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

1926 and 1927 pennies again

Recommended Posts

Still trying to get my head around it all.

https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/george-vi-varieties/ (yes the URL says George VI but it is George V) says 1927 pennies are known with 4+C and 5+C but gives the Gouby references as D+d - I assume they should both be 4+C? Basically, besides the Gouby D* for proofs, there are no varieties of 1927 penny?

And do all proof pennies 1927-1936 use the Gouby D* reverse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it must have been corrected since you posted? I see only 4+C for 1927?

Yes, all reverses from 1927 onwards use the Gouby D reverse.

There is an appalling error in that page you linked to - the 1926 D+d (Probably Unique) pattern is described as a mule. NO!!! That's how the 1926ME should have been struck - it's the currency D+b 1926ME that is the mule!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

There is an appalling error in that page you linked to - the 1926 D+d (Probably Unique) pattern is described as a mule. NO!!! That's how the 1926ME should have been struck - it's the currency D+b 1926ME that is the mule!

So, they struck one coin correctly but thousands of "mules" incorrectly ? Not sure I agree with that Chris !!!!

Share this post


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

So, they struck one coin correctly but thousands of "mules" incorrectly ? Not sure I agree with that Chris !!!!

You have to understand what a mule is. All ME bronze was intended to be introduced with a modified reverse. The 1925ME halfpennies were (the non-ME 1925 halfpennies used the old reverse); all 1926 farthings were ME and all had a modified reverse. My theory has it that the penny was not intended to be introduced until 1927, with both ME and modified reverse.

However, along came the 1926 penny issue (and my theory about that is quite radical but makes sense) which muddied the waters. It's quite possible the small issue was intended to be completed with the old obverse, but then they ran out of dies - possibly left over from the unexpectedly reduced 1922 issue? - and as the 1927 obverse dies were already there, they decided to use them but possibly under the pressure of time and other factors, they weren't going to produce a special modified reverse for 1926 which was unplanned anyway.

So their use of the ME along with the old reverse means the 1926ME is - AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN - referred to as a "mule". The unique D+d 1926 is what the 1927 penny looked like, and that's when (according to my theory) it was planned to be introduced.

The definition of mule has absolutely nothing to  do with rarity.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

There is an appalling error in that page you linked to

When someone has spent many hours of their own time constructing a website that will hopefully be useful to fellow collectors it might be more constructive and diplomatic to avoid describing part of its content as an "appalling error".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, secret santa said:

When someone has spent many hours of their own time constructing a website that will hopefully be useful to fellow collectors it might be more constructive and diplomatic to avoid describing part of its content as an "appalling error".

I tried to get in touch with its creator but there seems no way to do so - every icon on that blog takes me to MY Word Press account, not the creator of that one. There's no 'Contact us' (or 'me') spiel so I'm a bit stuck.

However if you know them, perhaps you could pass the message on? (More diplomatically obviously than "appalling error"!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

However if you know them,

It's me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, secret santa said:

It's me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:o

OMG. No offence meant, I honestly didn't know that (and the OP didn't mention it as part of their post.) 

Oh dear, what can I say, except that was only thing that leapt out at me. It is a brilliant resource (can I stop digging now?) 

I proffer two things. 1. An apology for undiplomatic language. 2. I hope you didn't mind me correcting you about the "mule" situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

:o

OMG. No offence meant, I honestly didn't know that (and the OP didn't mention it as part of their post.) 

Oh dear, what can I say, except that was only thing that leapt out at me. It is a brilliant resource (can I stop digging now?) 

I proffer two things. 1. An apology for undiplomatic language. 2. I hope you didn't mind me correcting you about the "mule" situation?

I can't believe you didn't know that was Richard's site! :lol:

It is, as you say,  a brilliant resource and one that I use frequently and regularly. I am eagerly awaiting the halfpenny version. ;)

Richard, if you have time to correct the other "appalling errors" I have noted:

George VI reverses: "This reverse was used in 1927 only on F217 and F218" should read "1937".

George V reverses: "This obverse was used from 1911 to 1913" should read "reverse"

Small things, I know, and no criticism intended Richard. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realise it was Richard's site either. I assumed his address was what he has as his signature with .co.uk or .com after it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all, so it looks 1922 and 1926 are the only years where things were a bit of a mess and by 1927 it was back to a single obverse/reverse pair.

Also, my suggestion would be that on https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/george-v-reverses/ the "Potential George V Proof Reverse Gouby d* (Freeman Reverse C*)" be renamed because Gouby c has been called Freeman C* is the latest edition (a mismatch which doesn't make the complicated situation any clearer).

Excellent resource anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mrbadexample said:

George VI reverses: "This reverse was used in 1927 only on F217 and F218" should read "1937".

George V reverses: "This obverse was used from 1911 to 1913" should read "reverse"

Corrected - thanks for pointing these out Jon - always happy to receive constructive comments. There are bound to be other typos in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rob said:

I didn't realise it was Richard's site either. I assumed his address was what he has as his signature with .co.uk or .com after it.

When I set it up I tried to call it headsntails but the spurious 14 crept in from somewhere and I couldn't find a way in Wordpress to correct it so it ended up with a really clumsy URL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I hope you didn't mind me correcting you about the "mule" situation?

Can we explore this "mule" situation further. I've looked in Peck, Freeman and Gouby (albeit in a fairly cursory manner) and found nowhere where any of them refer to the 1926 ME as a "mule". Have you deduced that  "All ME bronze was intended to be introduced with a modified reverse" or is that documented somewhere ? I'm looking for clarification, not a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr T said:

Also, my suggestion would be that on https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/george-v-reverses/ the "Potential George V Proof Reverse Gouby d* (Freeman Reverse C*)" be renamed because Gouby c has been called Freeman C* is the latest edition (a mismatch which doesn't make the complicated situation any clearer).

I have now relabelled this reverse as a possible sub-variety of reverse Gouby d/Freeman C to avoid the confusion that you mention (which I should have spotted since I also wrote the penny appendix in the new Freeman !) and also because I don't think that there is sufficient difference to call it a different reverse type - it may be simply from a "sharper" proof die. Thanks for pointing this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, secret santa said:

I have now relabelled this reverse as a possible sub-variety of reverse Gouby d/Freeman C to avoid the confusion that you mention (which I should have spotted since I also wrote the penny appendix in the new Freeman !) and also because I don't think that there is sufficient difference to call it a different reverse type - it may be simply from a "sharper" proof die. Thanks for pointing this out.

Incidentally, Richard, on your rarest pennies website for the F32, I think the one you recently added as Example 15, from the DNW auction of Sep 16 (now mine), is actually the same coin as example 9 in that list, sold in Sep 15 by Spink, as part of the Andy Scott collection, but a much better photograph than Spink's effort.

Note the identical prominent gouge on the Queen's neck. 

I stand to be corrected, but I think it's the same coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Incidentally, Richard, on your rarest pennies website for the F32, I think the one you recently added as Example 15, from the DNW auction of Sep 16 (now mine), is actually the same coin as example 9 in that list, sold in Sep 15 by Spink, as part of the Andy Scott collection, but a much better photograph than Spink's effort.

Well spotted Mike, I'll correct this asap. Interesting how different photos of the same coin can look different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just checked and I'm sure that it was part of the Trevor Legge collection in Dec 2014.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mr T said:

Thanks all, so it looks 1922 and 1926 are the only years where things were a bit of a mess and by 1927 it was back to a single obverse/reverse pair.

"Bit of a mess"? A huge understatement!

7 hours ago, secret santa said:

Can we explore this "mule" situation further. I've looked in Peck, Freeman and Gouby (albeit in a fairly cursory manner) and found nowhere where any of them refer to the 1926 ME as a "mule". Have you deduced that  "All ME bronze was intended to be introduced with a modified reverse" or is that documented somewhere ? I'm looking for clarification, not a fight.

The first time I ever came across the use of the word "mule" (I remember that I had to laugh!) was in relation to the 1926ME penny. Since then I've seen it used many times, e.g. the beaded/toothed borders on 1860 bronze and the 1983 NEW PENCE 2p, and other instances too. I'm afraid I simply cannot remember or list the 1926 references, as I didn't ever think I would be called upon to cite them, as I have taken it as a given, and have seen it referred to as a mule probably 3 times or more?

I think this (from Chards' site) is significant:

Mules

A mule, is a coin where the obverse and reverse of the coin have been struck from dies which were not meant to be paired together; this can be an intentional action or a production error. The latter error becomes highly sought after and collectors can be willing to pay highly for examples of these coins. 

The critical words here are "this can be an intentional action". Obviously we can tell from 1925 halfpennies and 1926 farthings that the ME obverse was to be accompanied by a modified reverse - indeed, the 1925 halfpennies are of two types, and in each case the obverse and reverse are the appropriate pairing for the type. Add to that the 1927 pennies, and that makes a very strong case for an intended modified reverse.

I've several times referred to my theory about the 1926 issue, so it's about time I said what it is! So:

By the end of 1921, well over half a BILLION pennies had been minted in 5 years. Clearly the demand for pennies was greatly reduced by 1922 so a possibly larger intended mintage ended at only 16m. After that, there were so many pennies sloshing around that none were minted for 3 years. My theory is that this was intended to be 4 years, and the next major issue of pennies would be 1927 with ME and modified reverse. However - and this is the radical bit - there was a small but urgent demand (perhaps regional?) for a limited issue of pennies in 1926. The Mint already had its hands full changing over to the ME for silver AND designing a new set of silver reverses for 1927, so they hastily brought into use some leftover obverse dies from the 1922 issue and struck a little over 4m pennies. Nearing the end of this issue they ran out of dies, but knowing the 1927 obverse dies were ready for use, decided to press a few of them into service. As for reverses, they would have had to punch a 6 onto the 1922 matrix and presumably created enough dies from this to complete the issue.

People are obviously free to accept or reject this theory, but if rejecting, the following questions are left to be resolved:

  • With so many pennies in circulation, why was such a small issue of 4m minted after 3 years of nothing, yet with 60m due in 1927?
  • Why would the ME obverse have been used for a very small proportion of what was in any case a small issue?
  • Why was the old reverse used for the very small issue of 1926ME pennies when clearly the intent was to have a modified reverse for bronze?

This is why I believe the 1926ME penny has been referred to as a mule (sorry, I don't have the references) - the action of pairing the new obverse with the old reverse was deliberate but not intended under normal circumstances; my theory brings in a set of circumstances that are not normal. It's just a great pity that we don't have the documentation to conform, deny, or otherwise explain the 1926 issue of pennies.

(I'd be grateful if anyone decides to cite my theory elsewhere, they give me a credit for it.)

 

Edited by Peckris 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather like this theory,  it does have an air of practicality about it, and would as you say suggest that the term ‘mule’ is appropriate for the 1926 ME. Have you had correspondence with the RM museum for their view? I wonder if the appropriate annual report might also give some clues.

Jerry

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there was a shortage of pennies in 1926 due to hoarding - think about industrial unrest and the Great Strike. That certainly wasn't planned by officialdom and a normally functioning economy would need to be seen, if only as a psychological tool. Anyone with a mint report for the year which can identify the reason for the 26 issues? Running out of first effigy dies is a distinct possibility if the perceived demand was satisfied by existing stocks of dies. i.e. an adequate number of coins in circulation, with a few dies in reserve to cover emergencies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Mules

A mule, is a coin where the obverse and reverse of the coin have been struck from dies which were not meant to be paired together; this can be an intentional action or a production error. The latter error becomes highly sought after and collectors can be willing to pay highly for examples of these coins. 

 

Not meaning to get into semantics, or indeed to appear pedantic, but for me if an obverse or reverse die were not meant to be paired together, then subsequently saying it was an intentional action is somewhat contradictory, since at that point they clearly were meant to be paired together, as the intention at that point was to do so.

It may not have previously been the intention, but once it is accepted, even as a short term expedient, then they are clearly meant to be paired together. So in my humble opinion, the 1926 ME is not a mule. The 1860 beaded/toothed border is a mule, as this was much more likely to be a production error.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the intended use of the die at the time of its design and manufacture is what is relevant here, it was not designed to be used with the earlier reverse die, though it was, and presumably intentionally, in the penny in question. That does raise the question, which can never be answered I suspect, of how many of our 1860 and 1861 pennies are in fact mules, to go with the 1862 obv 2 and 3 coins which clearly are ‘intentional mules’?

Better not get into semantics or we may all end up asses.

Jerry

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Perhaps the intended use of the die at the time of its design and manufacture is what is relevant here, it was not designed to be used with the earlier reverse die, though it was, and presumably intentionally, in the penny in question. That does raise the question, which can never be answered I suspect, of how many of our 1860 and 1861 pennies are in fact mules, to go with the 1862 obv 2 and 3 coins which clearly are ‘intentional mules’?

Better not get into semantics or we may all end up asses.

Jerry

If not mules 🐎 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I rather like this theory,  it does have an air of practicality about it, and would as you say suggest that the term ‘mule’ is appropriate for the 1926 ME. Have you had correspondence with the RM museum for their view? I wonder if the appropriate annual report might also give some clues.

Jerry

I haven't contacted the RM yet as 1) I can't write or send letters anymore (though I could send them an email?) and 2) I've made the rather lazy assumption that someone would have delved into this matter long ago ... though I'd be amazed and gratified to be the first!

4 hours ago, Rob said:

I wonder if there was a shortage of pennies in 1926 due to hoarding - think about industrial unrest and the Great Strike. That certainly wasn't planned by officialdom and a normally functioning economy would need to be seen, if only as a psychological tool. Anyone with a mint report for the year which can identify the reason for the 26 issues? Running out of first effigy dies is a distinct possibility if the perceived demand was satisfied by existing stocks of dies. i.e. an adequate number of coins in circulation, with a few dies in reserve to cover emergencies.

I'd been musing on the General Strike too - I wondered if perhaps collecting small change for newly unemployed or redundant strikers was one of the factors for a sudden need for pennies?

A mint report for 1926 is the first thing I'd ask for if I did contact the RM though again, I'd be amazed that no-one had previously done so. Certainly my theory would allow for the production of the required number of reverse dies as they'd have to punch the date for that issue specially, but the obverse dies could well have been unused ones from 1922, and may not have lasted out the full run, hence the need to use a few 1927s to complete it.

~~~~~

On the subject of mules generally, I think it's clear (to me at least) that the ME wasn't intended to be paired with the old reverse, but circumstances dictated otherwise. It could be a grey area though Chard's site points out that there are mules of a modern Britannia issue, there being both types of muled pairings (like the beaded/toothed pennies) but many thousands of each, which does imply that though not intended, the Mint went ahead anyway and issued them.

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

×