More Pennies

[PWA 1967]

4 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

What about this, the coin is wider than normal and thinner than normal, kind of like it's been rolled out to flatten it. It doesn't look fake, the design matches that of a real coin perfectly. How could this happen, any ideas? Ignore the colour, I had to brighten the picture because of the bad lighting here, colour is fine.

I keep looking at this and cant see how its possibly been squashed ,everything seems spot on .

The rim / teeth  and detail surely would not be as clear.

The reverse being double struck also makes me think 

[Nordle11]

I've been looking at it all day and I've got it in hand with a comparison coin. Every letter/colon dot points to the same tooth on both coins, all the digits are exactly the same font with the same details. It's all very confusing.

[Gary1000]

4 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

I've been looking at it all day and I've got it in hand with a comparison coin. Every letter/colon dot points to the same tooth on both coins, all the digits are exactly the same font with the same details. It's all very confusing.

I guess one important factor is weight. If it's the same weight as a normal penny it is likely it has been squashed, although how you could squash it without leaving flattening I don't know.

[PWA 1967]

I would keep that Matt and perhaps send to the Royal mint .

If nobody can be sure its definately interesting and unusual.

Were matrix/dies made bigger for any reason. ......such as a trial strike for a new die .

I know 1937 were the same but must of been replaced at some point.

I am not having its squashed and think its genuine.

Maybe i am completely wrong 

[Nordle11]

For sure, it's going into the collection although will have to sit on top of the tray, despite how annoying that is  

Next time I go to the UK I might send it over to the RM and see what they say. Is it not possible to just send them pictures with measurements or does it need to be the coin?

I'm not for squashing either, like Gary says it doesn't make sense if there's no flattening.

[PWA 1967]

Sent you a mail Matt .

[mrbadexample]

I don't think it's squashed either. You couldn't do it without affecting the detail in some way. Can't wait for the explanation, if you ever get one. Did you think it was normal sized when you bought it?

[Nordle11]

Yeah it was just a picture of the coin on its own so no reference for size. Looking at it now the bust is slightly bigger because of the increase in size. 

[mrbadexample]

Double strike notwithstanding, is there any precedent for larger pennies like this?

[Colin G.]

I agree with Gary, weight must be an important factor, what is the weight?

[Nordle11]

Not that I know of Jon, at least not like this. You can have coins struck out of the collar but they come out warped.

I'll get the weight when I get a chance, no scales with me at the moment. 

[Nordle11]

6 hours ago, Gary1000 said:

I guess one important factor is weight. If it's the same weight as a normal penny it is likely it has been squashed, although how you could squash it without leaving flattening I don't know.

 

3 hours ago, Colin G. said:

I agree with Gary, weight must be an important factor, what is the weight?

Weight is 9.37g.

[mrbadexample]

So just a fraction under then. Could wear account for that much if the coin was normal sized?

 

[InforaPenny]

Probably repeatedly passed through rollers between pieces of leather to gradually flatten it out. I seem to remember a similar Australian penny mentioned in Australian Coin Review from many years ago...

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

 

[IanB]

I don't think it has gone through rollers, it would be elongated or at least oval.

Edited March 24, 2016 by IanB

[mrbadexample]

2 minutes ago, IanB said:

I don't think it has gone through rollers, it would be elongated or at least oval.

So the next question must be: "Is the diameter uniform?"

[Nordle11]

It sure is. 

[Paulus]

This is a hell of a mystery, it must be thinner, can you confirm that?

[Michael-Roo]

Yes. Possibly been passed (gently?) through some sort of 'roller'? Look closely between 6 and 9 o'clock on the obverse. Not a true circle.

[Nordle11]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

This is a hell of a mystery, it must be thinner, can you confirm that?

Yeah it's thinner than a normal penny

[Bernie]

A picture of the reverse may reveal something.

[Bernie]

I notice that the reverse was shown previously.

My theory, any better ideas ?

I guess that the original coin was squeezed in a press, then cooled, a disc of harder metal was heated red hot and placed between the reverse of the penny and the press. pressure applied to make an impression in the harder disc. The penny was reheated and placed again between the press, The now cold hard disc was included but had revolved slightly from its original position. pressure applied causing a somewhat doubling of the reverse.

Something along those lines, I would think.

[Bernie]

It appears that the centre area of the reverse is not doubled.

[Nordle11]

That's a bit too elaborate for me, I am still with the idea that the coin has just been double struck or that the hubbing has not been done correctly. The doubling in the center is just being masked by the heavy detail too, the whole reverse is doubled but just not as obviously in the center due to wear and the many folds in Britannia's drapery.

The doubling I believe to be genuine, it's the larger size that is perplexing me. 

You can also get doubling only in certain parts of a design because of incorrect hubbing, it's not uncommon to have a date doubled but the rest of the design not. There are many, many variations on hub doubling it's quite a subject on its own!

[IanB]

There is no way that this has gone through a set of rollers. If it had the detail would be stretched. It would also no longer be flat. Rolling tends to curve metals as the pressure changes along the length of the item being rolled. Also the letters would be distorted