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

Why it was brought to our attention by mr freeman would be interesting to get his view ?.

Chris ,maybe you can ask the question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Freeman is a member on this forum.

All a bit confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has a new email address and doesn't want to make it public. I'll ask for his input on the points raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 6 of the date doesn't look right to me. It seems too narrow...

Makes me wonder if is an altered date 1927?

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

Big hat off and sometimes we need another opinion.

Although its not a coin for me well spotted.

Pete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets breathe life into the 1676 farthing....WTF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That looks like a 4 underneath that 6?

given that we have evidence a series of trial die pairings involving "normal" obverse and reverse dies with both the "1927" type obverse and the modified effigy reverse over the period 1922-6, the existence of a trial obverse die dated 1924 later reused with a 6 punch is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Edited by davidrj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can buy your Theory to a certain degree David, so to further convince me, how many other die Trail strikes would have been struck in the Same way? Surely if they were going to Trail strike they would strike what they were exactly wanting instead of striking over another number or letter etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can buy your Theory to a certain degree David, so to further convince me, how many other die Trail strikes would have been struck in the Same way? Surely if they were going to Trail strike they would strike what they were exactly wanting instead of striking over another number or letter etc?

I was under the impression die production was somewhat expensive so if it's only a test, why not reuse an existing die? But then again, why bother redoing the date if it's just a test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then again, why bother redoing the date if it's just a test.

Excellent point! Seals it for me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then again, why bother redoing the date if it's just a test.

Although as I think about this, maybe this specific coin was struck for royal approval or something like that and the mint (probably rightly) thought that a coin that appeared to have been minted two years ago might not convey the most professional appearance to the King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then again, why bother redoing the date if it's just a test.

Although as I think about this, maybe this specific coin was struck for royal approval or something like that and the mint (probably rightly) thought that a coin that appeared to have been minted two years ago might not convey the most professional appearance to the King.

Nor would an overstrike. If it was to be showed to the King for approval then surely it would have to look the part and not just mint something over something else, still not convinced it is what it says on the tin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G5 may not have gone over it with microscopy however...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G5 may not have gone over it with microscopy however...

As Declan says Above, G5 was a coinie which i'm sure those at the mint knew, so you'd think they'd be on the ball when minting a new or variant of coinage considering the crap they had been pushing out in the earlier years of his reign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G5 may not have gone over it with microscopy however...

As Declan says Above, G5 was a coinie which i'm sure those at the mint knew, so you'd think they'd be on the ball when minting a new or variant of coinage considering the crap they had been pushing out in the earlier years of his reign

True but I don't think it's that noticeable - I didn't give it a second glance until it was mentioned here, and I was looking at the coin at twice normal size.

Maybe it was made to get the new portrait rather than the new reverse approved - the old portrait had been giving the mint grief for some time so I can understand them wanting to get the new design approved as soon as possible, so maybe they cut corners.

Anyway, hopefully Mr Freeman can shed some light on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something from Michael Freeman:

I was lucky enough to be alive when Victorian pennies and halfpennies were in circulation, and in 1946, at the age of 6, encouraged by my teacher, I started collecting them. All and every one - even those with illegible dates!

The first thing I noticed was that there were both a young-looking and an old-looking head on pennies of 1874. This made me want to find out when other changes occurred, and sometimes I noted that 2 or more types occurred in the same year, 1881 being a good example.

With no book available on the subject, I learnt more and more simply from collecting them, and the next fact which I remember learning was that 1 in every 12 pennies in circulation was Victorian. This was around 1950.

In the 1950s, at school, I used to play at guessing the date of any penny by looking only at the obverse. I could tell either exactly or within 2-3 years, from subtle differences, such as in colour, caused by variations in the alloy, by the rim height, and very minor flaws which appeared in certain periods - such as the mis-strike of the upper leaf of the garland on pennies of obverse 6 in 1873. On Bun pennies, the silhouette, or only part of it, can indicate exactly what obverse or reverse it is - such as on the many early 1860s pennies.

By the time they were withdrawn in 1966, I had over 3,000 halfpennies and 62,000 pennies , with the Veiled Bust pennies of 1895-1901 running into a few thousand each date.

I had discovered 27 major types not in Peck's book on Copper Tin and Bronze, which was published in 1964.

In the Introduction to 'The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain', I wrote how difficult it was for me to decide what to catalogue as a type and what not to.

An example was the 1874 obverse 7 with a distinctly hooked nose found only paired with one of the reverses, which one I forget now. I rejected it as too confusing. Reverse I (1874 only) was a toss-up which I opted to include even though it does resemble reverse J.

I decided that the Victorian series was complicated enough without sub-dividing it into all the minor touched-up dies.

The 1922 penny with an early version of reverse C was a case in point. Even by the 1980s, few people cared, so It was simpler for people to know it simply as a variant of reverse C, which it is. Nowadays things are different. Many minor and a few major omissions from my book are now known to lots of collectors, and, for them, this is an entirely separate reverse.

The 1926 penny with Heritage, with reverse C has the proper adopted reverse used from 1927 to 1936.

It is either a proof or first striking, with all details bold, struck from new dies of both sides. The letters 'ONE PENNY' are in high relief and double-struck (indicative of proof strikings), which can be seen best in the hand, although Heritage's excellent photos show this quite well.

1927 pennies have much softer details on both sides, as expected from dies which had to be used on millions of blanks.

The 1922 penny with reverse C (variant) was quite a surprise when first discovered - after all, all known1926 pennies had reverse B, and reverse C first appeared only in 1927.

The 1926 penny with this reverse, on the other hand, was perfectly likely, being the year prior to its use in full production.

Moreover, the halfpenny and farthing of 1926 both have a reduced version of it.

Logic strongly suggests there must have been a reverse die prepared for the penny, as well; and this coin is evidence that it was.

My view is that the intended new reverse was designed and tested in 1922, then shelved until 1924 or 1925, when the die was refined to what became reverse C, but not used until 1926 when this coin, with a '6' punched over a partially-erased 4 or 5, was struck as a trial piece.

Found to be satisfactory, but not used for production until 1927.

As for the date numerals, first note the tiny dot above the '6', which does not appear on any other penny. Similar dots are known to have been used as a guide to where a character should be punched on a die.

There is a faint trace of an exergual line lower than the intended base of the design. This could indicate a die alteration from the level it had been on reverse B.

This coin had been examined under high magnification and no sign of a numeral '7' was found.

(Modified Effigy, obverse 4 + reverse C, + modified reverse, pennies were struck for circulation only dated '1927').

Everyone can see the '6' has traces of other numerals, which have been partially erased. But on the DIE, not the coin. To resolve doubts, knowing the latest technology would be applied to examining it, I submitted the coin to Heritage, who had it at both NGC and PCGS before cataloguing it. All three institutions are experts and confirm what I concluded.

Below is the full text of the description I sent Heritage, but which they did not use. I write too much!

*1926 penny, OBV.4 + REV.C - the Modified bust AND Modified reverse. UNIQUE. S. 4054A. Ex M.J. Freeman.

After many years of striking pennies which had ghosting (A faint unintentional impression of the king's head showing through on the reverse around Britannia), the Royal Mint found the solution.

The high relief of the head had caused 'suction' of metal from the reverse, so, in 1922, a new reverse was re-engraved. A few specimens were struck that year, and circulated. These still bore the old obverse; but there is also a so-far unique penny of 1922 with a completely re-engraved OBVERSE, in low relief, paired with the new reverse. Both seem then to have been shelved for 3 years.

No penny was struck in 1923, 1924, or 1925. The halfpenny and farthing were struck during these years, and in 1925 coins with both the old style and the new, modified, dies are found; but it was not until 1926, when penny striking resumed, that the new, modified head, was introduced on this denomination. Both the high relief (Freeman obverse 3) and the low relief obverse 4 - usually referred to as the 'Modified Effigy' - occur for 1926, although the latter is much the scarcer.

On 1926 pennies, both types of obverse are paired with the same, earlier-style, reverse - B - with the exception of THIS coin.

The 1922 modified reverse has been revised in slight detail, with Britannia's head a little larger. This reverse - C - remained, unaltered, on all pennies from 1927 until the end of the reign in 1936.

From 1928, the modified effigy was significantly reduced in size, so the original, larger, modified effigy is found only on a small number of 1926, and ALL of 1927.

On this coin there are traces of another numeral inside the '6'; but 1927 was the ONLY year known to have obverse 4 + reverse C, and it is definitely not a '7'; so the alteration was to the DIE, not the coin.

This conclusion is reinforced by traces of an exergual line below the level found on reverse C, in fact where it used to occur on reverse B. My guess is that the reverse was engraved with the date '1925'

but, as it was not used until this coin was struck, the '5' was overstruck with a '6'.

The same '6' punch appeared on a reverse B 1926 Modified Effigy in another Heritage auction earlier this year (2015). SEE

http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-george-v-penny-1926-ms65-red-and-brown-ngc-/a/3037-29783.s?ic4=OtherResults-SampleItem-071515

The designs on both sides are far sharper than usually found for these dies, and the reverse letters are double-struck, a feature which occurs on proofs and trial strikes although the surfaces are not prooflike. It is clearly a first strike for both the dies.

The coin appears to have been dipped in 'hypo', which gives it its dark color, and some other pennies of later years had the same treatment before release into circulation.

There are, however, small areas which are bright. The coin is about uncirculated, but has a small spot of verdigris on the lettering on the top of the obverse. It may well have had other areas where this was removed, along with the surface; hence the bright patches.

An important link in British bronze. (Michael Freeman)

I used to receive a lot of emails, but do not want to devote my waking moments to answering them, as I could do; hence my not wanting my email publicised. I am really pleased that lots of people share my former enthusiasm, but don't want to discuss coins.

I read what was written, and, as I had previously been in touch with Chris who asked me about possibly producing a soft-back, or electronic edition of 'The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain, when I did this, I asked him to reply for me in the Forum.

There is nothing sinister, as some comments suggest.

I am selling my house and buying another 500 miles away. It is time-consuming and my health is not the best.

I have taken up a lot of time in replying to try to clarify issues raised in the Forum, and hope goodwill will prevail! I can do no more.

My thanks to Chris, who runs it excellently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I thank Michael for his brilliant work to our hobby and wish him all the best on his latest venture (enjoy Scotland ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb explanation, and I second Peters expression of thanks; I refer to your books (I have the earliest and two later editions) almost every day.

Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply as without your information i would not of had a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, and thanks to Coinery for the heads-up on this penny coming to auction. A really interesting and valuable contribution from Michael too!

I've been very busy with my business for the past few months and been putting any spare cash into other areas. I do drop by and read this forum from time to time though.

Although I've never really thought of my pennies as an 'investment', I do necessarily consider this aspect when spending significant sums on new acquisitions, especially with retirement maybe only 10-15 years away. I haven't checked recent auction results so wonder what the penny market has been doing of late, especially at the micro-variety level? If I felt more confident about market stability I might be willing to spend more on adding to my collection!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I echo previous best wishes to Michael for his forthcoming move and sincere thanks for his landmark work on the coinage that fascinates so many of us.

Regards

Richard S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Michael Roo for drawing my attention to this topic, one of the most interesting in relation to 20th Century coins. I have a slight disagreement with Michael Freeman about the date of the '1922 Modified Effigy' penny, but I'm partway through a series of articles that are on Mark's (Sound) website, also to be published by Coin News, so I'm afarid you will have to wait to read my own theory on it.

However, it's a fascinating subject and I've enjoyed reading all your comments about it.

  • Like 2

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

×