Rob

I went to them 5 or 6 years ago and was asked if I had any issues with my sight. I explained that the focus was all over place at times and was told that's impossible. So why ask the question if you won't accept the answer? I haven't been back since.

Yes, 1982 (vol.52) p.234-240.

Not seen a 2021 yet, but I think the mint must have released a lot of Shakespeare £2s to this area. I've had 5 people call asking if I want to buy them this weekend. Apparently all shiny like new.

You take a wide detour to avoid hitting one of those with a car. They have the last laugh.

The original Scottish reference was Coinage of Scotland by Edward Burns written towards the end of the 19th century. B H I H Stewart, (Lord Stewartby) wrote 'The Scottish Coinage' in 1953 whilst still at school. I have a second impression copy from 1976. Coincraft did a Scottish, Irish, Channel Islands and IOM volume in 1999. The BNJ has articles on Scottish coins in volumes 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 48, 49, 50, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67. There will be more from 2000 on, but my index only covers vols. 1-69. I don't collect Scottish, so will have to think about other articles. There will be something in the Numismatic Chronicle and the Numismatic Circular. That's a start.

It's a matter of choice for individuals what they spend their money on. I have a couple of rentals locally, both of which I have offered to the tenants to buy should they be looking for a house. If they are happy living there, then buy the property. One doesn't want to buy, the other couple do. Of the latter, the bloke has an unpaid debt of £23 which he now regrets. It's not revolutionary, but it helps if you live your life responsibly. The changes in the law regarding bankruptcy and outstanding debt judgments 15 or 20 years ago sent out all the wrong messages as it encouraged irresponsible spending habits. Generation rent can accumulate a deposit if they ditch the requirement for instant gratification. What you can't afford, you don't buy. The only thing I would consider borrowing for is a house. Travelling the world, buying the latest hi-tech gadget, even borrowing to go to university to get a degree that in practical terms you wouldn't need in the case of 'softer' courses, are all expenditure that could be put towards assets. It's the difference between buying things that will have a resale value or not.

Slightly lethargic next day after the first one. Nothing after the second.

All of this is speculation, so the best I can come up with is monitoring individual design variations rather than specific dies. We do know the numbering started more or less immediately, which suggests a need to monitor something. Tonnage and mintage figures would have been documented as a matter of course, after all, converting metal to coins is their primary function, and every business will track and account for materials through to output - that's your 'notebook'. With plenty of gold and silver passing through, which was definitely accounted for via the pyx, it's inconceivable that copper or bronze input and output was treated differently. They had to buy copper (i.e. order specific quantities from suppliers) in order to make coins which were specifically ordered by quantity by the banks. There's no way the place could function without accountability.

I can see it being possible that they were monitoring quality at a known point in time, as taking an example after every ton is no different to sampling for the pyx, but can't see how you can monitor die wear, given you would need to sample a coin after every couple thousand to build up a picture for an individual die. One of the things Dyer also noted was they stopped in 1868, possibly due to the death of John and Thomas Graham, and the associated reorganisation at the mint. Ouija board required? Edited to add, the totals for metal used and coins produced would already have been documented in some form somewhere. Retaining a coin from a known point in time is something that can only be sampled when it is made. You can't go back and sample retrospectively, as presumably the coins were made and immediately shipped to the four corners of the country. This I suspect was the reason. The numbering started in 1860 when there were huge problems meaning any changes could be tracked, and speculatively could have been continued simply because nobody thought to stop the monitoring.

Can't see it. If the average number of coins obtained from a die pair is 60K (their quoted average) and you can strike a back of the fag packet 100K pennies from a ton of metal, you will need more than one die per journey. There's no way to reference wear at the end of each ton.

The question of the numbered strikings was addressed by Graham Dyer, former curator at the RM Museum in a 1982 article entitled 'Numbered Strikings of Victorian Bronze Coins, 1860-1868'. Whilst people are unlikely to have this, the important points are laid out in Michael Gouby's 2000 publication 'The British Bronze Coinage, Pence, Halfpence and Farthings 1860-1869' whereby Dyer has shown the improper fractions seen on a few coins relate to the total tonnage of bronze to that point (larger number) and the tonnage of that denomination (smaller number). As the BM has an example of an 1864 farthing with 236/11 (P1872) and there is a penny with 237/134 (P1662), using the consecutive numbers as a total for bronze output in tons, we can deduce the tonnage of halfpennies to that point, as after 236 tons of bronze struck there had been 11 tons of farthings and (using 237/134 as a reference point) 133 tons of pennies. ie, the remainder is 92 tons of halfpennies. Further to the above, the introduction to the publication gives a little history, including some useful snippets, summarised as follows: Victoria was only happy with the portrait at the beginning of August 1860. The mint was very busy at this time with gold and silver and didn't have the resources to produce the number of coins required for the changeover. Consequently they gave Watt a contract for 1720 tons (including all three denominations) in the first week of Sept. Production was underway at the Tower mint by the end of the month. On the 15th October, daily output of halfpennies and farthings was just over 150K - 50K short of the 200K target. The deficiency was due to too many dies breaking, with an average of 30000 strikes obtained instead of the usual average of 60000. There was a need to reduce the relief on all three denominations at this point. The farthing was done, the halfpenny was 'very nearly ready', but the pennies required a further alteration, so at this point were still not in production. Nor had Watt started production by the end of November. The beaded border created a problem, with flaws appearing in this area regularly. Taking the above into consideration, it is hardly surprising there are fewer pennies extant than the other denominations for 1860. Given the delay in getting the bronze coinage started, I would have thought they prepared 1860 dies for all three denominations. 1859 halfpennies and farthings are both scarce, and the halfpennies I have had of this date were all struck from old worn dies, whether 9 over 8 or not. So it is likely they intended to strike a good number of the smaller denominations in any case. As John pointed out, the halfpenny obverse was certainly used commercially. It is beyond debate that they intended to change over to thinner, harder bronze coins earlier than they did, but as the decimal patterns of 1857-9 show, the bronze flans were prone to lamination. See below for the F689 edge. All 686s have this problem too. As these are both dated 1859, it is clear the problem was ongoing. Both are struck in bronze with a thickness of 1.5mm and are 27.5mm diameter. Freeman analysed the similar F686A to have 92.5% copper, 5% nickel, 2 % tin and 0.5% zinc, but this variation in alloy didn't cure the problem. For those unaware of what the numbered coins refer to, please see attached 1866 halfpenny showing 405 behind the head and 138 in front, i.e. 405/138.

I can see where you are coming from re the late date, but an alternative scenario can be envisaged. We have to consider the halfpennies and farthings (and silver for that matter) alongside the pennies, and not lose track of the other demands on the mint's time. If we accept the interpretation of the scratched number pairs found on the obverse of the early bronzes as tonnage figures struck to date for the denomination, then this might give a suggestion as to why the 1860 pennies are relatively scarce. A quick perusal of Peck shows 1864 coins with fractions for all three denominations - a penny with a run of fractions from 237/134 to 240/137, a halfpenny with 312/118 and a farthing run from 233/8 to 236/11. As 236/11 and 237/134 are sequential, it means that the presumed tonnage of halfpennies up to the 236th ton of bronze was 236 - (133 +11) = 92. That means a greater mintage of halfpennies than pennies based on relative unit weight, which is pretty much what you see when it comes to 1860 halfpennies, as they are considerably more common than the penny, but the numbers out to 1864 tail off markedly after 1862. 1863 must have been devoted in the main to pennies with some halfpennies plus a handful of farthings. I'm still not fully comfortable with the above idea due to the low number for farthings, which seem relatively common, but maybe they were set aside more readily. The numbers in Peck seem fairly consistent with the theory out to 1866. It is also worth noting that the farthing only has 3 obverse and 2 reverses from 1860-1864 against 8 of each for the halfpennies and 7 of each for the pennies. Maybe they had fewer problems with the smaller dies, but equally, the larger mintages and by extension number of dies for the other two might have meant they wore out the punches etc. So, maybe the reason for the low number of 1860 pennies was simply down to a more pressing requirement for the other two denominations. There's a parallel universe to the world of pennies only.

I would postulate that a handful were tucked away by collectors, taken from circulation. Just as the people today will collect anything about to be demonetised or superseded for whatever reason, so it is likely the same applied in 1860 - collectors' habits haven't changed. If you have a small number (32K) of 60/59 coppers out of the millions circulating from previous years, that had done the rounds for a few months until the bronze version appeared, I would suggest - cue an instant 'I'd better keep one of these' from collectors who would be the most likely to spot and keep for posterity and you have a small population of preserved but slightly worn 1860/59s. Assuming that the copper pennies were withdrawn as soon as they could be replaced, it would soon remove the majority from circulation. The fact that they were demonetised in 1869 does not mean that there were no withdrawals prior to this date. More likely is that they would be replaced at a rate approximating to the value issued, and that would likely have started immediately after the bronze coins entered circulation. The copper would probably be used for the bronze alloy needed.

A couple of centuries ago, people were paid to collect it. What goes around comes around, so if he plays his cards right he might be quids in. Not sure about the resale value though, should he go for a change of occupation.

Yes. Cast Potin units for example.

Are you using auto-correct? My phone insists on changing no to on despite 50% of all texts requiring a yes or no answer. It's a pain in the a**e. Normal for Samsung?

Smooth edge or smoothed? These were struck without a collar and had a diagonal milled edge. Filed down edges and made round could be due to making it fit jewellery or something. Any trace of a mount on the edge? If it looks like it was originally struck in a collar, then it's a dodgy one. The missing 17 isn't something I would worry about. A full date is nice, but you do get weak characters at random places in the legend from time to time. It doesn't look right though.

I think it could be a sub variety. My coin is a straightforward Withers type 7, whilst I think yours may be a type 7(i) - described as unusual reverse, very large pellets, almost no inner circle. From punches intended for penny dies? But having never seen what he was referring to when he wrote the book, it is speculation. 'Very large pellets' could use a relative reference point, as could 'almost no inner circle'. Unfortunately, he didn't include an image, so I'm guessing. The three pellets in each quarter can be separate or take the form of a trefoil depending on the placement of the pellets, which are usually relatively small points on this issue. And as for S1557 or S1558, it depends on the legend and not the bust style, which was made from several punches - shoulders and neck, face, crown, hair. You can't always trust the Spink picture to represent your coin, or at least not for the finer detail on a hammered coin.

Nearly. It's an Edward III Florin halfpenny, S1557 and not 1558 as the legend ends in REX and not REX AN. It's one of these.

It's definitely got a mascle stop, but I'm not so sure about the pinecone(?) before DON. If it is a pinecone, then the reverse isn't listed in Withers. Is there a leaf on the breast? If so, then it could be a leaf issue. Withers notes the Walters example, but says there is a leaf after CIVI, which this one doesn't have space for. The key will be trying to see what is after HENRIC. Try cleaning it up a bit.

They were made by Kempson, a documented producer of tokens, and not by some murky individual. The allegation they were intended to deceive is questionable given the comical nature of the portrait. They are quite common in decent grade too - must be if I have one.

Any way you could make it 3/5? It would probably depend on the shape of the top half of a 5, which at this time were slightly slanted forward, so not a right angle top left.

And the 1824 which shows much deeper cuts to the hair, but the 3 strands pointing to GR are in better agreement with the ebay piece. If it wasn't for the reverse, I don't think many questions would be asked.

I agree with Paddy that the reverse looks too deeply engraved. The bead count is the same as on an 1824, 1825 and 1829 I have images for here, so that appears to be constant from pattern through to currency. There are minor detail differences in the hair between this one and my 1825, but the hair is in better agreement with the 1824. Conversely, the profile of the earhole is a better match with my 1825 than the 1824. It's probably reasonable to assume that there were several bust punches made, all nominally the same, but needs someone to do the spadework to confirm. An 1825 here which differs slightly in the three hair strands pointing to GR.

'Necessary' is a very small box in the context of life. 'Desirable' on the other hand covers a multitude of sins, many of which are conveniently shifted into the 'necessary' box to justify the expenditure. You only have to look at the vast amount spent on vanity and ego to see that. How much is spent on clothes that never get worn? How many people feel the need to be seen in a high end motor, and for how many is it necessary expenditure? For a few it will be a spacious car with seating at bum level for ease of access on account of physical issues, but for the vast majority it will be a case of 'because I can afford it', or 'look at me'. Once you have risen above the destitute, this blurring affects all levels of society, so I'm not sure the safe is any different.