Help wanted with 1969 Ten pences

[DaveG38]

Yes, I know the boring old early 10 pence series! I have a basic question that I would be grateful for help with from any members who happen to have decimal in their collections. It goes like this:

According to Davies, the 1969 ten pence has a single type with the 3+B die pairing. Obverse 3 has, according to Davies small incuse lines above the eye, forming an eyebrow. My own specimen doe not have this feature, nor does it have the incuse lines to the hair behind the ear. I've had a look at the best specimen I can find on the net for comparison and that too seems to be like mine. This would imply that Davies is wrong. The alternative is that I have an, as yet, unrecorded type, which given the work done on this in the 1970s, seems unlikely. So could you check your own specimens and let me know what types you have, so that I can settle this properly?

Thanks.

DaveG38

[Guest reluctant_numismatist]

Sorry, all that went way over my head I'm afraid, but here's my one:

(And just who is this Davies chap that everything is "according to" anyway?)

Edited January 26, 2010 by reluctant_numismatist

[DaveG38]

Sorry, all that went way over my head I'm afraid, but here's my one:

(And just who is this Davies chap that everything is "according to" anyway?)

Thank you for this. Yours is the same as mine and as such has no little lines above the queen's eye. This means that it can't be Davies 3+B type because obverse 3 according to Davies does have the incuse lines. Since ours are of the only known type for 1969, then clearly Davies' book is wrong. My guess is that in the production, obverse 2 and 3 got flipped somehow, which would explain the error.

Davies is the author of a book entitled 'English Silver Coinage since 1816' and is something of a bible for silver collectors since it does contain a large amount of info concerning varieties. However, he's not the only cataloguer of silver, but he is an important one.

[Peckris]

I know that I have some 10p's with the incuse line above the eye, but whether 1969 or not, I have no idea as it would mean going through a whole stack of early 10p's which I simply haven't sorted by different obverses and reverses. Sigh. I suspect it's a job for another day. Though I have lot more time for those big 10p's than I do for those seriously yawn-making small ones, 1992's included.

[Guest reluctant_numismatist]

Though I have lot more time for those big 10p's than I do for those seriously yawn-making small ones, 1992's included.

Absolutely agree with that sentiment (also applies to the small 5p), but what's special about the 1992 mini-10p?

[Peckris]

[Absolutely agree with that sentiment (also applies to the small 5p), but what's special about the 1992 mini-10p?

Supposedly there are some scarce varieties of the thing - but really, compared to some of the early large 10p's, they just aren't, not really. (But to be fair, I'm also simply not interested in them - I think they are ugly little things compared to the large ones!)

[Guest reluctant_numismatist]

(But to be fair, I'm also simply not interested in them - I think they are ugly little things compared to the large ones!)

Yes, quite, I'm looking at a large bag of 5p and 10p and wondering if I can even be bovvered sorting through them, or just simply return them to general circulation - could be interesting at the counter in local petrol station next time I fill up; 5, 10, 15, 20....

Actually that reminds me of something else; can the old large 5, 10 and 50p coins still be exchanged at the bank for "real" money, or are they effectively demonitised now? I'd prefer to know that before lugging kilos of the battered things all the way to the bank...

[Peckris]

Yes, quite, I'm looking at a large bag of 5p and 10p and wondering if I can even be bovvered sorting through them, or just simply return them to general circulation - could be interesting at the counter in local petrol station next time I fill up; 5, 10, 15, 20....

Actually that reminds me of something else; can the old large 5, 10 and 50p coins still be exchanged at the bank for "real" money, or are they effectively demonitised now? I'd prefer to know that before lugging kilos of the battered things all the way to the bank...

My understanding is that banks will change them.

[AardHawk]

I believe that the 1968 Obverse 2 and 3 usage is repeated for 1969. See the picture for examples. The incuse lines are difficult to see in the picture but are easily visible when the coin is slightly tilted. The Queens dress, hair and diadem have also been touched up. Both obverses have 151 border beads and the pointings are identical.

[DaveG38]

I believe that the 1968 Obverse 2 and 3 usage is repeated for 1969. See the picture for examples. The incuse lines are difficult to see in the picture but are easily visible when the coin is slightly tilted. The Queens dress, hair and diadem have also been touched up. Both obverses have 151 border beads and the pointings are identical.

Aadhawk,

Thank you for this. I think this now explains my confusion very nicely.

Davies, in his book, only describes a single obverse type (obverse 3) for the 1969 10p yet my own example is clearly obverse 2 i.e. it has no incuse lines in the eyebrow or hair. I assumed, therefore, that Davies' explanatory notes must be the wrong way round. However, now that you confirm that there are two types of 1969 10p, it becomes clear that Davies' was describing the obverse 3 version in his book and, therefore, his descriptions are correct as far as they go. Equally clearly, he must not have been aware of the obverse 2 type, or he would presumably have included it in his catalogue system.

Once again, thanks for helping clear this up.

[Peckris]

I believe that the 1968 Obverse 2 and 3 usage is repeated for 1969. See the picture for examples. The incuse lines are difficult to see in the picture but are easily visible when the coin is slightly tilted. The Queens dress, hair and diadem have also been touched up. Both obverses have 151 border beads and the pointings are identical.

Aadhawk,

Thank you for this. I think this now explains my confusion very nicely.

Davies, in his book, only describes a single obverse type (obverse 3) for the 1969 10p yet my own example is clearly obverse 2 i.e. it has no incuse lines in the eyebrow or hair. I assumed, therefore, that Davies' explanatory notes must be the wrong way round. However, now that you confirm that there are two types of 1969 10p, it becomes clear that Davies' was describing the obverse 3 version in his book and, therefore, his descriptions are correct as far as they go. Equally clearly, he must not have been aware of the obverse 2 type, or he would presumably have included it in his catalogue system.

Once again, thanks for helping clear this up.

One other thing I'm interested in (really geeky this, probably no-one else will be!) is the difference in finish that was used - I think starting from 1969? All 1968 cupro-nickel - if I remember correct - has what you would call a 'silk' or 'semi matte' finish, which to my mind was gorgeous. Many 1969 coins, including possibly ALL the 50 pences?, have this too but some 1969s brought in an uglier mirrored finish. The mirrored look gradually took over until by the early 80s all cupro-nickel had it. Certainly by the mid-70s all 10p's were mirrored, but I'm sure I remember seeing 5p's dated 1978 - 1980 that may have still had a silkier finish?

I've never been quite sure what the Mint's thinking was on this.

[Guest reluctant_numismatist]

Ermm, having just done a quick "spot the difference" between the two coins I can't actually detect any differences between the two! (goes of to change name to failed_numismatist)

What is an "incuse" when it's at home and what am I supposed to be seeing different between the two coins?

[DaveG38]

I believe that the 1968 Obverse 2 and 3 usage is repeated for 1969. See the picture for examples. The incuse lines are difficult to see in the picture but are easily visible when the coin is slightly tilted. The Queens dress, hair and diadem have also been touched up. Both obverses have 151 border beads and the pointings are identical.

Aadhawk,

Thank you for this. I think this now explains my confusion very nicely.

Davies, in his book, only describes a single obverse type (obverse 3) for the 1969 10p yet my own example is clearly obverse 2 i.e. it has no incuse lines in the eyebrow or hair. I assumed, therefore, that Davies' explanatory notes must be the wrong way round. However, now that you confirm that there are two types of 1969 10p, it becomes clear that Davies' was describing the obverse 3 version in his book and, therefore, his descriptions are correct as far as they go. Equally clearly, he must not have been aware of the obverse 2 type, or he would presumably have included it in his catalogue system.

Once again, thanks for helping clear this up.

One other thing I'm interested in (really geeky this, probably no-one else will be!) is the difference in finish that was used - I think starting from 1969? All 1968 cupro-nickel - if I remember correct - has what you would call a 'silk' or 'semi matte' finish, which to my mind was gorgeous. Many 1969 coins, including possibly ALL the 50 pences?, have this too but some 1969s brought in an uglier mirrored finish. The mirrored look gradually took over until by the early 80s all cupro-nickel had it. Certainly by the mid-70s all 10p's were mirrored, but I'm sure I remember seeing 5p's dated 1978 - 1980 that may have still had a silkier finish?

I've never been quite sure what the Mint's thinking was on this.

Peckris,

I'm not exactly sure about the dates of changeover, but for reasons best known to the Mint, those 10ps minted at Llantrisant have a shiny finish whilst those minted at the London Mint have a matt finish. Another issue is the changes made to the dies in 1972 when they were produced in a single punched operation, whereas previously the process was two staged. This led to some changes to the quality of the strike as well as the 'ledges' that were found on coins of that time. The mint also chrome plated the dies in the early 70s, which again changed the quality of the finish.

So, all in all, the mint were mucking about quite a bit around that time. Not sure exactly what changes led to which finish and when, but hope this helps a little.

[Peckris]

Peckris,

I'm not exactly sure about the dates of changeover, but for reasons best known to the Mint, those 10ps minted at Llantrisant have a shiny finish whilst those minted at the London Mint have a matt finish. Another issue is the changes made to the dies in 1972 when they were produced in a single punched operation, whereas previously the process was two staged. This led to some changes to the quality of the strike as well as the 'ledges' that were found on coins of that time. The mint also chrome plated the dies in the early 70s, which again changed the quality of the finish.

So, all in all, the mint were mucking about quite a bit around that time. Not sure exactly what changes led to which finish and when, but hope this helps a little.

Yes Dave - thanks for that. I'd not realised that the difference was between London and Llantrisant. It means much more work must have been done at London, and for longer, than I'd thought?

[DaveG38]

Ermm, having just done a quick "spot the difference" between the two coins I can't actually detect any differences between the two! (goes of to change name to failed_numismatist)

What is an "incuse" when it's at home and what am I supposed to be seeing different between the two coins?

Hi Reluctant,

This is where the anoraks come out to play!! If you look extremely carefully at the RH coin you can just see very faint lines above the queen's eyelids, which are not present on the LH example. As Aardhawk says, tilting the coin against the light would probably show these better.Also, if you look at the hair immediately behind and above the eye on the RH coin, you can see that it has at least one quite long additional line cut into it, which isn't there on the left - there are also several others in the hair, but you get the idea. Also noticeable is the fact that the jewels to the diadem on the LH coin are slightly larger than on the right.

All this makes for a variety and, believe it or not, turns some of us on!!

DaveG38

PS: Incuse simple means cut into the coin rather than raised.

[AardHawk]

I believe that they started using chrome finished dies to increase their life. US mints had been using this innovation for some years years before this. I agree the finish they give is not very nice. Very similar to the glossy proofs of the era.

DaveG, check out Wiles and MacKenzies article in the April 1976 issue of Coin Monthly. They say there are actually three obverses and all are different from the 1968 issues!

I am going back through David Sealy's Coin Varieties articles in Coins & Medals. I think he reports on a few other varieties. One of them being a 1968 150 bead obverse.

Edited January 29, 2010 by AardHawk

[DaveG38]

I believe that they started using chrome finished dies to increase their life. US mints had been using this innovation for some years years before this. I agree the finish they give is not very nice. Very similar to the glossy proofs of the era.

DaveG, check out Wiles and MacKenzies article in the April 1976 issue of Coin Monthly. They say there are actually three obverses and all are different from the 1968 issues!

I am going back through David Sealy's Coin Varieties articles in Coins & Medals. I think he reports on a few other varieties. One of them being a 1968 150 bead obverse.

Aardhawk,

A bit of a cheek, I know, but any chance that you could scan the articles and email them to me? I'm trying to definitively work out the series of 10ps through the 60s and 70s and am finding it a nightmare given that there is Davies, Wiles and Mackenzie and Ron Stafford's attempts, all of which are different, and sometimes changed as new discoveries were made!! Sealy's view would be another layer of information, but might help clarify what I have done already.

Alternatively, can you identify which issues of Coin and Medals have these articles in them, as this could allow me either to find them on the web for sale, or I could approach the publisher to see if they have them in an archive and if so whether I can consult them?

[Peckris]

I believe that they started using chrome finished dies to increase their life. US mints had been using this innovation for some years years before this. I agree the finish they give is not very nice. Very similar to the glossy proofs of the era.

DaveG, check out Wiles and MacKenzies article in the April 1976 issue of Coin Monthly. They say there are actually three obverses and all are different from the 1968 issues!

I am going back through David Sealy's Coin Varieties articles in Coins & Medals. I think he reports on a few other varieties. One of them being a 1968 150 bead obverse.

Aardhawk,

A bit of a cheek, I know, but any chance that you could scan the articles and email them to me? I'm trying to definitively work out the series of 10ps through the 60s and 70s and am finding it a nightmare given that there is Davies, Wiles and Mackenzie and Ron Stafford's attempts, all of which are different, and sometimes changed as new discoveries were made!! Sealy's view would be another layer of information, but might help clarify what I have done already.

Alternatively, can you identify which issues of Coin and Medals have these articles in them, as this could allow me either to find them on the web for sale, or I could approach the publisher to see if they have them in an archive and if so whether I can consult them?

Somewhere, I have a Ron Stafford survey from circa 1980, where he reviews the numbers of each obverse and reverse, by date, found in a fairly large sample. Unfortunately, as far as I remember, it doesn't detail the actual differences, presumably because he must have thought that any reader who cared would have kept the original article? (I never actually had the original sadly). If this is any use I could scan and upload it for you.

[DaveG38]

I believe that they started using chrome finished dies to increase their life. US mints had been using this innovation for some years years before this. I agree the finish they give is not very nice. Very similar to the glossy proofs of the era.

DaveG, check out Wiles and MacKenzies article in the April 1976 issue of Coin Monthly. They say there are actually three obverses and all are different from the 1968 issues!

I am going back through David Sealy's Coin Varieties articles in Coins & Medals. I think he reports on a few other varieties. One of them being a 1968 150 bead obverse.

Aardhawk,

A bit of a cheek, I know, but any chance that you could scan the articles and email them to me? I'm trying to definitively work out the series of 10ps through the 60s and 70s and am finding it a nightmare given that there is Davies, Wiles and Mackenzie and Ron Stafford's attempts, all of which are different, and sometimes changed as new discoveries were made!! Sealy's view would be another layer of information, but might help clarify what I have done already.

Alternatively, can you identify which issues of Coin and Medals have these articles in them, as this could allow me either to find them on the web for sale, or I could approach the publisher to see if they have them in an archive and if so whether I can consult them?

Somewhere, I have a Ron Stafford survey from circa 1980, where he reviews the numbers of each obverse and reverse, by date, found in a fairly large sample. Unfortunately, as far as I remember, it doesn't detail the actual differences, presumably because he must have thought that any reader who cared would have kept the original article? (I never actually had the original sadly). If this is any use I could scan and upload it for you.

Peckris,

Thank you very much for the offer. Unfortunately, I already have the article in question - its in Dec 1983 of coin news. The annoying thing about Stafford's survey is that correlating it with Davies and with the earlier Wiles and Mackenzie surveys is tricky. I think I've done it, but Aardhawk's example of a 1969 with obverse 2 has thrown up a variety that none of these commentators mention - hence my interest in what David Sealy has to say.

[AardHawk]

DaveG, I've sent you an email.

[AardHawk]

I have carried out some further rather tedious research. I really don't want to see another 1969 10p!

In Wiles and Mackenzies original article (Coin Monthly Apr 1976) they described three obverses that were distinguished by their height. Each researcher had independently reached a similar conclusion.

Researcher A listed the Obverses and sizes (in millemetres)as,

obv 4 as 24.00, obv 5 as 24.25 minus and obv 6 as 24.25.

and Researcher B as,

obv 4 as 24.25, obv 5 as 24.15 and obv 6 as 24.50.

I suspect that the 24.15 is a typo. The differences measured are because each used a different cross sections. The shame is that they don't tell us what they were so we cant peer review their results. They subsequently (Coin monthly Sept 1978) agreed a common set of measurements as follows,

obv 4 as 24.25, obv 5 as 24.40 minus and obv 6 as 24.50.

Unfortunetly Ron Stafford came along in (Coin Monthly Feb 1979) and repeated Researcher B's measurements that included the typo. Whatever the measurements I don't think that Ron is very impressed with these varieties and has pretty well dismissed them in his subsequent articles, Coin 28 Dec-10 Jan and Coin Monthly Dev 1983, as had A.W.Bacon before him in his article in Coin Monthly June 1978.

Whether Davies was aware of these articles, I know not. His name is never recorded in either Coins & Medals or Coin Monthly of this era. Does anyone know where he popped up from? Is he still around?

I have about 150 1969 10 pences. A bit OCD I know. They just came with other coins and accumulated. I can identify the three obverses fairly easily by measuring the cross section shown in turquoise on the attached photo. Yes I know it's a 1968.

I make Obv 4, to be 23.75, obv 5, 23.90 and obv 6, 24.00.

See the next post for a picture of these varieties.

[AardHawk]

Further research part 2.

See the attached picture.

Obv 6 corresponds to Obv 2 in my original picture above, and obv 4 corresponds to obv 3. I hope this doesn't lead to further confusion. I also show the steel rule I used.

I tried measuring using a vernier dial caliper and also a micrometer, but nothing surpassed the steel rule and the mark I eyeball!

As I said before, I don't ever want to do this again. It ranks one, on a scale of ten, and is about as satisfying as trying to distinguish the three reverse varieties of the 1958 halfpenny.

[Peter]

Further research part 2.

See the attached picture.

Obv 6 corresponds to Obv 2 in my original picture above, and obv 4 corresponds to obv 3. I hope this doesn't lead to further confusion. I also show the steel rule I used.

I tried measuring using a vernier dial caliper and also a micrometer, but nothing surpassed the steel rule and the mark I eyeball!

As I said before, I don't ever want to do this again. It ranks one, on a scale of ten, and is about as satisfying as trying to distinguish the three reverse varieties of the 1958 halfpenny.

Note the name of this web site and get these peskie coins outa here Ban post 1951 I say.

[DaveG38]

Further research part 2.

See the attached picture.

Obv 6 corresponds to Obv 2 in my original picture above, and obv 4 corresponds to obv 3. I hope this doesn't lead to further confusion. I also show the steel rule I used.

I tried measuring using a vernier dial caliper and also a micrometer, but nothing surpassed the steel rule and the mark I eyeball!

As I said before, I don't ever want to do this again. It ranks one, on a scale of ten, and is about as satisfying as trying to distinguish the three reverse varieties of the 1958 halfpenny.

Aardhawk,

Many thanks for your heroic efforts regarding the 1969 ten pences. I can well understand the tedium of variety checking large numbers of the same coin type. I was always in awe of J. C. Rudge who counted milling nicks on pre-decimal coins to show that the Mint used this as a kind of mint marking process, leading to what might be called micro-varieties for each date. Surely nobody would ever want to collect using this level of minor difference, would they.........????

So far as your data goes it all seems clear to me. The only possible issue is this matter of the two sets of measurements of sizes. I have seen the 24.15mm figure quoted alongside the 24.25 and 24.5mm sizes and I agree this was probably a misprint. However, I have seen the figures quoted where the size starts at 23.75mm and then includes 24.15mm. I guess this difference arises from the issue of where the measurements were taken from. As you say nobody is able to peer review this to check for certain.

For my book, I have also found several other references to minor varieties for this date, based on the diadem jewels and these apply to both the obverse 2 types and the Wiles and Mackenzie obverse 6 type, but as Peter say this is a pre-decimal forum and so I think this is as far as I need to go without inducing yamns and driving readers commatose.

Once again, many thanks.

DaveG38