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  
1949threepence

How do you tell a bronzed proof and a copper proof apart.......

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Rob said:

I don't know. I've looked but can't find anything written down. Logic says it has to be a fluid to ensure even coverage because anything else would give inherently patchy results, but whether that is a chemical solution or reactive atmosphere, I'm unsure. The Taylor restrikes sometimes have what appears to be powder residue in the recesses, which I think may be dried out bronzing agent due to insufficient washing after application.

Are they put in some sort of acid bath b4 striking , the process is probably writen down in peck somewhere , otherwise try the obvious and google it, LOL

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Bronzed copper is correct. The flan is copper with a chemically produced bronzed finish

Yes, that's technically and chemically correct. However, PROOFS are described as either "copper proof" or "bronzed proof". To describe one using both terms appears to be a deliberate move to cover up uncertainty ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes, that's technically and chemically correct. However, PROOFS are described as either "copper proof" or "bronzed proof". To describe one using both terms appears to be a deliberate move to cover up uncertainty ?

My interpretation of those distinctions is that both coins are struck in copper.

While the Copper Proof is 'As Struck', the Bronzed Copper is the Copper coin subjected to Bronzing.

A Bronzed coin (or Medal), without distinction, COULD be struck in ANY metal (I'm not saying that it IS struck in any metal), and then Bronzed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

My interpretation of those distinctions is that both coins are struck in copper.

While the Copper Proof is 'As Struck', the Bronzed Copper is the Copper coin subjected to Bronzing.

A Bronzed coin (or Medal), without distinction, COULD be struck in ANY metal (I'm not saying that it IS struck in any metal), and then Bronzed.

Yes, but are there bronzed proofs that AREN’T copper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, copper123 said:

Are they put in some sort of acid bath b4 striking , the process is probably writen down in peck somewhere , otherwise try the obvious and google it, LOL

At the behest of your suggestion, I tried both. I got much further with Peck than Google, although still not clear what precise chemical agent was used, or exact procedure followed, to bronze the copper. But here is what Peck says at page 220 (last paragraph) of the 1964 re-print:-

Quote

"Bronzed copper pieces were similarly struck on copper blanks which had been previously patinated to a bronze colour, which varied from a chocolate tint to slightly darker shades of brown. As pointed out later (p 227), care must be taken not to mistake ordinary copper pieces which happen to have toned down to a colour resembling this artificial bronzing." 

Not 100% crystal clear whether Peck was referring to currency pieces which had toned down, or to copper proofs. If currency pieces then other features can mark out the distinction between them and a proof. In the case of KP31, P1326, for example, the fact that the 0 of the date is incomplete and the 1 has no base serif. Also, the reverse is not inverted, which it is on the currency strike.  

Peck continues:-

Quote

"So far as the coins are concerned, a 'bronzed' proof consists of artificially bronzed copper, whereas a 'bronze' proof, examples of which only occur from 1860 onwards, consist of the alloy bronze"   

Rather an obvious point but worth repeating.

At page 405, Peck states:-

Quote

Current pieces subsequently bronzed (or gilded) to resemble proofs are not uncommon, but although their surfaces are sometimes fairly well polished, they always lack the brilliant mirror-like finish of the genuine proofs, which were, of course, struck from polished dies, on specially selected blanks. Others, on the contrary, are conspicuous by their dull, matt surfaces and red brown colour, by which they should be easily recognised. It is most important to realise that the genuine bronzed pieces produced at Soho, and later at the Royal Mint, were made from blanks which had been bronzed (i.e. artificially patinated to the desired brown tone) before striking, and that it is only by this procedure that the characteristic sparkling finish of the authentic bronzed proof can be achieved.     

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Not 100% crystal clear whether Peck was referring to currency pieces which had toned down, or to copper proofs. If currency pieces then other features can mark out the distinction between them and a proof. In the case of KP31, P1326, for example, the fact that the 0 of the date is incomplete and the 1 has no base serif. Also, the reverse is not inverted, which it is on the currency strike. 

I assume Peck was referring to currency pieces? And presumably when he says "care must be taken" he's talking about beginners, or experts making hasty, superficial, lazy, or downright dishonest judgements?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing's for sure - you can't make a decision on whether a coin is bronzed from a photograph. See the photos below of the same coin:

193888926_1860F8611LCAobv.jpg.0ea85010636df19e40a96fa24a705745.jpg471856553_1860F8611NGCobv.jpg.ffe8362f8e35b7ad5460427bab954916.jpg

LCA (top pic) and NGC (lower pic) both describe the coin as bronzed copper. My own photo shows a very patchy colour, unlike the consistent finish that Rob describes. So, is this bronzed or not ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

One thing's for sure - you can't make a decision on whether a coin is bronzed from a photograph. See the photos below of the same coin:

193888926_1860F8611LCAobv.jpg.0ea85010636df19e40a96fa24a705745.jpg471856553_1860F8611NGCobv.jpg.ffe8362f8e35b7ad5460427bab954916.jpg

LCA (top pic) and NGC (lower pic) both describe the coin as bronzed copper. My own photo shows a very patchy colour, unlike the consistent finish that Rob describes. So, is this bronzed or not ?

I would think there was more than one way to bronze a coin so possably several diferent ways were tried with various degrees of sucess.

The coin above is bronze not copper so an experimental and maybe unique method was probably chosen.

Remember its a very limited run of coins as all 1860 bronze patterns were possably 20 exist  in various metals pos auctioned to collectors .

Numismatics was a tight circle of collectors back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, copper123 said:

I would think there was more than one way to bronze a coin so possably several diferent ways were tried with various degrees of sucess.

The coin above is bronze not copper so an experimental and maybe unique method was probably chosen.

Remember its a very limited run of coins as all 1860 bronze patterns were possably 20 exist  in various metals pos auctioned to collectors .

Numismatics was a tight circle of collectors back then.

I think I'm correct in saying that many of those 1860 pattern/trial pieces were indeed copper, and bronzed copper.  Although I've no idea which one that is..... Pattern by Moore perhaps?

 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


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

One thing's for sure - you can't make a decision on whether a coin is bronzed from a photograph. See the photos below of the same coin:

193888926_1860F8611LCAobv.jpg.0ea85010636df19e40a96fa24a705745.jpg471856553_1860F8611NGCobv.jpg.ffe8362f8e35b7ad5460427bab954916.jpg

LCA (top pic) and NGC (lower pic) both describe the coin as bronzed copper. My own photo shows a very patchy colour, unlike the consistent finish that Rob describes. So, is this bronzed or not ?

For me personally, impossible to say either way.

Share this post


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

I think I'm correct in saying that many of those 1860 pattern/trial pieces were indeed copper, and bronzed copper. 

Absolutely right Mike - that's why I posted it !!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soho produced bronzed coinage was typically consistently coloured. Taylor's restrikes showed much more variation in the quality of the bronzing. That is what I was showing earlier with the P1161 with mottled toning, which was one of his earliest attempts made before the dies had the rust polished off the surfaces. 

The Moore patterns are a separate issue, but given they were produced at various times over a 26 year period, you would expect some variation for the different die states in the same metal. Moore's bronzing appears to be a bit darker than Taylor's, albeit from a limited sample size. Given Moore's affidavit to the effect that a specific number of coins were struck in specific metals on specific days in September and December 1886, it should be possible to identify the copper and bronzed pieces purely from those with Peck's obverse B. The coronetted head P2135 is only known in copper. Again, that should aid differentiation if you had them side by side.

You also have to consider whether the surfaces seen are a result of storage conditions. I can think of a few patterns with slightly impaired surfaces, which is why I said you can't take what I said as definitive. 

FWIW, my P2106 has a couple of tiny light blotches, but is certainly not copper as the majority of the surface is better, being evenly toned.

Edited by Rob
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2021 at 11:49 AM, Rob said:

Both Taylor and Moore were producing bronzed pieces up to the mid-1880s. The process has to be the same as for medals, or for that matter, mint toned farthings and pennies. The colour differences will probably be down to the list of solution ingredients.

Yes, Dolley quoted someone in a paper who referred to a "purple solution" that had been used at Soho to immerse the blanks in to produce this bronzed finish. It's surprising that no official bronzed proof coins have been made since the mid 19th century, given that that was the finish of choice for the first half of the 19th century. I wonder why they went off it?

I've got a P1335 1806 penny which looks identical in appearance to Taylor's golden bronze finish - this series (KP33 or 34?) is also plain edge and  in a range of metals on rusted usually underweight blanks from over-polished dies. So some pointers to non-Soho restrikes perhaps, though the gilding on the gilt specimen in Gregory II was good quality, and the bronzed one in Gregory I (which I also have ex Alderney) is far more bronzed-looking (ie dark chocolate) in the traditional fashion though.

Edited by oldcopper
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes, Dolley quoted someone in a paper who referred to a "purple solution" that had been used at Soho to immerse the blanks in to produce this bronzed finish. It's surprising that no official bronzed proof coins have been made since the mid 19th century, given that that was the finish of choice for the first half of the 19th century. I wonder why they went off it?

Possibly because bronzing copper made more sense than bronzing bronze?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Possibly because bronzing copper made more sense than bronzing bronze?

Although Freeman says that a pattern penny was produced in 1887 in Gold, Silver, Aluminium, Copper (Bronzed Finish) and Copper.

All vanishingly rare, or in the case of gold, probably unique.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Although Freeman says that a pattern penny was produced in 1887 in Gold, Silver, Aluminium, Copper (Bronzed Finish) and Copper.

All vanishingly rare, or in the case of gold, probably unique.   

That will be the Weyl patterns. As I wrote in the article about 10 years ago, I think they are mostly unique with the exception of the aluminium pieces documented in the Murdoch sale. There was also an 1887 (unspecified metal) penny listed in the bronze and copper section of the Cholmley sale in 1902 which I found after publication. This sale took place less than a month before Murdoch died, and it may or may not be the same as the one that was sold in the latter's sale. Whatever, it debunks the theory that the Weyl patterns were struck especially for Murdoch, as it is inconceivable he would have disposed of something produced uniquely for him whilst keeping the rest. 

Freeman also omits those struck in tin.

Edited by Rob
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That will be the Weyl patterns. As I wrote in the article about 10 years ago, I think they are mostly unique with the exception of the aluminium pieces documented in the Murdoch sale. There was also an 1887 (unspecified metal) penny listed in the bronze and copper section of the Cholmley sale in 1902 which I found after publication. This sale took place less than a month before Murdoch died, and it may or may not be the same as the one that was sold in the latter's sale. Whatever, it debunks the theory that the Weyl patterns were struck especially for Murdoch, as it is inconceivable he would have disposed of something produced uniquely for him whilst keeping the rest. 

Freeman also omits those struck in tin.

I downloaded your article sometime back - excellent and very comprehensive. No copyright fees I hope! And I see you're in the DNW Hall of Fame with several mentions in the Ian Sawden collection.

Talking of which, that's a steep estimate for the Weyl copper milled edge penny. £3-4K. And the premium etc for this auction is effectively a third as there's import duty as well. So £4-5+K in reality. Fantastic looker though as are all of his Weyls.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Possibly because bronzing copper made more sense than bronzing bronze?

Only to avoid confusing words! - it's strange how the term "bronzing" came to be used, as it looks nothing like bronze, and the coating presumably has nothing in common with bronze either (ie no tin or zinc, which would yellow it). Perhaps it could have been a more general term back then for adulterated copper?

Share this post


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

I downloaded your article sometime back - excellent and very comprehensive.

Can someone provide me with a link to this article please. I have just uploaded photos of almost all the J Moore patterns to my varieties website.

  • Like 1

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  

×