Mintage numbers

[jasonsewell]

Morning chaps,

Does anyone have any good book references on mintage numbers for Early Milled. Looking for numbers if applicable on a number of early milled farthings, George II 1746 proofs and the 1771 George III proof Farthing / Halfpenny. 

 

Many thanks 

[Rob]

Here are the Coinage figures, taken from “A New History of the Royal Mint” edited by C.E.Challis.

1992. page 368 Table 46, - The Coinage of Halfpence and Farthings, 1672 – 1676 [March 1679].

Source PRO. E351/2122,2123,2124; CSP Domestic 1676-7; CTB, 1676-9, 1266-7.

			£	s	d	total d
10/08/1672	25/01/1673		10,928	14	11.75	2,622,900
10/02/1673	12/04/1673		1,654	8	7.75	397,064
13/04/1673	19/04/1673		47	7	2.5	11,367
20/04/1673	20/07/1674		10,821	2	5.25	2,597,069
21/07/1674	22/02/1676		16,801	3	7.75	4,032,284
March 1679			1,409			338,160
Totals						9,998,843

 This was part of a conversation I had with a former member (Teg) when we were discussing mintages of Charles II coppers. I also made a list of clearly identifiable coins taken from catalogues at the time to analyse the date distribution.

I don't have a copy of the book, though others do. There might be further mintage figures listed. Using these figures inconjunction with other musings such as the info that there were 5 presses and by extension 1 striking halfpennies and 4 farthing, it was possible to produce a reasonable guesstimate of mintages.

[jasonsewell]

Many thanks Rob, Exactly what I was after. Will make sure to have a look for the book.

[declanwmagee]

That book has been on my "buy at any cost" list for years!

[jasonsewell]

Sounds like I'll have to look at this list of yours! I'll have a browse for the book this evening.

[copper123]

I never knew the 1679 farthing had such a low mintage

[Rob]

20 minutes ago, copper123 said:

I never knew the 1679 farthing had such a low mintage

It is still over 1.35m, so not particularly rare.

[scott]

where are the actual figures per coin there though.

[Rob]

Just now, scott said:

where are the actual figures per coin there though.

That's what you have to try and work out. That's why I said it was possible to make a reasonable guesstimate.

The dates are listed as new style because Feb 1673 would otherwise be later than April 1673, but the coins would be dated OS, so the first line and most of the second would be dated 1672. Striking stops in Feb 1675/6, so no 1676 coins. It also means that 1673 is rarer than the books suggest and 1675 commoner, thus making the case for the majority of 1675 halfpennies to be 5/3 based on the rarity of unambiguous straight 5s.

In terms of the numbers quoted per line, the first line seems to have an unrealistically high strike rate for 5 presses, working out at 3104 pence/press/day continuously over the 169 day period given. There would be the inevitable down time to change dies and they might have been given Christmas Day off, but I think it is do-able. Based on farthings only with no down time it would be 8.6 coins/min over the whole period, or 10 coins per minute giving an allowance of 1 day in 7 down time. With output of 1 halfpenny to every 4 farthings, you can reduce the number of coins struck by appoximately 10% to make up the value in pence. One struck every 6 or 7 seconds on a fly press is achievable in my view, but the buggers would have been sweating.

[Michael-Roo]

 

It is comforting to know I'm not the only one who finds this table unclear. To me it reads 338,160  farthings struck dated 1679, and I had always understood it was the least common of the '72-'79 series.

[Rob]

24 minutes ago, Michael-Roo said:

 

It is comforting to know I'm not the only one who finds this table unclear. To me it reads 338,160  farthings struck dated 1679, and I had always understood it was the least common of the '72-'79 series.

The figure on the right is the number of pence equivalent to the value struck (which is the table written in bold). It makes things easier when trying to manipulate the numbers. As only farthings were struck in 1679, it follows that £1409 is equal to 1,352,640 farthings.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Rob

[Peter]

1679 is rare ...I've only got 3....all different and no I won't picture them.

[scott]

I'm more interested in the Halfpennies, as those seem to be rare

[Rob]

There was a perennial shortage of small change down the years. I'm sure that most were melted. Bear in mind that it was considered a majority of the coppers in circulation a century later were counterfeit and most counterfeits are lightweight. The copper had to come from somewhere. Copper supplies were similarly compromised during the Napoleonic War, so again there was an incentive to melt.

Given the state of early 20th century bronze, particularly the halfpennies, it is likely that the coppers were similarly worn in view of the fact that the mint effectively stopped producing for lengthy periods, so the existing coins had to keep on working.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Rob

[Peter]

22 minutes ago, scott said:

I'm more interested in the Halfpennies, as those seem to be rare

These were mainly butchered until Croker got involved in 1717

[Michael-Roo]

51 minutes ago, Peter said:

1679 is rare ...I've only got 3....all different and no I won't picture them.

 

And I have two. One fine or a little better, one about very fine.