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  
JLS

1955 threepence - struck on a rolled thin planchet ?

Recommended Posts

I recently picked up this 1955 threepence which looks about 60% of the thickness of the standard issue. No signs of post-mint damage, but clearly got into circulation. Is this a thin planchet error or something more interesting ? 

Weight is 4.5 grams instead 6.8 grams.

Photographs (including comparison with regular striking): https://imgur.com/a/tj0iU5t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind it's a thin planchet, though how is another matter. It's clearly not post-Mint as it's fully struck up. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting - and I assume recognised many years ago, as the accompanying note has clearly been typed on an old fashioned typewriter, and the paper now yellowing slightly.

Precisely how these anomalies occur is anyone's guess.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct diameter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possible lamination error before the blank was struck or a blank intended for a different coin ?

I believe the sheets were rolled together causing one sheet to join another of a similar thickness.If they did not join the blank would be thinner but the same size diameter ,although ones i have seen tend to be more weakly struck.

Either way if the coin is thinner it obviously wasnt the correct thickness when struck as cleary shows the design on both sides ( apart from the daft acid things PM ) ,so either lamination or a blank meant for a different coin mixed in with the others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2019 at 12:01 AM, Mr T said:

Correct diameter?

Yes - exactly the same diameter as the standard issue. 

On 1/5/2019 at 2:33 AM, PWA 1967 said:

Possible lamination error before the blank was struck or a blank intended for a different coin ?

I believe the sheets were rolled together causing one sheet to join another of a similar thickness.If they did not join the blank would be thinner but the same size diameter ,although ones i have seen tend to be more weakly struck.

This is the only thing which really surprises me about this coin - there seem to be no problems at all with the strike - it is sharp everywhere, albeit clearly a little worn from circulation. I can't think of any other 12-sided coins the Royal Mint would have been striking in 1955...so I guess it was just lucky ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have run across numerous 3ds from this era that were either a bit thin or thick, so interesting but IMO not that rare or valuable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fijian threepence was the only similar coin struck at the time but it was 6.2g

I'll agree with struck on a split planchet.

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  

×