The Coinery Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) The only information I have on this coin is as follows: "Kings Norton Metal Company Trial piece. Obverse: Bust right within raised inner circle and outer border of linked circles, no legend. Reverse: KINGS NORTON METAL CO L.D around an border of linked circles, this encircling 10 small circles and a further border of linked circles, the cypher KNM within. Weight 10.19 grammes" It is a lovely quirky coin which I bought last year. It is slabbed by CGS at grade 65 which is GEF grade to non Coin Coffin Collectors. The Obverse is worn and could possibly be a weak strike as it certainly won't be a worn die. It is the only one known to CGS and I would appreciate any information upon it for my records Edited January 31, 2017 by The Coinery The photo of the reverse was too small so I replaced it 2 Quote
Rob Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Not a clue, though would be interested if for sale. Saves getting a 1918 or 1919 which is a design I already have. Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 There's also this one which sold back in 2013; http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=142&searchlot=2730&searchtype=2 1 Quote
Rob Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Yes, but that one doesn't say where it was made. First is better. Quote
The Coinery Posted January 31, 2017 Author Posted January 31, 2017 10 minutes ago, Rob said: Not a clue, though would be interested if for sale. Saves getting a 1918 or 1919 which is a design I already have. Hi Rob With me being a novice I don't understand the connection between my 1902 penny and the 1918/19 ones. Sorry to ask what is such a "Rookie" question but I would appreciate an in-depth reply Regards Guy Quote
The Coinery Posted January 31, 2017 Author Posted January 31, 2017 Nordle has caused me a problem now - Just when I thought i was getting to near complete my Edward VII penny collection he shows me another addition Muchas Gracias Amigo :-) Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, The Coinery said: Nordle has caused me a problem now - Just when I thought i was getting to near complete my Edward VII penny collection he shows me another addition Muchas Gracias Amigo :-) De nada y lo siento. Also, the blurb in the LCA bit mentions the following; "...possibly the only known example, we note similar in style to the lots 383 and 384 in the J.Tansley Collection DNW 28/9/2005 (realised £460 and £800 hammer price respectively), these two pieces on flans of 10.12 grammes and 10.25 grammes" Which eludes to 2 more examples of the one you were looking for. Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 First link - https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=116798 Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Second link - https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?department=Coins&lot_id=116799 Quote
Rob Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, The Coinery said: Hi Rob With me being a novice I don't understand the connection between my 1902 penny and the 1918/19 ones. Sorry to ask what is such a "Rookie" question but I would appreciate an in-depth reply Regards Guy Simple. I just want an example struck at King's Norton. The current gap is either a 1918KN or 1919KN, but I already have the design with a Heaton, albeit with Freeman dies 1+A instead of 2+B, so I suppose a regular penny of the mint would pass the non-duplication criteria, but it is difficult to get excited about the (minute) differences. Quote
The Coinery Posted January 31, 2017 Author Posted January 31, 2017 That look very much like the same coin as mine but with far more detail. Are you doing this to upset me ? Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Coinery said: That look very much like the same coin as mine but with far more detail. Are you doing this to upset me ? Ah sorry Guy I thought you were looking for one I obviously mis-read your comment. However, there seems to be more information in those lots about the coin in question so you might get something extra for your records.. The first example also seems to be missing the border rings on the obverse, maybe a weak strike but I can't spot a hint of them. Perhaps a different trial design? Quote
The Coinery Posted January 31, 2017 Author Posted January 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Rob said: Simple. I just want an example struck at King's Norton. The current gap is either a 1918KN or 1919KN, but I already have the design with a Heaton, albeit with Freeman dies 1+A instead of 2+B, so I suppose a regular penny of the mint would pass the non-duplication criteria, but it is difficult to get excited about the (minute) differences. I understand now. You are referring to coins minted by the Kings Norton mint. I told you it was a rookie mistake. Thank you for taking the time to explain - Appreciated ! Quote
The Coinery Posted January 31, 2017 Author Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Nordle11 said: Ah sorry Guy I thought you were looking for one I obviously mis-read your comment. However, there seems to be more information in those lots about the coin in question so you might get something extra for your records.. The first example also seems to be missing the border rings on the obverse, maybe a weak strike but I can't spot a hint of them. Perhaps a different trial design? The coin in the photo is mine in my collection. I have searched for info and come up empty handed. I did enjoy you motto: There are 2 types of people in this world, those with the ability to extrapolate information from missing data - This obviously applies to me :-) Quote
The Coinery Posted January 31, 2017 Author Posted January 31, 2017 29 minutes ago, Rob said: Not a clue, though would be interested if for sale. Saves getting a 1918 or 1919 which is a design I already have. Do you have any Pennies or other denomination Edward VII to swap or sell in a deal for this ? Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, The Coinery said: The coin in the photo is mine in my collection. I have searched for info and come up empty handed. I did enjoy you motto: There are 2 types of people in this world, those with the ability to extrapolate information from missing data - This obviously applies to me :-) Thanks So are you looking for provenance or information on the trial piece itself? Quote
Rob Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, The Coinery said: Do you have any Pennies or other denomination Edward VII to swap or sell in a deal for this ? No. I have an Edward VII penny which is good enough for the design. G5 will be an example of each obverse and reverse plus a Lavrillier, Victoria an early and late bust plus a Minton. I might stretch to a beaded and a toothed border. G6 with and without IND IMP, E2 with a 1953 and a later one without BRITT OMN. That's it for bronze pennies unless an Ed8 appeared, but I'm not holding my breath. I might have a spare Cnut. Edited January 31, 2017 by Rob Quote
The Coinery Posted January 31, 2017 Author Posted January 31, 2017 Provenance I have some from the collector I bought it from. To get provenance before this without paperwork would be near impossible. I would appreciate any information on this coin as I strive to learn as much as I can about my coins as when I retire I have intentions of a book. All contributors will get a mention - your pseudonym could be "Señor español dinero" I am going to PM you some thing to look at . . . . Quote
copper123 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 Obverse looks badly struck on purpose , or the die is deliberately weak - I havent a clue why. Neither coin has suffered wear Quote
Nordle11 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 15 minutes ago, The Coinery said: Provenance I have some from the collector I bought it from. To get provenance before this without paperwork would be near impossible. I would appreciate any information on this coin as I strive to learn as much as I can about my coins as when I retire I have intentions of a book. All contributors will get a mention - your pseudonym could be "Señor español dinero" I am going to PM you some thing to look at . . . . In which case I think it was from when KN were trying to secure rights to supply blanks for the London Mint, and having the equipment themselves to actually strike coins they wanted to create examples of what they could produce as well. I suspect that's what lead to them being brought in in 1918 & 1919, although as has been noted the obverse is very weakly struck which might explain why they were attempting to produce examples during Eddy's reign and didn't actually create any pennies until a decade later. Attempts at expansion I would guess. Quote
Rob Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 It could of course be a trial with a colonial issue in mind given there hadn't been a KN British currency piece before, and even Heatons hadn't done any production runs for the RM since the RM refurbishment of 1882. Both H & KN were regularly striking colonial issues. In that case it wouldn't tick a box for me. Quote
The Coinery Posted January 31, 2017 Author Posted January 31, 2017 Lets hope I have the ability to extrapolate information from missing data then 1 Quote
The Coinery Posted January 31, 2017 Author Posted January 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, copper123 said: Obverse looks badly struck on purpose , or the die is deliberately weak - I havent a clue why. Neither coin has suffered wear Never thought of that. Possibly it was a mock up to show the Head Coinier at KN as making dies then was a labour intensive operation. Good observation ! Quote
copper123 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 could have been because they wanted a good strike on the reverse - it was well known that the problems with striking pennies started in edwards reign because of the large amounts of metal the design of the obverse used. Do realise as these were trial pieces they could have been produced well after 1902 , in otherwords the date don't mean anything Quote
copper123 Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 54 minutes ago, copper123 said: could have been because they wanted a good strike on the reverse - it was well known that the problems with striking pennies started in edwards reign because of the large amounts of metal the design of the obverse used. Do realise as these were trial pieces they could have been produced well after 1902 , in otherwords the date don't mean anything they could have borrowed an obverse die from the royal mint birmingham to london was not a long way Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.