1922 Penny, Reverse Of 1927!

[AardHawk]

There is some interesting info regarding 1922 penny varieties in the Jan 1972 edition of Coin Monthly. Faro commenting on the pennies of King George V states "Just before decimalisation reports appeared of the finding by collectors of 1922 pennies with the modified reverse used from 1927 to 1936. I am very grateful to the Royal Mint for the information that the reverse master tools of the 1927 type were prepared and experimental dies sunk, in the late summer of 1922. Whether the pennies in question were actually struck in that year is no longer clear from the Royal Mint records nor is it possible to say how many were involved."

The one thing that is absolutely certain is that these "experimental dies" were not used in the production of 1927 pennies. Virtually every point on them is different from the 1927 production dies.

[davidrj]

Shouldn't the F195A in your list actually be F196A?

Yes! sticky fingers - corrected version -

Edited November 17, 2013 by davidrj

[Peckris]

There is some interesting info regarding 1922 penny varieties in the Jan 1972 edition of Coin Monthly. Faro commenting on the pennies of King George V states "Just before decimalisation reports appeared of the finding by collectors of 1922 pennies with the modified reverse used from 1927 to 1936. I am very grateful to the Royal Mint for the information that the reverse master tools of the 1927 type were prepared and experimental dies sunk, in the late summer of 1922. Whether the pennies in question were actually struck in that year is no longer clear from the Royal Mint records nor is it possible to say how many were involved."

The one thing that is absolutely certain is that these "experimental dies" were not used in the production of 1927 pennies. Virtually every point on them is different from the 1927 production dies.

Now that IS interesting. It shows, despite my earlier misgivings, that the experiment was actually begun in 1922,,which raises a whole bucket of further questions:

• Did the Mint already know they weren't producing pennies for the next 3 years, and thus it was a good time to start experimenting?

• How come the penny reverses were deemed more of a priority than the 'modified effigy' (3 years later) - was it another attempt to eliminate ghosting?

• Why were halfpennies - which had even worse ghosting - never included in the experiment?

[davidrj]

Now that IS interesting. It shows, despite my earlier misgivings, that the experiment was actually begun in 1922,,which raises a whole bucket of further questions:

• Did the Mint already know they weren't producing pennies for the next 3 years, and thus it was a good time to start experimenting?

• How come the penny reverses were deemed more of a priority than the 'modified effigy' (3 years later) - was it another attempt to eliminate ghosting?

• Why were halfpennies - which had even worse ghosting - never included in the experiment?

,

maybe they did, but none escaped or any that did were not noticed. When you and I were checking 5/- bags of copper in the late 60's, most GV halfpennies were reduced to washers.

[AardHawk]

I think the design process went something like this;

1. 1920-21 mint realises that pennies have bad ghosting on the reverse.

2. As the reverse is bad, then the thing to fix is the reverse.

3. Produce new "experimental" reverse die (Davidrj rev Ca).

4. As part of the process, knock out a few pennies using the existing Obv 3.

5. Damn that didnt fix it. Lob all that lot into the out bucket. No one will notice.

6. Start work on a Modified Effigy (Obv 4).

7. As part of the process, knock out a few pennies using the new obv 4.

8. Damn, who didnt take that old Ca reverse out of the experimental departments press (F196A is produced by accident).

9. Produce some new experimental 4 + B (mythical Freeman 192C).

10. Okay, get shot of these 192Cs, and make sure you put them into the waste bucket this time. (Did they?)

11. Right, now crack on and sort those halfpennies out.

[davidrj]

I think the design process went something like this;

1. 1920-21 mint realises that pennies have bad ghosting on the reverse.

2. As the reverse is bad, then the thing to fix is the reverse.

3. Produce new "experimental" reverse die (Davidrj rev Ca).

4. As part of the process, knock out a few pennies using the existing Obv 3.

5. Damn that didnt fix it. Lob all that lot into the out bucket. No one will notice.

6. Start work on a Modified Effigy (Obv 4).

7. As part of the process, knock out a few pennies using the new obv 4.

8. Damn, who didnt take that old Ca reverse out of the experimental departments press (F196A is produced by accident).

9. Produce some new experimental 4 + B (mythical Freeman 192C).

10. Okay, get shot of these 192Cs, and make sure you put them into the waste bucket this time. (Did they?)

11. Right, now crack on and sort those halfpennies out.

I like that! Now please explain the one year 1897 reverses!

[AardHawk]

What do you need to know about? Date widths, sea levels or grained edges?

[davidrj]

What do you need to know about? Date widths, sea levels or grained edges?

date widths we've done ad nauseum; grained edges are in Freeman's original penny monograph but later discounted by scanning electron microscopy studies.

But the 1897 high sea pennies and halfpennies are interesting, very rare in the penny but common in the halfpenny (not sure about farthings)

[Accumulator]

I think the design process went something like this;

1. 1920-21 mint realises that pennies have bad ghosting on the reverse.

2. As the reverse is bad, then the thing to fix is the reverse.

3. Produce new "experimental" reverse die (Davidrj rev Ca).

4. As part of the process, knock out a few pennies using the existing Obv 3.

5. Damn that didnt fix it. Lob all that lot into the out bucket. No one will notice.

6. Start work on a Modified Effigy (Obv 4).

7. As part of the process, knock out a few pennies using the new obv 4.

8. Damn, who didnt take that old Ca reverse out of the experimental departments press (F196A is produced by accident).

9. Produce some new experimental 4 + B (mythical Freeman 192C).

10. Okay, get shot of these 192Cs, and make sure you put them into the waste bucket this time. (Did they?)

11. Right, now crack on and sort those halfpennies out.

I like that! Now please explain the one year 1897 reverses!

Certainly makes sense!

[RLC35]

David here is the 1922 Trident "Dot" Penny. I think it is a BP1922A also but not sure. Close up of trident will follow.

[RLC35]

1922 Trident "Dot"

[Peckris]

Now that IS interesting. It shows, despite my earlier misgivings, that the experiment was actually begun in 1922,,which raises a whole bucket of further questions:

• Did the Mint already know they weren't producing pennies for the next 3 years, and thus it was a good time to start experimenting?

• How come the penny reverses were deemed more of a priority than the 'modified effigy' (3 years later) - was it another attempt to eliminate ghosting?

• Why were halfpennies - which had even worse ghosting - never included in the experiment?

,

maybe they did, but none escaped or any that did were not noticed. When you and I were checking 5/- bags of copper in the late 60's, most GV halfpennies were reduced to washers.

God, weren't they! The reverses, anyway. You could make out the date usually, and the figure of Britannia gave a whole new meaning to 'ghosting'.

I think the design process went something like this;

1. 1920-21 mint realises that pennies have bad ghosting on the reverse.

2. As the reverse is bad, then the thing to fix is the reverse.

3. Produce new "experimental" reverse die (Davidrj rev Ca).

4. As part of the process, knock out a few pennies using the existing Obv 3.

5. Damn that didnt fix it. Lob all that lot into the out bucket. No one will notice.

6. Start work on a Modified Effigy (Obv 4).

7. As part of the process, knock out a few pennies using the new obv 4.

8. Damn, who didnt take that old Ca reverse out of the experimental departments press (F196A is produced by accident).

9. Produce some new experimental 4 + B (mythical Freeman 192C).

10. Okay, get shot of these 192Cs, and make sure you put them into the waste bucket this time. (Did they?)

11. Right, now crack on and sort those halfpennies out.

1. The Mint realised a lot earlier about the ghosting, hence a) the 1913 redesigns c) the recessed ear of 1915-16.

2. - 11. Does make a lot of sense! But the strange thing is, there isn't any ghosting on the few 1922/27-reverses that exist, which indicates that the revised obverse of 1921 plus the experimental reverse of 1922 DID fix it? As for point 7., the strange thing is that the ME was first used for the halfpennies not the pennies (but perhaps that's explained by the fact that halfpennies were in a parlous state even compared to pennies?)

[davidrj]

David here is the 1922 Trident "Dot" Penny. I think it is a BP1922A also but not sure. Close up of trident will follow.

I think it's BP 1922 A also (? BP 1922 AA) - is it accidental or part of the exeriments? who knows?

[RLC35]

Thanks David...

[Accumulator]

There is some interesting info regarding 1922 penny varieties in the Jan 1972 edition of Coin Monthly. Faro commenting on the pennies of King George V states "Just before decimalisation reports appeared of the finding by collectors of 1922 pennies with the modified reverse used from 1927 to 1936. I am very grateful to the Royal Mint for the information that the reverse master tools of the 1927 type were prepared and experimental dies sunk, in the late summer of 1922. Whether the pennies in question were actually struck in that year is no longer clear from the Royal Mint records nor is it possible to say how many were involved."

The one thing that is absolutely certain is that these "experimental dies" were not used in the production of 1927 pennies. Virtually every point on them is different from the 1927 production dies.

I've just re-read this post and noticed that, contrary to the "about 1980" comment made by Michael Freeman, this coin was actually described in an article dated January 1972. Further, the article states that findings date back to "just before decimalisation". I am absolutely certain that the little pocket book I had in the early 70s (not 'Check your Change', the other one that I can't remember the name of) listed the variety and value then. I wish I hadn't thrown it away a few years back!

Edit: I've just remembered, the book was called 'All Change', by David Nash. Does anyone have a copy?

Edited November 19, 2013 by Accumulator

[Accumulator]

It looked like this:

[AardHawk]

The original announcement of the discovery was made by David Sealy in the January 1970 issue of Coins.

[AardHawk]

part 2

[Paulus]

Fascinating, great post AardHawk!

[Accumulator]

That's great, thanks!

[Peckris]

The original announcement of the discovery was made by David Sealy in the January 1970 issue of Coins.

Excellent. I was just wondering why it wasn't featured in Sealy's great varieties listing (1816-1968) in the 1970 Coins & Medals annual. But that of course would have been put to bed for printing somewhere around November 1969, so a Big Announcement in January 1970 wouldn't have made it in there. Shortly after that I went up to Uni and rather lost interest in coins for a while under the affluence of incohol (or more accurately, sex'n'drugs'n'rock'n'roll).

[Bernie]

No mention of this 1926 variety, Obverse 4 with this pattern reverse, not Rev B or C, or C*

[Bernie]

1922 Obverse 4 with Reverse C* (pattern)

[Bernie]

Made an error on the previous description of above coin. It should read Obverse 4 with reverse C

[Peckris]

1922 Obverse 4 with Reverse C* (pattern)

Seeing that just gives me goosebumps. That's not your coin by any chance Bernie?