New pound coin

[Cliff]

On 4/24/2017 at 9:48 PM, Sword said:

One type has the date 2016 on the obverse and micro 2017s on the reverse. 

I have checked some of mine and realised that the micro numbers on the reverse are not always legible even on near mint condition coins.

I've checked six for the reverse dates:  Three are OK, two not very good, one awful.

[copper123]

18 hours ago, scott said:

what was the point in the 2016s if they made 2017s as well, only seen one on ebay..

I think because the pound is such a popular coin they had to make a huge amount for as soon as possable  , they just needed a date so chose 2016 - they will always be very common like 1983 pound coins

[scott]

but they made 2017s as well

[Cliff]

I received two coins this morning. On checking I find two reverse variations (perhaps allied with Obv variations mentioned in this thread previously):

My example A reverse shows the 'inner portion' ring almost passing through the leaf tip and towards the top of the thistle. The coronet headband is close to the ring and the flower stems almost touch the ring.  The ONE POUND LEGEND is distant from the ring.

On the Obv (but not shown) the portrait truncation disappears into the outer ring of the coin, with the top of the coronet is within the inner ring.

 

[Cliff]

My example B show the inner ring passing BELOW the leaf tip and lower down the thistle.  The coronet headband is further away from the ring, as is the bottom of the flower stem.  The ONE POUND LEGEND is much closer to the ring. 

The Obv is not shown but, the top of the coronet intrudes into the outer ring (as mentioned earlier in this thread).  There is now a gap between the bottom of the bust portrait and the outer ring.

These differences may have been discussed before and I missed them and would welcome comments.

Will send example B pics once the system allows me!

 

[Cliff]

Example B:

 

[DaveG38]

On 08/05/2017 at 2:10 PM, Cliff said:

I've checked six for the reverse dates:  Three are OK, two not very good, one awful.

You will also notice that there is an obvious difference in the gap between the lettering and the inner ring. In the upper example the gap between the ring and say the 'E' is small, whereas on the lower example it is much wider. That may be the result of a difference in the size of the letters. It's difficult to tell from the photos as they are not precisely equal in size and orientation. The gap between the letters and the rim appears to the same in both cases. However, the gap between the rim of the crown (which is inverted here) and the inner ring is large on the upper photo and small in the lower.

[Rob]

I think it is a case of one (or both) being off-centre. Need a larger statistically significant sample size to confirm.

The gap from the crown to the letter looks to be the same and the rim on one is not cleanly struck.

[mrbadexample]

On 4/24/2017 at 9:48 PM, Sword said:

One type has the date 2016 on the obverse and micro 2017s on the reverse. 

Is this rumour or has it actually been confirmed?

[Cliff]

Sorry folks, seemingly have inherited multi quotes and I can't get rid of them and don't know how I got them!  Would like to express my thanks to Dave and Rob for their informed responses.

Rob, I think your suggestion that the varieties may be due to off center strikes is probably the answer.  If it is found that the Obv and Rev presentations are proportionally high or low at the same time would that seem to be due to the coin blank moving between the dies, rather than, perish the thought, any form of 'wobble' from the Royal Mint machinery?!?

My knowledge of the striking process is not up to much so please forgive my next question if the answer is obvious:  If it is that, for whatever reason, the Obv portrait and Rev strikes 'move around', would that not also impact on the micro dates (Probably the inscriptions on the Obv as well but I haven't looked at those)?  My earlier examples A and B show the probable vertical movement of the reverse strike BUT, as far as these old eyes can make out, both micro dates, and the horizontal lines fore and aft, seem to be in the centre of the 'inner rim'.  Is the 'blank' not so blank when it's fed in, with the outer rim already having been stamped up?

Thanks for all your time and trouble

Cliff 

 

5 hours ago, Rob said:

I think it is a case of one (or both) being off-centre. Need a larger statistically significant sample size to confirm.

The gap from the crown to the letter looks to be the same and the rim on one is not cleanly struck.

 

On 4/26/2017 at 10:09 PM, DaveG38 said:

• The only one I have seen so far is where the queen's coronet intrudes into the outer ring of the coin. Most appear to have the portrait entirely within the centre disc. A few have the top piece of the crown into the brass ring. Its also noticeable that the truncation of the bust is usually close to the edge of the inner disc, but on the 'intruding coronet' type there is a gap, as if the bust was struck off centre.
• The only other type, of which there are hundreds on ebay, are those where the centre has been pressed out and swapped round, plus there are some where the centre disc has been rotated. All post mint of course. Haven't seen any with 2017 on the reverse and 2016 on the obverse.

On 4/26/2017 at 10:09 PM, DaveG38 said:

The only one I have seen so far is where the queen's coronet intrudes into the outer ring of the coin. Most appear to have the portrait entirely within the centre disc. A few have the top piece of the crown into the brass ring. Its also noticeable that the truncation of the bust is usually close to the edge of the inner disc, but on the 'intruding coronet' type there is a gap, as if the bust was struck off centre.

The only other type, of which there are hundreds on ebay, are those where the centre has been pressed out and swapped round, plus there are some where the centre disc has been rotated. All post mint of course. Haven't seen any with 2017 on the reverse and 2016 on the obverse.

On 4/24/2017 at 9:48 PM, Sword said:

One type has the date 2016 on the obverse and micro 2017s on the reverse. 

I have checked some of mine and realised that the micro numbers on the reverse are not always legible even on near mint condition coins.

I've checked six for the reverse dates:  Three are OK, two not very good, one awful.

[DaveG38]

To add another quick assessment. I've just examined the three pound coins received in change to date. All three show minor differences as follows:

Coin 1 - Obverse. The truncation point touches the inner ring. The gap between the lettering and the ring is wide.
           - Reverse. The leek leaf is roughly bisected by the ring. The word 'POUND' is centred in the outer brass ring.

Coin 2 - Obverse. The truncation point touches the inner ring. The gap between the lettering and the ring is narrow.
           - Reverse. The leek leaf is cut by the ring, but the section in the outer brass area is larger. The word 'POUND' actually touches the inner ring.

Coin 3 - Obverse. The truncation point does not touch the inner ring. The gap between the lettering and the ring is narrow (as per coin 2).
           - Reverse. The leek leaf is roughly bisected by the ring. The word 'POUND' is centred in the outer brass ring (as per coin 1).

In none of my coins, does the ring meet the leek leaf practically at the point of the leaf, as in the first of Cliff's example above.

 

 

[Sword]

On 10/05/2017 at 3:04 PM, mrbadexample said:

Is this rumour or has it actually been confirmed?

This has been confirmed by Check your change (which I think is written by Chris himself)

http://www.checkyourchange.co.uk/1-coins-in-circulation/2016-one-pound/

"I know of about 50 so far and as it’s hard to spot without a magnifying lens, there are probably a lot of others out there."

 

 

[Sword]

On 08/05/2017 at 2:10 PM, Cliff said:

I've checked six for the reverse dates:  Three are OK, two not very good, one awful.

We have all heard about an ebay dealer attributing any coin with an illegible legend as Richard III.

What an opportunity for him! He can pretend that that the first coin is an extremely rare error with year 1066.

[Rob]

I'll go one better. I've got a 1066 undated mule

That Harold was king is undisputed, but given the trials and tribulations of Stamford Bridge and the Battle of Hastings, PAX seems a little wide of the mark and surely not the most appropriate reverse design.

[Cliff]

Sorry to keep banging on about these 'placements'. Further to Dave's "quick assessment" posting and Rob's suggested "off centre" strikings:

Taking it as given that the portraits, emblems and characters are always the same size (as befits the Royal Mint technology) BUT, that there is some obvious movement. Is it then possible that the centre hole is not always exactly central?  This would cause the inner ring (between to brass and inner metal insert) to appear in different positions on the Leek leaf and the truncation point etc).  Having no mechanical knowledge I don't know how easy this variance would be to overcome when feeding in the centre portion?

I submit three examples (not at all scientific pics) of the etched hologram section and truncation point which, to my thinking, demonstrate my point - that the width of the brass section is not equal/central around the coin?

 

[DaveG38]

1 hour ago, Cliff said:

Sorry to keep banging on about these 'placements'. Further to Dave's "quick assessment" posting and Rob's suggested "off centre" strikings:

Taking it as given that the portraits, emblems and characters are always the same size (as befits the Royal Mint technology) BUT, that there is some obvious movement. Is it then possible that the centre hole is not always exactly central?  This would cause the inner ring (between to brass and inner metal insert) to appear in different positions on the Leek leaf and the truncation point etc).  Having no mechanical knowledge I don't know how easy this variance would be to overcome when feeding in the centre portion?

I submit three examples (not at all scientific pics) of the etched hologram section and truncation point which, to my thinking, demonstrate my point - that the width of the brass section is not equal/central around the coin?

 

The two types I refer to in my post above pretty much equate to your top two photos. I've yet to encounter one like your bottom type.

 

[Stuntman]

I think the blank is already a bimetallic blank before the coin is struck.  That was certainly the case when I 'struck' my own £1 coin at the RM Experience in Feb.  Therefore I would be surprised if the centre is actually struck separately from the outer, but the design as a whole could definitely be struck slightly off-centre I would think.

[Sword]

On 11/05/2017 at 0:05 AM, Rob said:

I'll go one better. I've got a 1066 undated mule

That Harold was king is undisputed, but given the trials and tribulations of Stamford Bridge and the Battle of Hastings, PAX seems a little wide of the mark and surely not the most appropriate reverse design.

This might not be so inappropriate ....

Harold and Pax are on opposite sides of the coin. So when you can see Harold, you won't see Pax. 

[Sword]

On 12/05/2017 at 4:36 PM, Cliff said:

Sorry to keep banging on about these 'placements'. Further to Dave's "quick assessment" posting and Rob's suggested "off centre" strikings:

Taking it as given that the portraits, emblems and characters are always the same size (as befits the Royal Mint technology) BUT, that there is some obvious movement. Is it then possible that the centre hole is not always exactly central?  This would cause the inner ring (between to brass and inner metal insert) to appear in different positions on the Leek leaf and the truncation point etc).  Having no mechanical knowledge I don't know how easy this variance would be to overcome when feeding in the centre portion?

I submit three examples (not at all scientific pics) of the etched hologram section and truncation point which, to my thinking, demonstrate my point - that the width of the brass section is not equal/central around the coin?

 

I have saved eight so far from change. 3 are of the first "type", 4 of the second and 1 of the last. 

[AardHawk]

On 5/10/2017 at 10:41 AM, Rob said:

I think it is a case of one (or both) being off-centre. Need a larger statistically significant sample size to confirm.

The gap from the crown to the letter looks to be the same and the rim on one is not cleanly struck.

I agree. It would be very useful if someone could measure to position of the centre relative to the coin rim.

[Cliff]

3 hours ago, AardHawk said:

I agree. It would be very useful if someone could measure to position of the centre relative to the coin rim.

Afraid I don't have the equipment (or eyes) to be able to do this, any takers please?  In the meantime, here's my Heath Robinson approach:

I see coin 1's brass lower width to the inner circle as being 4mm, coin 2 as 4.10mm and coin 3 as 4.25mm (all figures are very 'ish').  Don't know what tolerances were worked to but presume Royal Mint found them acceptable?

 

[AardHawk]

There is no point in showing just the bottom of the coin. Lets have a picture of the whole coin. 

Question. Dont you have a ruler or tape measure in your house? Thats all you need. I think you do, because I can see it to left of all your scans!

 

Edited May 16, 2017 by AardHawk

[Cliff]

On 5/16/2017 at 7:21 PM, AardHawk said:

There is no point in showing just the bottom of the coin. Lets have a picture of the whole coin. 

Question. Dont you have a ruler or tape measure in your house? Thats all you need. I think you do, because I can see it to left of all your scans!

 

Pics as suggested, admittedly not the best pics ever but reckon they will suffice the purpose.  Taking the given width dimension, point to point, is 23.23mm, I've measured 11.61mm from the bottom of the outer rim (using the ruler AardHawk spotted - thanks for the info) and extended the line across the coin.  The graticules on the ruler are spaced at 0.5mm.

To my eye (I'm due to have an operation on Monday to hopefully improve my vision) I can't discern any positional difference in relationship to the portrait and the edges of the coin. However, and this may be due to my poor draftsmanship, or positioning of the coin, I see the line, extended from the 11.61mm mark on the ruler, in line with the top of the E in REG on the opposite side of coin 1. The extended line on coins 2 & 3 cut the end of the tail of the letter R of REG.

Points to ponder: There seems to be a gap(?) between the (top) metal inserts on coin 1, as there does, to a lesser degree, on coin 2.  Coin 3 seems to have a snug all round fit.

Sorry I can't provide overlays or further illustrate my points.  My Hypothesis remains that the brass outer portion appears to be of varying width, the center portion 'fitted' accordingly and the 'stamping' centralized.  Very willing to take on board anything those of you in possession of a tape measure may wish to submit.    

[bhx7]

Not sure if this has been noted. At the bottom of the coin around the edge. Below the hologram section the reeding is standardly to the right and with smooth to the left. I have checked about 70 coins up to now and have only found 1 that has reeding to the left. I know with the previous decimal coinage edge variation has been unimportant, but if this is the standard ratio then I would assume this would make a difference. Just an observation.

Edited May 26, 2017 by bhx7

[1949threepence]

Just as a lightweight aside, I actually got my first pound coin dated 2017, yesterday. 

Edited May 27, 2017 by 1949threepence