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.

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Peck noted that the majority of 1935 pennies were issued artificially toned (mint darkened) (EC), and that only a minority of those issued were untoned (with the usual mint lustre) (VR) (page 505). Freeman states at page 17 of his 1985 book: "The dark finish given to pennies from 1944-46 before issue, was achieved, in a similar way, by the use of 'hypo', as was that on pennies of 1934 and some of 1935". Alexander in the August 1977 edition of Coin Monthly (page 67) says of the 1935 penny, that "the great majority were issued mint darkened".

Thanks for this Mike, also your pictures. Had a quick look through ebay and seems to me that most were the 'lustred' type rather than 'mint darkened', so not sure why Peck and Alexander should think the opposite!  My coin is still way darker than the mint darkened ones though, perhaps someone has painted it  lol 😁. It stuck out like a sore thumb amongst all the others of that era.

Share this post


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

Thanks for this Mike, also your pictures. Had a quick look through ebay and seems to me that most were the 'lustred' type rather than 'mint darkened', so not sure why Peck and Alexander should think the opposite!  My coin is still way darker than the mint darkened ones though, perhaps someone has painted it  lol 😁. It stuck out like a sore thumb amongst all the others of that era.

I think you're right Ian. The majority do seem to the the normally lustred type, so it does seem odd that such a mistake was made by knowledgeable writers. It certainly wouldn't have been difficult to check out at the times of writing.

As far as your coin, you do find. for whatever reason, that some go extra dark anyway. So I'm wondering if yours is an originally mint darkened  specimen, that has gone extra dark. Hence its current appearance. A metallurgist might be able to explain the precise chemical/environmental reactions which cause a coin to darken naturally, but suffice it to say, some do. 

Incidentally, I've now bought that mint darkened UNC specimen I linked to last night, as I suddenly realised I don't have one. It's not like they're expensive, so worth buying.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad your efforts helped you to improve your collection Mike, thanks again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 6:53 PM, 1949threepence said:

Ian, Peck noted that the majority of 1935 pennies were issued artificially toned (mint darkened) (EC), and that only a minority of those issued were untoned (with the usual mint lustre) (VR) (page 505). Freeman states at page 17 of his 1985 book: "The dark finish given to pennies from 1944-46 before issue, was achieved, in a similar way, by the use of 'hypo', as was that on pennies of 1934 and some of 1935". Alexander in the August 1977 edition of Coin Monthly (page 67) says of the 1935 penny, that "the great majority were issued mint darkened".

Personally, I think Freeman is closest. Whilst there is no dispute that 1934 pennies were all issued mint darkened, normal lustred 1935 pennies seem to be commonplace. This is mine, a bog standard EF with residual lustre specimen, and not in my opinion, ever mint darkened

 

Yes, it's not scientific I realise, but I've seen more lustred 35s than toned. Mind you, the toned examples were nowhere near as dark as that one.

Edited by Peckris 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes, it's not scientific I realise, but I've seen more lustred 35s than toned. Mind you, the toned examples were nowhere near as dark as that one.

They seem to vary in depth of tone. You can tell when they've been done though, even if the hypo is very light. Clear distinction with ordinary golden lustre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you say that this has been toned ? The other side is lustrous.

41720775_1936F2142rev.thumb.JPG.3231a5b5340e1cf9bc827657107f0bd8.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about her?

cdc71038d9b65249eacf3aff0cb76fe0.thumb.jpg.1c316aec4e283f53773790d103996b00.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Would you say that this has been toned ? The other side is lustrous.

41720775_1936F2142rev.thumb.JPG.3231a5b5340e1cf9bc827657107f0bd8.JPG

Interesting.

Thinking back to previous times when the mint darkening process has been discussed, I know that both Pete and Chris have 1932 and 1940 specimens respectively, which are apparently mint darkened - and Pete referred to one (although not sure which year), where, like yours, one side was darkened and the other side lustrous.

So they do occur, although precisely why remains a mystery.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one mentioned was a 1944 ,45 or 46 i cant remember which that Dave craddock had for sale ,i didnt want it and he sold it another dealer. It was easier to tell even from a scanned picture as should of been fully mint toned rather than oneside MT oneside BU and was therefore not natural toning or cleaning. Sometimes i believe the blanks / coins may stick together for mint toning ,leaving them partially or fully MT to only oneside.

I did have a 1932 that i bought off Dave craddock that was mint toned but passed it on to a forum member. That i believe was a MT blank / coin in error that was mixed in with normal ones or possibly part of a trial for 1934 .

Although some years are often hard to tell from a photograph as may of just naturally toned ,such as some pennies we see described as proof like.

 

 

Edited by PWA 1967
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the 1935 is an easy find in BU- it's odd they only toned a few.

As for the 'one side only' conundrum- If you were a Mint employee, and had to apply hypo to a bin full of pennies, how would you go about it?

You would have an astonishingly heavy bin of shiny pennies to deal with- maybe it was applied to a pile at a time?

Two pennies could be closely face-to face and end up being a cross between Obi-Wan and Darth- one of them completely on the Dark Side.

Mind you, if two coins were face to face, but one was to one side, there would be the gap between them for the hypo to penetrate

the facing sides, whereas when perfectly lined up, the edges would create a seal.....and three in a stack would leave one with both sides shiny....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, blakeyboy said:

I feel that the 1935 is an easy find in BU- it's odd they only toned a few.

As for the 'one side only' conundrum- If you were a Mint employee, and had to apply hypo to a bin full of pennies, how would you go about it?

You would have an astonishingly heavy bin of shiny pennies to deal with- maybe it was applied to a pile at a time?

Two pennies could be closely face-to face and end up being a cross between Obi-Wan and Darth- one of them completely on the Dark Side.

Mind you, if two coins were face to face, but one was to one side, there would be the gap between them for the hypo to penetrate

the facing sides, whereas when perfectly lined up, the edges would create a seal.....and three in a stack would leave one with both sides shiny....

In which case the edge should be dark - although if the coin has been in a collection and frequently handled over the years, the edge will be dark rather than lustrous anyway. An added complication. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think it is more likely that the batch of coins was in a hopper and the hypo solution was tipped in to achieve the toning. Then, as well as the issue of some coins being tightly packed together, and so getting uniface treatment, there is the issue of the hypo becoming used up as it reacts with the coins, resulting in different levels of toning through the batch. It is possible that all coins went through the process, some ending up heavily toned, some partial and some not at all.

It may also be that the experts in the past had access to Royal Mint records saying all were toned and were repeating that information, regardless of the evidence of different levels of toning apparent in circulation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2021 at 9:27 AM, secret santa said:

Would you say that this has been toned ? The other side is lustrous.

A toned 1936! It does really look kosher though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 9:33 PM, 1949threepence said:

 

On 2/5/2021 at 10:53 AM, 1949threepence said:

I think you're right Ian. The majority do seem to the the normally lustred type, so it does seem odd that such a mistake was made by knowledgeable writers. It certainly wouldn't have been difficult to check out at the times of writing.

As far as your coin, you do find. for whatever reason, that some go extra dark anyway. So I'm wondering if yours is an originally mint darkened  specimen, that has gone extra dark. Hence its current appearance. A metallurgist might be able to explain the precise chemical/environmental reactions which cause a coin to darken naturally, but suffice it to say, some do. 

Incidentally, I've now bought that mint darkened UNC specimen I linked to last night, as I suddenly realised I don't have one. It's not like they're expensive, so worth buying.     

Hmmm.....this is how it looks in hand. Not darkened as in the e bay photo. Only done one side as they're both the same.

How misleading can a photo be?

Oh well, at least it's better than the one I've got, so not a total waste of money. 

 

lustred 1935 rev.jpg

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just worked through my penny websites adding a "return to top of page" function at the bottom of every page to save users scrolling all the way back to the top to get to the menu.

Hopefully it will be useful.

Edited by secret santa
  • Like 5

Share this post


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

I have just worked through my penny websites adding a "return to top of page" function at the bottom of every page to save users scrolling all the way back to the top to get to the menu.

Pleased to note updates to 1898 Penny. Are there anymore updates in the pipeline?

Share this post


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

I have just worked through my penny websites adding a "return to top of page" function at the bottom of every page to save users scrolling all the way back to the top to get to the menu.

Hopefully it will be useful.

Yes, it will! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cliff said:

Pleased to note updates to 1898 Penny. Are there anymore updates in the pipeline?

Always open to (polite) suggestions.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a 1934 lustrous example coming up in the LCA auction. Hard to tell from a photo I suppose but the colour looks reasonably honest:

img.php?a=cat&l=1178&f=o&s=l

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

There's a 1934 lustrous example coming up in the LCA auction. Hard to tell from a photo I suppose but the colour looks reasonably honest:

img.php?a=cat&l=1178&f=o&s=l

When i used to collect a forum member bid on that same coin for me at LCA about 5 years ago ,remember it selling for about £250 + ,must stand out and not see many for me to remember it 😃 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

September 2016 - looks like the same picture. With a halfpenny, sold for £240 + commission. Seems pricey to me. Looks like it's with the same halfpenny again ?

Pete, do you not collect any more ?

Share this post


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

September 2016 - looks like the same picture. With a halfpenny, sold for £240 + commission. Seems pricey to me. Looks like it's with the same halfpenny again ?

Pete, do you not collect any more ?

Yes thats the one with the same halfpenny ,i should of just looked at prices realised.

No i lost interest about 18 months ago , not long after a collector wanted to buy coins that were slabbed in high grade and was a good oportunity to sell a lot for prices i dont think i would of acheived in the near future. I kept some that he either had or i felt were worth keeping ,such as some coppers that are becoming IMO really hard to find in top grades.

Being pretty much housebound though not with Covid but illness i still buy things for something to do that i know other people are looking for or to pass on to dealers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still on the penny thread, anyone interested in the load of completely naturally toned (sarcasm) 1937 proof bronze coming up for auction in Heritage?

Someone's chancing their arm....do you want one in bright blue or luridly efflorescent blue, sir?

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

×