One sided coin.

[pazz 0]

I have an Elizabeth II half penny which has only been pressed on one side the 'tails' side being completely blank & smooth. Could this be a 'test' piece from 1953 or just something that slipped through quality control? I'm unable to attach an image as the file is 'too large' for some inexplicable reason. The condition of the coin is erm...half mint. Any ideas? Steve Parry

[Peter 615]

I have an Elizabeth II half penny which has only been pressed on one side the 'tails' side being completely blank & smooth. Could this be a 'test' piece from 1953 or just something that slipped through quality control? I'm unable to attach an image as the file is 'too large' for some inexplicable reason. The condition of the coin is erm...half mint. Any ideas? Steve Parry

It's likely it has been smoothed on one side for Shove halfpenny...a popular board game from yesteryear....I have my grandfathers board with a tin of these halfpennies smooth on one side (although these are Victorian to George V.

[Chris Perkins 223]

And, if it's a 1953 coin it'll have the BRITT OMN titles in the legend around the Queen. Of course the weight and thickness will give it away as having been smoothed, or not. I suspect it's as Peter says.

[Hussulo 6]

I agree with Chris and Peter but you never know.

Do you have a set of digital scales you can weigh it on? and a picture would help.

[pazz 0]

I have an Elizabeth II half penny which has only been pressed on one side the 'tails' side being completely blank & smooth. Could this be a 'test' piece from 1953 or just something that slipped through quality control? I'm unable to attach an image as the file is 'too large' for some inexplicable reason. The condition of the coin is erm...half mint. Any ideas? Steve Parry

It's likely it has been smoothed on one side for Shove halfpenny...a popular board game from yesteryear....I have my grandfathers board with a tin of these halfpennies smooth on one side (although these are Victorian to George V.

Dear Peter It weighs an identical ammount as a normal ha'penny (I've used my fathers old pharmaceutical scales which weigh to drams) & is as thick as a normal one; I've used calipers. I've also looked at it under an old microscope, it's pristine. Steve.

[pazz 0]

And, if it's a 1953 coin it'll have the BRITT OMN titles in the legend around the Queen. Of course the weight and thickness will give it away as having been smoothed, or not. I suspect it's as Peter says.

Dear Chris. It weighs an identical ammount as a normal ha'penny (I've used my fathers old pharmaceutical scales which weigh to drams) & is as thick as a normal one; I've used calipers. I've also looked at it under an old microscope, it's pristine. Steve.

[pazz 0]

I agree with Chris and Peter but you never know.

Do you have a set of digital scales you can weigh it on? and a picture would help.

Dear Hussulo. It weighs an identical ammount as a normal ha'penny (I've used my fathers old pharmaceutical scales which weigh to drams) & is as thick as a normal one; I've used calipers. I've also looked at it under an old microscope, it's pristine. I explained why I couldn't include an image. Steve.

[VickySilver 775]

Yes, in fact there are a number of coins struck only on one side, either on purpose or after having been stuck in the collar with another planchet (each receiving the die impression of only the adjacent striking die). The fact that weight is normal, although a weight in grams and their fractions would be useful, is evidence of the coin possibly NOT having been altered. Are there any marks on the "smooth" unstruck side under a scope? I have a number of such QE II pieces. Some were struck to model format and generally have that designation on the "smooth" side.

A study which I do not recall was done by a collector on one of the numismatic forums that by recall measured the weight metal loss to deface to smooth one side of a coin. I do not recall the figures but on a 1/2d I would imagine this to be at least 0.5 gm or so off the original spec 5.7 gm planchet. Thickness is generally NOT a good characteristic to compare.

[Guest reluctant_numismatist]

I'd say definitely shove ha'penny. This was a very popular game in days of yore and it was common to machine and polish one side of the half penny to make it slide better to get the edge over your opponent. I had about 15 coins from Victoria to George V like this that were EF+ to aUNC, but all on one side only... :-(

A quote from the site link below:

"A variety of substances can be used to make the board sufficiently slippery - French chalk, black lead, beer, paraffin and petrol are all used. Each coin has one side smoothed down flat and in theory this should be the tails side of the coin since it is illegal to deface an image of the monarch in England. However, many leagues maintain a contrary view in respect of this and smooth away the head side instead. This mark of disrespect also serves to leave the date of the coin visible and an ideal set of coins would have the same date on each coin..."

http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Shove-HaPenny.htm

[Guest Christian]

On 4 March 2010 at 0:03 PM, Chris Perkins said:

And, if it's a 1953 coin it'll have the BRITT OMN titles in the legend around the Queen. Of course the weight and thickness will give it away as having been smoothed, or not. I suspect it's as Peter says.

Anyone have any idea what this is?

 

[Chris Perkins 223]

Yes, it's a replica sovereign-looking half of a coin that would have originally been stuck in a cheap ring.