-up.

Jerry

here a few  more images .  I am sure you must have some that show either movement, overstamping, deepening removal and or a number of stages of change. The most interesting the first of these which I have drawn in the previous posting is associated with a few of the letters having been altered and they appear to have the old style curly bases most notably in the A over A 

CM180704-100922005 (196x300).jpg

CM180704-101439006 (182x300).jpg

CM180704-101545008 (274x300).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DrLarry said:

yes agreed in part but the first attempts to rectify the problem with currency after the stoppage on the 1750's with numerous references to the counterfeit problem in the GII's. Also later   in the 1770s  the issues in 70 to 75 led to an even greater forging.  

Yes, but as we've already established, these were so crude they were obviously not meant to fool anyone, but simply get around the small change shortage

True there may have been a still great need for the lower denominations but it would seem the  initial coppers were made to appear to all intents to deceive the penalty being deportation it was after all treason so it has to be worth someone's effort and risk.  Later when the strictness of the law forbade this first round  but seemed to look less harshly on "tokens" was it not then that the creation of the non regal series including tokens like Britons glory, and the alfreds and the many others I find it a joy to collect came into circulation?  It was not until the 1780's that the tokens "Condors" began to be released issued locally the earliest copper tokens I have is from 1730's. 

You've made my point for me - it was the clumsy forgeries of the 1770-75 issue that saw the widespread renaissance of trade tokens

Whatever the reasons be they the need for the lower denominations in the 1770's because of the circulation of the worn out later 17th C early 18th C coppers there existed an opportunity for some to make money.  If I am reading Peck and the soho book correctly and atkins it is a fine line between the needs and the lucrative counterfeiting of copper, especially for circulation in the colonies. I have never held the position that it makes that much money but I know from the few hundred examples I have that the weight varies from as much as 3 grams almost below the copper level to usually about 1 gram difference.  Obviously it did make money for some businesses the Machin's Mills coppers found in various horads attest to a similar process in the US of counterfeit Williams and Georges

The main reason for the shortage of small change was the great fluctuation in the price of metals, e.g. copper. This persisted even after 1797 which is why the regal copper currency issues of 1797, 1799, and 1806-07 differ in their size and weight. It was only after the establishing of a 'token currency' from 1816 that the standardisation of denominations led to the familiar size of coins.

you do not have to make a lot of money for the risk be be worthwhile in the end if the weigh value of the copper can give two half pennies for the melt value of one G II half penny then I am sure someone did the maths the net weight of a regnal is about 9.3 grams or so most of mine are 6 or 7 grams =/- 1 gm.  The earliest of the trade tokens I have are from the early 1700's from ireland.  I have a few of the George II non regnals and they are also about 2 grams light.      

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Peckris said:

 

Late in the 17th C copper prices were high due to the greater importation of the metal came from Sweden with the opening of deeper less accessible  copper deposits in the 18thC  improved access as a result of the industrialisation and the development of the Newcomen , then Watt/Boulton or Trevithick steam engines the ability to access copper from the greater depths which would have previously flooded enabled the flow of metal from  the SW mines and those quarried in Anglesey.  The essential problem lay in the hand of the copper merchants who restricted the smelting thus artificially inflating their own costs and acting as a monopoly to undermine the cost of the ore on the market.   Between 1730 to 1760 the output of copper at the very least went up by 400% as the impact of deeper mining made the Devon and cornish mines more cost productive.  However the influence of the anglesey mines which had better access to the coal led to a reduction of the commodity value of copper.  Britain was more than self sufficient in copper by the end of the 18th C. 

Boulton's diaries and the numerous legal cases brought to courts attest to the profit to be made from buying regal and smelting it to produce lower quality planchets often produced in Birmingham, which is one of the driving forces behind Boulton's desire to establish a strong position in coining in the region to counter the opinion of many that Birmingham was a den of iniquity in the forging of coin. Birmingham had a terrible reputation as the centre for the production of blanks sent then to London illegally hidden.   He himself notes that almost 90% of the coin collected at Turnstiles was fake by the 1790's and 3 out of  5 taken in for smelting of reduced weight. 

There was a great need for small change agreed but I think it is wrong to suggest that the forgers did not produce them for any other reason than to make a profit.  We have both accepted that the coining of copper was considered a low end activity and far less important than gold or silver and hence the RM avoided the need as much as possible to deliver on an issue.  Legislation was pretty whooly on the topic, the fundamental issue seems to be one of delivering smaller currency outside of London in the massively growing centres of activity in the midlands and Scotland.  The RM seems to have really not wanted to make issues rather than there being a problem with the accessibility to the copper. 

Anglesey forced the price down so much that there was a slump initially reducing the productivity of the Devon and Cornish mines until after the cheaper quarried lodes were exhausted in Wales by the late 18th C only then could the extensive copper deposits in cornwall again come to prominence and Cornwall and Devon dominated for most of the 19th C.  There is here both local /regional need in the industrialised areas and cheap copper which forces the token production.  There are few legislative problems with copper compared with silver, but still from all the contemporary sources profit to be made prior to this time from forgery one forgers came to court having made £200,000 estimated profit in two years in silver and copper forgeries.   I dont think we can honestly say that the production of copper coins (non-regal) was done out of the goodness of the heart of the forgers in order to meet the needs of their poor neighbours.

1 hour ago, Peckris said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/07/2018 at 10:46 AM, DrLarry said:

here are a few of the strange things happening around the B on three 1860's 

CM180516-181958022 (169x300).jpg

CM180516-182244024 (169x300) (2).jpg

CM180516-183548026 (169x300).jpg

CM180515-223042003 (169x300).jpg

Very interesting, particularly the first. I think the second and third are fairly clearly repeatedly misplaced but otherwise correct repairs of the B with a B punch. The first is more uncertain and there are a couple of options. I suppose a really grossly misplaced B punch is still most likely but an O or D could also be candidates.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jelida said:

Very interesting, particularly the first. I think the second and third are fairly clearly repeatedly misplaced but otherwise correct repairs of the B with a B punch. The first is more uncertain and there are a couple of options. I suppose a really grossly misplaced B punch is still most likely but an O or D could also be candidates.

Jerry

yes that one is very interesting I purchased it slabbed then freed it I will take some more picture I also thought it very strange and I agree a D or an O does seem to fit the pattern it makes I thought I had another with the same but have searched through and only found these other punch errors 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×