George V shillings

[pies]

Hi all does anybody know if there were any years which were generally weak strikes.

cheers

[Coinery]

Hi all does anybody know if there were any years which were generally weak strikes.

cheers

Peck'll know, he even knows the differing amounts of seasonal earwax for G5

AND I'd be interested too, as I've just started to pull one or two areas of this reign together myself.

[Peckris]

Hi all does anybody know if there were any years which were generally weak strikes.

cheers

There's no year which is generally a weak strike, but there are years when dies got overused so that towards the end of their life they produced weak strikes. This happened especially from 1915 - 1919. Also, the Type 2 obverse (1920 - 1926) is much shallower cut to reduce reverse ghosting, and therefore might mistakenly be thought by the inexperienced as weak strikes. Those latter years, the portrait wears much faster, and if you put an EF example alongside a VF Type 1 obverse, you wouldn't see much difference especially in hair detail. But that's due to redesign, not weak strike.

From 1926 ME onwards, there isn't any notable weak strike, though as I've said, any well-used die will produce worse results than early strikes.

[pies]

Cheers Peck very informative

[declanwmagee]

WW1 Shortage of good steel to make new dies? I'm thinking of the reason Peck (C.W.Peck!) gives for the round cornered, sharp cornered thing for NB 3ds in WW2.

[Peckris]

Hi all does anybody know if there were any years which were generally weak strikes.

cheers

Peck'll know, he even knows the differing amounts of seasonal earwax for G5

AND I'd be interested too, as I've just started to pull one or two areas of this reign together myself.

TMI !!! I note we posted within minutes of each other.

WW1 Shortage of good steel to make new dies? I'm thinking of the reason Peck (C.W.Peck!) gives for the round cornered, sharp cornered thing for NB 3ds in WW2.

I've never been convinced by that theory. After all, how much steel was needed to make a few dies for the Royal Mint? Let's face it, not much more than would be used to make a couple of shells, I would have thought. And I'm guessing that Mint work was a reserved occupation anyway, given the importance of the economy to the war effort, plus the very high inflation that resulted at that time. I think it may have been more a factor of the much higher output driven by inflation. As far as shillings are concerned, look at the mintages :

1911 20m

1912 15m

1913 9m

1914 23m

1915 39m

1916 35m

1917 22m

1918 34m

It's the same for other silver, particularly the years 1914, 1916, 1918, and most dramatic for halfcrowns, then florins. It's much more likely that the Mint was working so flat out to keep pace with demand, that dies were required to perform much greater duty than normal, hence changed less often.

[declanwmagee]

I wonder how often they are changed now, with astronomical, by predecimal standards, mintages

[Peckris]

I wonder how often they are changed now, with astronomical, by predecimal standards, mintages

Well, the whole technology changed when it all moved to Llantrisant. But judging by the standards of modern coins, I'm guessing they really don't care very much. And I suppose, why should they? The circulating coinage represents only a tiny % of the money supply compared to what it was around WW1. Coins are not worth the trouble, would be my take on it.

[Peter]

Hi all does anybody know if there were any years which were generally weak strikes.

cheers

There's no year which is generally a weak strike, but there are years when dies got overused so that towards the end of their life they produced weak strikes. This happened especially from 1915 - 1919. Also, the Type 2 obverse (1920 - 1926) is much shallower cut to reduce reverse ghosting, and therefore might mistakenly be thought by the inexperienced as weak strikes. Those latter years, the portrait wears much faster, and if you put an EF example alongside a VF Type 1 obverse, you wouldn't see much difference especially in hair detail. But that's due to redesign, not weak strike.

From 1926 ME onwards, there isn't any notable weak strike, though as I've said, any well-used die will produce worse results than early strikes.

The General Strike was in 1926

[Gary D]

Hi all does anybody know if there were any years which were generally weak strikes.

cheers

There's no year which is generally a weak strike, but there are years when dies got overused so that towards the end of their life they produced weak strikes. This happened especially from 1915 - 1919. Also, the Type 2 obverse (1920 - 1926) is much shallower cut to reduce reverse ghosting, and therefore might mistakenly be thought by the inexperienced as weak strikes. Those latter years, the portrait wears much faster, and if you put an EF example alongside a VF Type 1 obverse, you wouldn't see much difference especially in hair detail. But that's due to redesign, not weak strike.

From 1926 ME onwards, there isn't any notable weak strike, though as I've said, any well-used die will produce worse results than early strikes.

The General Strike was in 1926

I have always taken the position that if the lions nose is missing it's worn not weak.

[Coinery]

Hi all does anybody know if there were any years which were generally weak strikes.

cheers

There's no year which is generally a weak strike, but there are years when dies got overused so that towards the end of their life they produced weak strikes. This happened especially from 1915 - 1919. Also, the Type 2 obverse (1920 - 1926) is much shallower cut to reduce reverse ghosting, and therefore might mistakenly be thought by the inexperienced as weak strikes. Those latter years, the portrait wears much faster, and if you put an EF example alongside a VF Type 1 obverse, you wouldn't see much difference especially in hair detail. But that's due to redesign, not weak strike.

From 1926 ME onwards, there isn't any notable weak strike, though as I've said, any well-used die will produce worse results than early strikes.

The General Strike was in 1926

I have always taken the position that if the lions nose is missing it's worn not weak.

Depends on whether you're buying or selling, Gary!

[Rob]

Depends on the years. Early G5 have well struck up noses in general, but during WW1 until the end of the first series you rarely find a well struck nose. The next series tend to be well struck again. I've always put it down to a combination of weaker strike to get more life out of the dies and possible blockage as a result of prolonged die use. The flat noses seen on otherwise minty looking coins produced during the war years can't be due to wear because all the other dates outside this period are frequently encountered with well struck noses despite often having much lower mintages.

[VickySilver]

I believe the lion's nose can show up weak from a weak strike and will have to reference this if I can shortly (OK, by Tuesday then LOL).

[Peckris]

I believe the lion's nose can show up weak from a weak strike and will have to reference this if I can shortly (OK, by Tuesday then LOL).

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up.

[Coinery]

I believe the lion's nose can show up weak from a weak strike and will have to reference this if I can shortly (OK, by Tuesday then LOL).

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up.

Would this affect all the coins of a given year? If not, what sort of percentage are we talking about? I'm presuming, if the percentage of sharp strikes is small, that a GEF fully struck up would attract a higher premium than a weak UNC?

[Peckris]

I believe the lion's nose can show up weak from a weak strike and will have to reference this if I can shortly (OK, by Tuesday then LOL).

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up.

Would this affect all the coins of a given year? If not, what sort of percentage are we talking about? I'm presuming, if the percentage of sharp strikes is small, that a GEF fully struck up would attract a higher premium than a weak UNC?

Difficult question. In the case of pennies, it's rare indeed to see a fully struck up Britannia before 1921/22. And yes, it would affect if not all, then certainly the vast majority of strikes. It's worth noting that on the 'recessed ear' pennies of 1915/16, Britannia is usually fully struck up, indicating that the Mint were aware of the problem ('ghosting' was the main effect they wanted to eliminate) and tried experimenting.

Would a fully struck up Britannia command a premium? Very hard to say. It might, for example, go along with a not fully struck up portrait with weak hair detail which would actually be more noticeable and have a negative effect on value. Some dates are notoriously bad - the reverses of 1917 sixpences are a case in point - and a good example would almost certainly attract more buyers. In general, eye appeal counts for a lot, so in any reign a sharp and attractive GEF would nearly always score over a weak UNC. It's also a factor that collectors get so used to a feature - e.g. a not fully struck up Britannia on Series 1 Geo V pennies - that they expect it, and it therefore doesn't affect the value.

[Coinery]

I believe the lion's nose can show up weak from a weak strike and will have to reference this if I can shortly (OK, by Tuesday then LOL).

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up.

Would this affect all the coins of a given year? If not, what sort of percentage are we talking about? I'm presuming, if the percentage of sharp strikes is small, that a GEF fully struck up would attract a higher premium than a weak UNC?

Difficult question. In the case of pennies, it's rare indeed to see a fully struck up Britannia before 1921/22. And yes, it would affect if not all, then certainly the vast majority of strikes. It's worth noting that on the 'recessed ear' pennies of 1915/16, Britannia is usually fully struck up, indicating that the Mint were aware of the problem ('ghosting' was the main effect they wanted to eliminate) and tried experimenting.

Would a fully struck up Britannia command a premium? Very hard to say. It might, for example, go along with a not fully struck up portrait with weak hair detail which would actually be more noticeable and have a negative effect on value. Some dates are notoriously bad - the reverses of 1917 sixpences are a case in point - and a good example would almost certainly attract more buyers. In general, eye appeal counts for a lot, so in any reign a sharp and attractive GEF would nearly always score over a weak UNC. It's also a factor that collectors get so used to a feature - e.g. a not fully struck up Britannia on Series 1 Geo V pennies - that they expect it, and it therefore doesn't affect the value.

If only we could 'save' favourite threads on this forum! Thanks, peck!

[Accumulator]

I believe the lion's nose can show up weak from a weak strike and will have to reference this if I can shortly (OK, by Tuesday then LOL).

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up.

Would this affect all the coins of a given year? If not, what sort of percentage are we talking about? I'm presuming, if the percentage of sharp strikes is small, that a GEF fully struck up would attract a higher premium than a weak UNC?

Difficult question. In the case of pennies, it's rare indeed to see a fully struck up Britannia before 1921/22. And yes, it would affect if not all, then certainly the vast majority of strikes. It's worth noting that on the 'recessed ear' pennies of 1915/16, Britannia is usually fully struck up, indicating that the Mint were aware of the problem ('ghosting' was the main effect they wanted to eliminate) and tried experimenting.

Would a fully struck up Britannia command a premium? Very hard to say. It might, for example, go along with a not fully struck up portrait with weak hair detail which would actually be more noticeable and have a negative effect on value. Some dates are notoriously bad - the reverses of 1917 sixpences are a case in point - and a good example would almost certainly attract more buyers. In general, eye appeal counts for a lot, so in any reign a sharp and attractive GEF would nearly always score over a weak UNC. It's also a factor that collectors get so used to a feature - e.g. a not fully struck up Britannia on Series 1 Geo V pennies - that they expect it, and it therefore doesn't affect the value.

So true, and as a picture tells a thousand words. Recessed ear variety on the right:

[Accumulator]

Obverses. Recessed ear on the right again (note the telltale broken tooth by BRITT:)

[VickySilver]

Not to divert but I was thrilled to pick up a fully struck 1917 6d, a coin not generally appreciated in that state.

Also a bit off but finding 1919H pennies with fully struck up obv hair quite a treat. Also the 1918H.

[Peckris]

I believe the lion's nose can show up weak from a weak strike and will have to reference this if I can shortly (OK, by Tuesday then LOL).

Don't forget, the shilling suffers from the same syndrome as pennies; those often show Britannia with barely any facial or breastplate details. With shillings it's the lion face e.g. nose. This has nothing to do with what's conventionally called a 'weak' strike (which would show an overall weakness), nor a worn die. It's entirely due to the fact that first series George V coins have a very deep portrait, very high relief, much more so than any other monarch in the milled era. Where the reverse is strong and detailed as with halfcrowns, this doesn't really affect things, but where the reverse has a shallow design and rims - as is the case especially with pennies, halfpennies, and shillings - the obverse 'sucks' metal from areas of the reverse and they don't fully strike up.

Would this affect all the coins of a given year? If not, what sort of percentage are we talking about? I'm presuming, if the percentage of sharp strikes is small, that a GEF fully struck up would attract a higher premium than a weak UNC?

Difficult question. In the case of pennies, it's rare indeed to see a fully struck up Britannia before 1921/22. And yes, it would affect if not all, then certainly the vast majority of strikes. It's worth noting that on the 'recessed ear' pennies of 1915/16, Britannia is usually fully struck up, indicating that the Mint were aware of the problem ('ghosting' was the main effect they wanted to eliminate) and tried experimenting.

Would a fully struck up Britannia command a premium? Very hard to say. It might, for example, go along with a not fully struck up portrait with weak hair detail which would actually be more noticeable and have a negative effect on value. Some dates are notoriously bad - the reverses of 1917 sixpences are a case in point - and a good example would almost certainly attract more buyers. In general, eye appeal counts for a lot, so in any reign a sharp and attractive GEF would nearly always score over a weak UNC. It's also a factor that collectors get so used to a feature - e.g. a not fully struck up Britannia on Series 1 Geo V pennies - that they expect it, and it therefore doesn't affect the value.

So true, and as a picture tells a thousand words. Recessed ear variety on the right:

Don't you know your right from your bottom? Thanks for posting those pictures though , as you say they are worth a thousand words.

Not to divert but I was thrilled to pick up a fully struck 1917 6d, a coin not generally appreciated in that state.

Also a bit off but finding 1919H pennies with fully struck up obv hair quite a treat. Also the 1918H.

Yes, my own 1917 has a definitely 'weak' reverse that doesn't go at all well with its obverse. And you're so right about 1918H and 1919H pennies - the same goes for KNs and normal issues too!

[Coinery]

Don't you know your right from your bottom? Thanks for posting those pictures though , as you say they are worth a thousand words.

His 'bottom' was probably too (Christ, just had to edit and add an O to the to ) wide to fit inline on the screen, you can be so insensitive at times, Peck!

Edited September 2, 2012 by Coinery

[Peckris]

Don't you know your right from your bottom? Thanks for posting those pictures though , as you say they are worth a thousand words.

His 'bottom' was probably too (Christ, just had to edit and add an O to the to ) wide to fit inline on the screen, you can be so insensitive at times, Peck!

Are you Dave in disguise???

That's me!

Edited September 2, 2012 by Peckris

[Coinery]

Don't you know your right from your bottom? Thanks for posting those pictures though , as you say they are worth a thousand words.

His 'bottom' was probably too (Christ, just had to edit and add an O to the to ) wide to fit inline on the screen, you can be so insensitive at times, Peck!

Are you Dave in disguise???

That's me!

Oche, Nooooooooo!

[Accumulator]

Don't you know your right from your bottom? Thanks for posting those pictures though , as you say they are worth a thousand words.

His 'bottom' was probably too (Christ, just had to edit and add an O to the to ) wide to fit inline on the screen, you can be so insensitive at times, Peck!

On my 27" iMac both the photos appear side by side, so 'right' was right for me. You need a bigger screen Peck