How many 1935 pennies were artificially darkened with hypo?

[1949threepence]

Just wondering - I know all 1934 pennies were, but I'm a little uncertain about what ballpark percentage might have been so treated in 1935.

At page 17 of Freeman's "The Bronze coinage of Great Britain", he states "The dark finish given to pennies from 1944-46 before issue, was achieved, in a similar way, by the use of hypo, as was that on pennies of 1934, and some of 1935. Whereas at page 75, point No 30, he states "All pennies of 1934 and most of 1935, were artificially toned. 

It's clear that my 1934 penny has been artificially toned, but I don't think this 1935 one has. Could I seek opinions? Thanks.

 

       

[PWA 1967]

I will have a guess Mike..........36,743 😊

Joking aside that is an error in the book ,your own coin which has just naturall toning IMO is the same as most.There are exceptions to the rule some years that have MT when shouldnt have ,i had a 1932 that was MT.There are some years that should be MT 1944,45 & 46 that you find have missed the MT and occasionally 1934 ,sometimes partly as well as the full coin.

The 1935 though are MOSTLY normal .

I believe the HYPO was a liquid wash that the coins went through after striking ?.

Why some years have it that shouldnt though i have not got a clue 😊

Infact it would make more sense that the BLANK was washed BEFORE striking and some of those were mixed in with others 😮

 

Pete.

Edited November 29, 2018 by PWA 1967

[PWA 1967]

Thinking about it the HYPO i feel it must of been  put on the blank before it was struck ,the 1946 pennies were all lustered and fully struck from a mint roll.

They were almost black but with a sheen that would of come from the strike IMO.

Edited November 29, 2018 by PWA 1967

[1949threepence]

3 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

I will have a guess Mike..........36,743 😊

Joking aside that is an error in the book ,your own coin which has just naturall toning IMO is the same as most.There are exceptions to the rule some years that have MT when shouldnt have ,i had a 1932 that was MT.There are some years that should be MT 1944,45 & 46 that you find have missed the MT and occasionally 1934 ,sometimes partly as well as the full coin.

The 1935 though are MOSTLY normal .

I believe the HYPO was a liquid wash that the coins went through after striking ?.

Why some years have it that shouldnt though i have not got a clue 😊

Infact it would make more sense that the BLANK was washed BEFORE striking and some of those were mixed in with others 😮

 

Pete.

Thanks Pete - was curious as there isn't a massive amount of information available on the matter. Whilst the 1944 - 46 are well documented for MT, there seems to be only Freeman's word for 1934 and 1935. 1934 I can definitely believe as the UNC ones I've seen don't look as though they are brightly lustred.   

[Peckris 2]

5 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Thanks Pete - was curious as there isn't a massive amount of information available on the matter. Whilst the 1944 - 46 are well documented for MT, there seems to be only Freeman's word for 1934 and 1935. 1934 I can definitely believe as the UNC ones I've seen don't look as though they are brightly lustred.   

Yes, I think that's a Freeman slip-up. Most of the 1935s I've ever seen are lustred, in fact I can barely recall seeing a hypo example.

[PWA 1967]

Daves book also states............The majority of examples for 1935 were darkened at the mint and in a few cases examples are found with a brilliant finish.

Again...I dont agree and think that also is an error .

[Peckris 2]

4 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Daves book also states............The majority of examples for 1935 were darkened at the mint and in a few cases examples are found with a brilliant finish.

Again...I dont agree and think that also is an error .

Yes, he may have taken that from Freeman?

[1949threepence]

37 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yes, I think that's a Freeman slip-up. Most of the 1935s I've ever seen are lustred, in fact I can barely recall seeing a hypo example.

So essentially the message is that in reality, whilst there maybe a few mint darkened 1935 specimens, they are very few and far between. But at the same time Freeman was correct in saying that all 1934 pennies were mint darkened. 

32 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Daves book also states............The majority of examples for 1935 were darkened at the mint and in a few cases examples are found with a brilliant finish.

Again...I dont agree and think that also is an error .

Dave Groom?

Any rate, thanks Gents. That's cleared up a bit of a mystery.

[secret santa]

10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yes, he may have taken that from Freeman?

And Freeman may have taken his comments from Peck who rates 1935 pennies "artificially toned as issued" as Extremely Common and 1935 "untoned" as Very Rare.

[1949threepence]

3 hours ago, secret santa said:

And Freeman may have taken his comments from Peck who rates 1935 pennies "artificially toned as issued" as Extremely Common and 1935 "untoned" as Very Rare.

Surprising enough that Peck would have made such an error in the first place, let alone that someone as diligent and detail observant as Freeman, would have compounded that initial mistake. Especially given his interest in bronze coinage at that point.  

 

 

 

[1949threepence]

Just as a footnote, I have searched in all the usual places - collections, advanced search for 1935 pennies on e bay, LCA etc, and cannot see one instance where the specimen might confidently be described as mint darkened, or toned.

Therefore, if anybody does see one in the future, or indeed, possesses one, I'd be most interested to see it. Thanks.  

[PWA 1967]

13 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Just as a footnote, I have searched in all the usual places - collections, advanced search for 1935 pennies on e bay, LCA etc, and cannot see one instance where the specimen might confidently be described as mint darkened, or toned.

Therefore, if anybody does see one in the future, or indeed, possesses one, I'd be most interested to see it. Thanks.  

Without stating the obvious Mike it will be the same as a 1934 with a different date and sorry i have never had one,coins round 44,45,46 such as 1947 will be much darker.

I can send you pictures of a 1932 (i cant download them ) but any 1934 colour is what your looking for.

I think after yesterday they are just a few of the same blanks that got mixed in by error.

If you want the pictures of 1932 just PM me.

Pete.

Edited November 30, 2018 by PWA 1967

[1949threepence]

1 minute ago, PWA 1967 said:

Without stating the obvious Mike it will be the same as a 1934 with a different date and sorry i have never had one,coins round 44,45,46 such as 1947 will be much darker.

I can send you pictures of a 1932 (i cant download them ) but any 1934 is what your looking for.

I think after yesterday they are just a few of the same blanks that got mixed in by error.

If you want the pictures of 1932 just PM me.

Pete.

Yes I know. That's precisely the distinction I was looking for Pete. Couldn't see it, and makes me wonder if they actually exist at all, even as an extremely rare item.

I've already got a 1932, thanks. 

 

 

[PWA 1967]

Just now, 1949threepence said:

Yes I know. That's precisely the distinction I was looking for Pete. Couldn't see it, and makes me wonder if they actually exist at all, even as an extremely rare item.

I've already got a 1932, thanks. 

 

 

A 1932 MINT TONED ?

[1949threepence]

3 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

A 1932 MINT TONED ?

No, but you never said it was mint toned, nor did I know that such an issue existed. 

Yes, if mint toned, I'd be very interested to see the 1932. If you send to me, I will upload onto here.

[PWA 1967]

17 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

No, but you never said it was mint toned, nor did I know that such an issue existed. 

Yes, if mint toned, I'd be very interested to see the 1932. If you send to me, I will upload onto here.

Not a problem and sent you the pictures ,i did mention in an earlier post i used to have it.The coin was in a cgs slab (lighter pictures) and i broke it out and sold it Dave Craddock.

A forum member has it now 😃

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by PWA 1967

[1949threepence]

8 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Not a problem and sent you the pictures ,i did mention in an earlier post i used to have it.The coin was in a cgs slab (lighter pictures) and i broke it out and sold it Dave Craddock.

A forum member has it now 😃

 

Right, here it is then:-

 

[1949threepence]

...and here is a pic of a MT 1934 for comparison:-

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by 1949threepence

[IanB]

Do you think these are MT or not?

[PWA 1967]

If thats the colour Ian as looks a bit odd , i would say the reverse definately MT and the obverse maybe gold 😂or partly MT.

The 1934 come in all different shades from black to a very light brown.They will lose the hypo when in circulation or even just being against something else over nearly ninety years.

The obv i am 50/50 although it looks a good one as very few on the OBV have much detail to the hair.

Edited November 30, 2018 by PWA 1967

[Peckris 2]

8 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

...and here is a pic of a MT 1934 for comparison:-

 

That's quite a pale example Mike - I believe mine may be more typical? More like the MT 1940s pennies, in other words.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Peckris 2

[IanB]

1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said:

If thats the colour Ian as looks a bit odd , i would say the reverse definately MT and the obverse maybe gold 😂or partly MT.

The 1934 come in all different shades from black to a very light brown.They will lose the hypo when in circulation or even just being against something else over nearly ninety years.

The obv i am 50/50 although it looks a good one as very few on the OBV have much detail to the hair.

Yes, you are right Pete, a bit odd but it's the best I can photograph at the moment, but it's probably not gold 🤣Will try and get a better photo.

You are right again about the different shades. I have some lovely examples of deep dark toning through to lighter shades. But with this one it hard to tell if it's MT or just natural aged toning.

[1949threepence]

9 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

That's quite a pale example Mike - I believe mine may be more typical? More like the MT 1940s pennies, in other words.

Yes, I would agree Chris, with mine being similar to Ian's example. But I don't think there is any dispute about all 1934's actually being subject to the mint toning process. Just some coins reflect it more markedly than others. 

[1949threepence]

On 11/30/2018 at 2:25 PM, PWA 1967 said:

A 1932 MINT TONED ?

I'm left completely stumped by Pete's 1932 mint toned, as there is no record of mint toning for that year. So why would they randomly pick one, and mint tone it? Not heard of any others - maybe someone else has.

I'm also stumped by, although nonetheless very interested in, the unusual 1922 penny which sold at part 2 of the 2010 Workman sale. Described as shown below, it corresponds to a year in which other odd things happened, such as the 1927 reverse - although only the proof has the true 1927 reverse. 

 

BMC --. As F 192. Dies 3+B. As Gouby A. Appears to be struck in Iron or some other ferrous metal, attracted strongly with magnet. Good Fine, excessively rare, possibly unique.Number of BIDS: 26 SOLD FOR: £400

£50-55

Picture below. You just wonder how such a random event could have occurred. If there had been a number of such coins detected, it might be more understandable - due to, say, a sheet of incorrectly identified metal being inadvertently introduced into the blank cutting process. But just one on its own seems very odd.  

I'd be very interested to hear views on these two events, if anyone has any. Thanks. 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by 1949threepence

[PWA 1967]

I think they are just errors with the wrong blanks ,if they were intended i think they would of atleast kept one and recorded it.I have a 1928 with the reverse inverted and as some show die rotation i dont see any reason why they didnt release just the one die and then not tighten it properley ?

Just like the jersey penny could of been struck in error with one die not changed.

I am only guessing Mike and not any reason as to why its not something else but feel the ones mentioned are just errors.

Edited December 5, 2018 by PWA 1967