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

I suspect that we are looking far to much into this, and that practical day to day working was more the norm, and also that it was just a case of using the dies at hand to complete the intended numbers of coins demanded by the bank of England at that time,  also that many of these dies were in fact experimental, and that they had no intention of using the dies on future mass production runs.   i Personally i would have thought that using up the remaining working life left on the dies after the experimental test runs were complete would be economically sensible , saving manufacturing time and cost by doing so.    Terry    

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

Bear in mind that the mint produced coins to satisfy the demand (orders) from the banking system and no one else. The clearing banks therefore hold the key to the issues for this or any other year. There was no apparent shortage of farthings or halfpennies, both of which were issued in plentiful numbers, so assuming there is a query surrounding the 1926 issues, what used pennies to the exclusion of the other base denominations?

One possibility is that there may have been localised shortages due to support for the strike. This would be more likely to affect single industry towns where strike action would disproportionately affect the local economy. Cities would be protected to some extent by their diversity. 

Generally, less money would be spent in pubs or shops, and less subsequently paid into bank accounts. The strike ensured that wages were stopped for many families, restricting the disbursement of change. Savings, however modest, would be drawn down  in the absence of any other sources of funding, again putting a strain of bank stocks. At the end of the day, a bank will ascertain stock levels of each denomination and order supplies accordingly. If a fixed amount of pennies was the accepted level to hold, then it would take little disruption to the local economy to change demand. Without a fixed end date to the strike, it would be prudent to ensure future liquidity by local banks asking for and holding higher stocks to counteract any supply side problems, or maybe the Government leaning on them to ensure that the economy was adequately provided for and so appear unimpaired by the strike. 

I think the economy in 1926 provides the solution to the variety of types issued and the various die combinations, with the General Strike likely responsible for a temporary shortage of pennies, leading to the first coinage dies being used with the introduction of the ME dies a response to increased demand.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I suspect that we are looking far to much into this, and that practical day to day working was more the norm, and also that it was just a case of using the dies at hand to complete the intended numbers of coins demanded by the bank of England at that time,  also that many of these dies were in fact experimental, and that they had no intention of using the dies on future mass production runs.   i Personally i would have thought that using up the remaining working life left on the dies after the experimental test runs were complete would be economically sensible , saving manufacturing time and cost by doing so.    Terry    

I think that's what I was saying? However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'experimental' - neither the 1926 reverse nor both the obverse dies used, were experimental, all being used for other currency date runs.

 

9 hours ago, Rob said:

Bear in mind that the mint produced coins to satisfy the demand (orders) from the banking system and no one else. The clearing banks therefore hold the key to the issues for this or any other year. There was no apparent shortage of farthings or halfpennies, both of which were issued in plentiful numbers, so assuming there is a query surrounding the 1926 issues, what used pennies to the exclusion of the other base denominations?

One possibility is that there may have been localised shortages due to support for the strike. This would be more likely to affect single industry towns where strike action would disproportionately affect the local economy. Cities would be protected to some extent by their diversity. 

Generally, less money would be spent in pubs or shops, and less subsequently paid into bank accounts. The strike ensured that wages were stopped for many families, restricting the disbursement of change. Savings, however modest, would be drawn down  in the absence of any other sources of funding, again putting a strain of bank stocks. At the end of the day, a bank will ascertain stock levels of each denomination and order supplies accordingly. If a fixed amount of pennies was the accepted level to hold, then it would take little disruption to the local economy to change demand. Without a fixed end date to the strike, it would be prudent to ensure future liquidity by local banks asking for and holding higher stocks to counteract any supply side problems, or maybe the Government leaning on them to ensure that the economy was adequately provided for and so appear unimpaired by the strike. 

I think the economy in 1926 provides the solution to the variety of types issued and the various die combinations, with the General Strike likely responsible for a temporary shortage of pennies, leading to the first coinage dies being used with the introduction of the ME dies a response to increased demand.

 

Yes, I do understand that the banks triggered demand for coinage, but the factors around the General Strike might have precipitated this as you go on to say.

The localised shortages you theorise was exactly what I meant earlier when I used the word 'regional' - what I meant was what you're saying, that some parts of the country (e.g. the industrial North) might have experienced a shortage not felt in the more prosperous South.

~~~~~

One thing I should add about mules: even if the currency 1926ME is something of a grey area on this subject (depending on how you interpret 'intentional'), the possibly unique 1926ME penny with the actual reverse of 1927 cannot be considered in any way to be a mule. It is the currency 1927 penny in all but date, and therefore comprised the intentional design of the RM. Indeed, the combination of ME (albeit shrunk from 1928) with that reverse persisted until the end of the reign. I'd agree that - in the circumstances - you could describe the unique 1926ME as a pattern, but not a mule.

Share this post


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

you could describe the unique 1926ME as a pattern, but not a mule. 

Interesting to me a pattern is a coin that has been struck for experimental purposes and generally has features that are different from coins in or intended for circulation, consequently few patterns ever see any circulation. The 1926, which in my opinion is a mule has seen some circulation and if it were offered in change no one would have taken a second look at the coin.

Share this post


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

I think that's what I was saying? However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'experimental' - neither the 1926 reverse nor both the obverse dies used, were experimental, all being used for other currency date runs.

By Experimental I mean different image designs on the coin to perhaps eliminate the ghosting which had been a problem on pennies back to Edward vii, and can still be seen on pennies in 1922.    Elements of the different designs my be totally indistinguishable to the naked eye, such as the portrait being cut deeper into the die ,  slight changes may have been put into the visual appearance so as to be able to track the coins progress during circulation.  The M E may well have been a trial die , and the fact that they moved to the small head portrait from 1927 on, and which as far as I can tell never had any problems at all with ghosting.   The same may be the case for the other Reverse dies used on the 1926 types , but perhaps only a few escaped the meltdown after the small test runs carried out at the mint.  We will never know for sure, so its all just conjecture .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

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.   

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. 

I relate to Mike's view here - how are we to define "meant to be paired together" ?

In 1902, which reverse was "meant" to be paired with the Edward VII obverse - High Tide or Low Tide ? And does that make the other pairing a mule ?

There is a degree of subjectivity here and to me it is not clear how we can know when a die pairing was "not meant". We are talking about perhaps one person's intention or vision of what obverse should be paired with a particular reverse, which may never have been made explicit.

On my varieties website, I shall continue to not refer to the 1926 ME as a mule (if users consider it "an appalling error" then so be it). The 1926 4+C is probably more of a pattern (for the 1927 coinage as described by Chris) than a mule and I'll redescribe it thus.

Share this post


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

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. 

I relate to Mike's view here - how are we to define "meant to be paired together" ?

In 1902, which reverse was "meant" to be paired with the Edward VII obverse - High Tide or Low Tide ? And does that make the other pairing a mule ?

There is a degree of subjectivity here and to me it is not clear how we can know when a die pairing was "not meant". We are talking about perhaps one person's intention or vision of what obverse should be paired with a particular reverse, which may never have been made explicit.

On my varieties website, I shall continue to not refer to the 1926 ME as a mule (if users consider it "an appalling error" then so be it). The 1926 4+C is probably more of a pattern (for the 1927 coinage as described by Chris) than a mule and I'll redescribe it thus.

Good point - similarly with the 1895 2mm and 1 mm trident. Is one of them a mule by such definition as Chards?

At the end of the day, I suppose if some individuals want to think of the 1926 ME as a mule, then so be it. For me a mule can only be a pairing that was clearly never meant to be, and would have been avoided had the production operatives at the time, been on the ball. 

I'll go along with Freeman's definition of a mule at page 30 of his book (1985 & 2016 editions):-

Quote

Nos 8 and 9 are referred to as 'mules' - ie., coins on which the obverse and reverse dies were obviously not intended for use with each other - because one side has a circular beaded border and the other a toothed  

 

Share this post


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

Interesting to me a pattern is a coin that has been struck for experimental purposes and generally has features that are different from coins in or intended for circulation, consequently few patterns ever see any circulation. The 1926, which in my opinion is a mule has seen some circulation and if it were offered in change no one would have taken a second look at the coin.

I was talking about the unique 1926ME paired with the 1927 reverse, what were you referring to? That one CANNOT be called a mule as it obvious that it was the intended design as we see the following year with the 1927. No-one (at present) knows when the unique variant was struck, i.e. whether before, during or after ME dies were used for the end of the 1926 penny run, but by any definition of the term 'mule', it isn't.

 

3 hours ago, terrysoldpennies said:

By Experimental I mean different image designs on the coin to perhaps eliminate the ghosting which had been a problem on pennies back to Edward vii, and can still be seen on pennies in 1922.    Elements of the different designs my be totally indistinguishable to the naked eye, such as the portrait being cut deeper into the die ,  slight changes may have been put into the visual appearance so as to be able to track the coins progress during circulation.  The M E may well have been a trial die , and the fact that they moved to the small head portrait from 1927 on, and which as far as I can tell never had any problems at all with ghosting.   The same may be the case for the other Reverse dies used on the 1926 types , but perhaps only a few escaped the meltdown after the small test runs carried out at the mint.  We will never know for sure, so its all just conjecture .

I was theorising, that's true, but I felt it was the best explanation (so far) for the several questions posed by the mere existence of the 1926 penny. As for experimental dies, are there any obverse dies that weren't in fact used for currency runs? Even the short lived 'recessed ear' of 1915 and 1916 was used on several million pennies (though it would be fascinating to know why that was abandoned, as that particular experiment resulted in fully struck up Britannia reverses which the normal obverse did not). The only experimental die I know of for sure, is the 1922 so-called "reverse of 1927" which only exists for a few specimens and was never used again.

 

21 minutes ago, secret santa said:

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. 

I relate to Mike's view here - how are we to define "meant to be paired together" ?

In 1902, which reverse was "meant" to be paired with the Edward VII obverse - High Tide or Low Tide ? And does that make the other pairing a mule ?

There is a degree of subjectivity here and to me it is not clear how we can know when a die pairing was "not meant". We are talking about perhaps one person's intention or vision of what obverse should be paired with a particular reverse, which may never have been made explicit.

On my varieties website, I shall continue to not refer to the 1926 ME as a mule (if users consider it "an appalling error" then so be it). The 1926 4+C is probably more of a pattern (for the 1927 coinage as described by Chris) than a mule and I'll redescribe it thus.

Yes, "pattern" seems more appropriate than "mule". We'll have to leave the normal 1926ME as a "grey area" and agree to differ! Though I will say that 1902 HT and LT is less of a controversy as that design changed partway through the run, and clearly 1902 LT was the first design as per 1895-1901, which then got changed to HT as per 1902-1926 for reasons we may never know, i.e. neither 1902 is a mule. My main case for the 1926ME is that (theoretically) the ME dies were grabbed to finish the run but they had enough reverses to do the job. In other words, the pairing was "deliberate" but not "intended" by which I mean that if normal circumstances prevailed that particular pairing would not have been used.

Edited by Peckris 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inexplainable ones are the high tide bronze coins of 1897, why just this year?

Share this post


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

The inexplainable ones are the high tide bronze coins of 1897, why just this year?

Agreed. Unless the 1897 was an experiment left unfulfilled until 1902?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, davidrj said:

The inexplainable ones are the high tide bronze coins of 1897, why just this year?

Different engraver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, here's a topic here on Predecimal from 2013 where someone called Peckris (who he? :lol:) questions whether the 1926ME should be referred to as a "mule"! The rest of you are more consistent and say it shouldn't ...

http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/7920-is-the-1926me-penny-a-mule/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

We're probably talked out on this one now ???

You want us to stop talking about pennies!!!!! ? :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, davidrj said:

You want us to stop talking about pennies!!!!! ? :)

Calm down, dear - just the 1926 ME "mule" !!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


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

Calm down, dear - just the 1926 ME "mule" !!!!!!!!!!!

To be serious for a moment - the whole subject of what exactly constitutes a mule and the grey areas surrounding this, are very interesting and have opened up good discussions. I for one would be happy to continue, while those who are less interested can always drop out of the discussion (it's not compulsory to read every single topic!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had actually considered starting a new topic called "when is a mule not a mule ?" as it probably shouldn't be hidden away in a topic about 1926 and 1927 pennies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, secret santa said:

I had actually considered starting a new topic called "when is a mule not a mule ?" as it probably shouldn't be hidden away in a topic about 1926 and 1927 pennies.

Go for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2018 at 7:14 PM, 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.

Thanks again.

My 2c is that it does appear to be a separate reverse - check out the bottom helmet feathers - on the circulation reverse the bottom two feathers are of equal thickness but on the proof obverse the right feather is much thinner. Possibly there are are other differences as well but that one stood out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a look at my own coin photos and I can't really see the difference (between circulation and proof coins) in the helmet plumes/feathers that you mention.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, secret santa said:

I've just had a look at my own coin photos and I can't really see the difference (between circulation and proof coins) in the helmet plumes/feathers that you mention.  

Going by these images at they seem to be different:

1930-f203-rev.jpg

1927-f198-proof-rev-copy.jpg

Note the two feathers hanging down behind the helmet - next to the neck and the upward-curling bit of the back of the helmet - one the bottom coin the right feather is much thinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mr T said:

Going by these images at they seem to be different:

1930-f203-rev.jpg

1927-f198-proof-rev-copy.jpg

Note the two feathers hanging down behind the helmet - next to the neck and the upward-curling bit of the back of the helmet - one the bottom coin the right feather is much thinner.

Also, on the 1927 coin Britannia's right thumb on the shield appears to be a shade thinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything about the 1927 is crisper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't the differences be merely down to wear in one die not present in the other? I don't personally see any differences that couldn't be explained that way.

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

×