Victorian coin defacement

[1949threepence]

I've often wondered why there are so many coins from that era which have either a hole drilled through them, or a name stamped on them. I think I now know why. 

There is a fascinating article in April's (2016) "Coin News" entitled "Victorian coin defacement". Written by John Robinson, it examines why so many coins did get defaced. People had many novel uses for coins in those days, such that in August 1861, the government decided on a clamp down, as recorded by The Bedfordshire Times:

Quote

"In the new Coinage Act, which will take effect from 1st November, there is a clause making it a misdemeanour to deface a coin by stamping words thereon, under which an offender can be kept at hard labour for one year. Further it is declared that the tender of a coin so defaced is not a legal tender, and a penalty of 40s can be recovered on conviction of any person uttering the same" 

Customers and shopkeepers then cast much sharper eyes on coins, not only looking for already defaced coins, but also for counterfeits and lightweights. A fad emerged in the 1860's, which involved the use of what was called "The Detector", which was used to dtermine whether or not a coin was fake. A case which appeared in The Kentish Mercury in December 1861, illustrates the use of this device:

Quote

 

"At Southwark on Tuesday, Stephen Field, general clothier in Bermondsey Street, was summoned for breaking half a sovereign tendered by Catherine Burton. The complainant said that when she handed over the coin to pay for items she had purchased, the defendant pressed it heavily in a device on the shop counter and broke it into two pieces. He then threw the pieces at her, refused to let her have the goods, and also refused to give her value for her good money.

The defendant admitted that the coin was good gold, but claimed it must have been cracked or broken when she gave it to him. He had merely pressed it on the counter and it had broken. He considered he was not bound to take it after that. The magistrate told him that the Act of Parlliament was imperative on the point and that he had rendered hinself liable to conviction for defacing a coin of the realm. The defendant insisted that he had not defaced the coin. All he had done was press it on the counter. The magistrate told him that by his own action the coin was broken, and that he must either give the woman her money or be convicted.

The defendant then said that he did not wish to act in oposition to his worship, therefore he would return the woman ten shillings and her costs for the half sovereign he had unwittingly broken, and that he would be careful how he handled half sovereigns in future"  

 

It's useful to know why so many coins from this era were defaced, and the above gives an insight into why this happened. Obviously, in spite of the Act, the defacement continued long after. Evidently not too many people were sufficiently bothered about the new law to let it change their habits.                          

[Nutsaboutcoins]

It must take some effort to snap a coin in two.

[Charlie]

1 hour ago, Nutsaboutcoins said:

It must take some effort to snap a coin in two.

You'd think it would just bend, although it does mention the coin being cracked beforehand.  

[scott]

wasn't it like love tokens and advertising around that time.

that's why pears soap is on the french 10 centimes a lot

 

it says may have been cracked or broken..

but its a gold coin.. gold is soft.

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by scott