Leaderboard

I reckon you're about right on the grade. Reverse looks slightly better than the obverse to me. Nice coin for a tenner!

The British Bronze Coinage 1860-1869 by M Gouby has a chapter on numbered coinage, Michael researched some of the book at Kew from Mint records/correspondence and there is a table of known coinage and numbers used

I suppose they could in part, in theory, As the output of H & W was only 32 & 74 tons respectively for 1860 and H's only totalled 41 tons including 1861 coins, this implies the only possible Heaton coin is the penny with 40/40. Watts could have possibly numbered things, but as Dyer points out, this would fail based on a total tonnage of 1720 up to 1863. It is therefore reasonable to assume that all the numbered coins are from the RM. Thinking out loud, the repeated use of the same number at the beginning might relate to production milestones such as an internal job requiring 40 tons as opposed to the full commission, or testing dies/blanks? It is also possible that the inconsistency seen for 1860-1 compared to latter figures was a mistake by someone at the mint! It is not easy to see why there would be 2 identical numbers unless for the above reason. Anyway, it's all speculation in the absence of evidence.

Graham Dyer's article in BNJ vol. 52 refers. The numbers are believed to refer to the cumulative total tons of bronze (pennies, halfpennies and farthings) struckfor the numerator, and the cumulative total tons of bronze pennies for the denominator. Using the bronze coin production figures for 1860-8, the various fractions observed provide a very good fit. So in this case, the figure 542 is within the range 498-577 tons struck since 1860 for 1867, and the figure 329 is within the 375 tons of bronze pennies struck up to 1868. Given the mint figures of 41 tons of bronze in 1868, this coin neatly fits the hypothesis.

It was DNW. Lot number 1773 Auction 29/09/10 I was unsure if the coin was genuine but Peter Davies assured me he believed it was.