Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/29/2016 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    I have a theory on this and it may well be wrong. I think it may be an apprentices test piece. Made oversize as they learn the process of manufacture. Other types of apprentices do similar things but in reverse, furniture makers make half size models to test them. However as a coin is small to begin with it would make sense for the apprentice to make it larger when learning. The double stamping would not have stretched it, if it had Britannia would be double struck with one figure smaller than the other whearas the reverse is clearly rotated by a few degrees. There is more rotation the further away from the centre hence less error at the point where the trident touches the leg. Also both sides would have been effected if double stamping had made it bigger. it is possibly thinner because they somehow used a standard size blank which would have had to have made slightly larger before being stamped. just a theory imo I have a theory on this and it may well be wrong. I think it may be an apprentices test piece. Made oversize as they learn the process of manufacture. Other types of apprentices do similar things but in reverse, furniture makers make half size models to test them. However as a coin is small to begin with it would make sense for the apprentice to make it larger when learning. The double stamping would not have stretched it, if it had Britannia would be double struck with one figure smaller than the other whearas the reverse is clearly rotated by a few degrees. There is more rotation the further away from the centre hence less error at the point where the trident touches the leg. Also both sides would have been effected if double stamping had made it bigger. it is possibly thinner because they somehow used a standard size blank which would have had to have made slightly larger before being stamped. just a theory imo Pete it was listed as 1861 5+G (R18) and no one seemed interested at 99p Presumably, everybody who needed one already had one, or more likely couldn't live with it they bought it. I have no idea on the numbers available, but presume a few are known, guaranteed to be in better grade. I've fallen for that one myself in the past - buying something because it seemed too cheap Not sure what's happening with these replies which seem to be in quadruplicate as I write, but IanB might be onto something. When the designs are first made, it is done on something the size of a dinner plate after which it is reduced. There is nothing to stop a piece of intermediate size being made. Keeping an open mind, it might be kosher.





×