King GV KN Penny 1918 error ?

[Russ777 0]

Hi I have this King GV Penny KN 1918. I noticed on the date side you can almost see the out line of the head. Could this be a minting error or is it just ware??? It looks like a halo going around Britannia. I might be making a complete fool of myself but if this is well known please let me know. I have tried folloeing the outline with my nail from the other side and it does seem a similar shape.. Thanks Russ777 Will also upload heads side so you can see the condition of other side

[Russ777 0]

Heads side:

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

No, you're not making a fool of yourself, the only people who do that are the one's who don't ask the question.

Yes, this is common and is behind the gradual reduction in size of the Kings portrait over his reign. It's referred to as 'ghosting' and is basically caused by the Kings portrait being in too high relief, so that it uses too much metal during the strike and 'sucks' metal away from Britannia, leaving the outline that you've noticed.

The mint never really conquered it it, I believe someone (Scott?) even foun a 1935/36 penny with ghosting.

[Russ777 0]

So as it is common I guess there is no premium. Would anynone pay more than £1 for it? Does anyone study this in their collection??

Thanks Russ777

[Red Riley 2]

No, you're not making a fool of yourself, the only people who do that are the one's who don't ask the question.

Yes, this is common and is behind the gradual reduction in size of the Kings portrait over his reign. It's referred to as 'ghosting' and is basically caused by the Kings portrait being in too high relief, so that it uses too much metal during the strike and 'sucks' metal away from Britannia, leaving the outline that you've noticed.

The mint never really conquered it it, I believe someone (Scott?) even foun a 1935/36 penny with ghosting.

It is strange though that despite using the original portrait, the years 1911-13 (but not the 1912H) and 1921-6 rarely show symptoms of ghosting (although 1926 MEs do have other problems). However, between those dates pennies more often than not have the tell-tale halo round Britannia.

I would slightly take issue with £400 (puts on crash helmet and hides under table!) in that it did seem to get solved - I have seldom seen anything from 1921 to 1926 with much in the way of ghosting. Most designs seem to suffer from it to some extent and in some examples, but I would suggest that by that stage pennies were no worse than any other contemporary design. The worst years were probably 1915-19 which, allowing for a slight time lag coincided with the First World War and its attendant shortages of materials and skilled manpower. In fact, the pennies produced during this period were amongst the worst-made coins of the modern era.

An interesting topic Mr Russ, which us old stagers will be quite familiar with but collectors of more tender years will probably know little about.

[Peckris 579]

No, you're not making a fool of yourself, the only people who do that are the one's who don't ask the question.

Yes, this is common and is behind the gradual reduction in size of the Kings portrait over his reign. It's referred to as 'ghosting' and is basically caused by the Kings portrait being in too high relief, so that it uses too much metal during the strike and 'sucks' metal away from Britannia, leaving the outline that you've noticed.

The mint never really conquered it it, I believe someone (Scott?) even foun a 1935/36 penny with ghosting.

It is strange though that despite using the original portrait, the years 1911-13 (but not the 1912H) and 1921-6 rarely show symptoms of ghosting (although 1926 MEs do have other problems). However, between those dates pennies more often than not have the tell-tale halo round Britannia.

I would slightly take issue with £400 (puts on crash helmet and hides under table!) in that it did seem to get solved - I have seldom seen anything from 1921 to 1926 with much in the way of ghosting. Most designs seem to suffer from it to some extent and in some examples, but I would suggest that by that stage pennies were no worse than any other contemporary design. The worst years were probably 1915-19 which, allowing for a slight time lag coincided with the First World War and its attendant shortages of materials and skilled manpower. In fact, the pennies produced during this period were amongst the worst-made coins of the modern era.

An interesting topic Mr Russ, which us old stagers will be quite familiar with but collectors of more tender years will probably know little about.

I have mixed responses to this (based purely on observation, not any academic research) :

• I have certainly seen plenty of 1911 - 13 pennies with ghosted reverses (a 1911 was one of the worst I've seen).

• I do agree however, that the ghosting - while not cured - seems greatly reduced after the 1921 Type 2 obverse (1921-26).

• I'm also unsure about the 'World War I' thesis : the 'faded look' of the penny obverse from 1913 is almost entirely due to the reduction in the very deep portrait of 1911. Where this did not happen (halfpennies & farthings) the quality of the striking holds up, except where worn dies were persisted with, for example some 1919 farthings. Also, that thesis would have to apply to ALL coins minted surely? Yet I have found that many shillings / florins / halfcrowns of the WWI period are particularly strong (we know that they deteriorated badly after 1920 with the 'shallow cut portrait' introduced along with the alloy change). My own observation about pennies is that worst offenders seem to be the Heaton and Kings Norton strikes 1918-19, possibly due to striking with dies that had already borne heavy wear. After those I would say that 1918 - 1921 pennies from the Mint are often poor obverses too, improving considerably - both sides - with the 1921 Type 2 obverse.

But it's a hazy area, and would repay research I'm sure. I'm NOT volunteering.

[scott 144]

yes its ghosting, pretty common, and yes i have a 1935 with it, also a 1947 although not as severe, it does pop up in ALL pennys post 1895 but its not as common on the dates around 1917-21

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

yes its ghosting, pretty common, and yes i have a 1935 with it, also a 1947 although not as severe, it does pop up in ALL pennys post 1895 but its not as common on the dates around 1917-21

Which perhaps makes one wonder, if the machinery used in the strike is the cause, not the dies and certainly not the planchet. Particularly wondering about the ferocity of the strike ?

I've long been interested in why the WW1 strikes are so poor as well, maybe it's to do with the power available ?

OK, could be down to worn dies etc, but maybe it's because the electricity is deployed elsewhere and wartime pennies are lightly struck ?

War over, power restored, Bam, the ghost is back.

Just a thought.

Not a new concept, the Boer war medals suffered from this nearly 20 years before.

[josie 8]

Just posting.

Copper alloy was officially set in 1923 freeman and modified effigy in 1926.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

Any chance you could put up a pic of your 1935 Scott ?

I've tried to find it on the other thread, but cannot. Usually, I'm not jealous of other peoples coins, but I do think you have an important coin there. Proof really that the ghosting issue never completely went away despite the various ammendments to the portrait.

I also personally happen to think that after George V, portraiture on British coinage went down the pan and if must have something to do with this issue.

Anyone know if other countries had ghosting problems ?

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

Don't wish to appear rude or disrespectful to Mr T.Humphry Paget, but I am more of an admirer of Thomas Brock and particularly G.W de Saulles and Sir Bertram Mackennal.

[josie 8]

just posting.

Freeman technical summary pg 10.

1923 officially set 95.5 cu,3 tin 1.5 zinc.....ghosting 1923-april 1942????

April 1942 97 cu,0.5 tin due to shortage of tin from malaya 2.5 zinc....ghosting april 1942-october 1945???

from october 1945 to june 1959 same composition pre 1942,that will be 95.5 cu,3 tin 1.5 zinc.... october 1945 to june 1959 ghosting???

june 1959 onwards same composition of 1942-1945,97%cu 0.5%tin,2.5%zinc october 1959-1970 ghosting???

I dont know what company supply the flan,boulton,heaton or king norton and in lastriant nor the color or toning or hypo finish.

Edited April 5, 2010 by josie

[scott 144]

i'll dig out the pictures later, its not as severe as it is on the 1918, but its there.

[Peckris 579]

yes its ghosting, pretty common, and yes i have a 1935 with it, also a 1947 although not as severe, it does pop up in ALL pennys post 1895 but its not as common on the dates around 1917-21

Which perhaps makes one wonder, if the machinery used in the strike is the cause, not the dies and certainly not the planchet. Particularly wondering about the ferocity of the strike ?

I'd say most of those - the one thing the Mint did know, apart from how to cure it - was that the main cause of the problem was both the depth and overall size of the portrait. I don't know the actual physics, but apparently it was to do with the displacement of metal caused by the strike, and therefore you can blame the design AND the strikings. The dies can only be blamed in so far as they carried the unbalanced design; the planchet was standard for pennies and therefore cannot be blamed. Another contributory factor is the shallowness of the rim on the reverse, compared to the Vic OH for example.

I've long been interested in why the WW1 strikes are so poor as well, maybe it's to do with the power available ?

In my experience (ok, not comprehensive, but I've seen plenty of coins from the period) this isn't evident - or it would show up on the larger silver coins in particular,but it doesn't (see my reply above).

[scott 144]

this is the 1947, its hard to spot but look at the lustre loss there is lustrous line going up the the N from brittanias hand on the shield, which is part of the ghosting

here is the 1935, as you can see its clear

[josie 8]

Just posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_penny_%281901%E2%80%931970%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfpenny_%28British_pre-decimal_coin%29#Great_Britain_and_beyond.2C_1800-1970

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Mint#Depression

Edited April 6, 2010 by josie

[Red Riley 2]

• I'm also unsure about the 'World War I' thesis : the 'faded look' of the penny obverse from 1913 is almost entirely due to the reduction in the very deep portrait of 1911. Where this did not happen (halfpennies & farthings) the quality of the striking holds up, except where worn dies were persisted with, for example some 1919 farthings. Also, that thesis would have to apply to ALL coins minted surely? Yet I have found that many shillings / florins / halfcrowns of the WWI period are particularly strong (we know that they deteriorated badly after 1920 with the 'shallow cut portrait' introduced along with the alloy change). My own observation about pennies is that worst offenders seem to be the Heaton and Kings Norton strikes 1918-19, possibly due to striking with dies that had already borne heavy wear. After those I would say that 1918 - 1921 pennies from the Mint are often poor obverses too, improving considerably - both sides - with the 1921 Type 2 obverse.

I think that due to their relative size and thinness, if that's a word, pennies were always among the most difficult coins to produce and it required a great deal of skill to get a heavy obverse design onto the planchet without damaging the reverse. Plus of course, they were made in far greater numbers than any other coin. I just wonder if, for the reason that future supplies of steel were uncertain, the mint stockpiled worn out but uncracked dies in case they were needed in future and in the case of pennies they were! Don't forget that the reverse in this period could also be pretty shocking. So my hypothesis on why pennies are so appalling in this period is:

1) They were the most difficult coin to produce and were thus most easily affected by skill shortages; and

2) As they were produced in greater numbers than anything else, if there was a complete embargo on the mint acquiring steel, as it was needed for tanks, warships etc. penny dies would have to be used to produce more coins, ergo they were more worn out than those used for halfpennies, farthings etc.

I think different denominations revealed the lack of skill which went into their production in different ways, again entirely unscientific, but I have a 1916 2/6d in GEF with a very 'soft' strike and a completely flattened rim on the obverse - once more probably due to a worn die, but in this design the effigy is rather recessed meaning it isn't the highest point and therefore the die wears first elsewhere.

Anyway, an interesting subject for somebody else to research!

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

Anyway, an interesting subject for somebody else to research!

It is, it is, but it's a generally very frustrating period to research as the Luftwaffe pancaked the public records office in 1940 and a lot of records across a wide range of subjects from the late WWI period are missing. May get away with it, might not.

I'm not volunteering.

You'd have to think that after all those portrait revisions, it has to be something to do with the machinery striking too hard hasn't it ?

Perhaps it was calibrated to strike crowns (did ghosting occur on crowns ?) and when penny planchets were struck the force was just too much ?

Maybe the mint workers of the time were drunken, howling maniacal fools - hold on, or that could be me, I have lunched comprehensively......

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

Oh, and sorry, forgot to say thanks Scottie.

[Peckris 579]

I think that due to their relative size and thinness, if that's a word, pennies were always among the most difficult coins to produce and it required a great deal of skill to get a heavy obverse design onto the planchet without damaging the reverse. Plus of course, they were made in far greater numbers than any other coin. I just wonder if, for the reason that future supplies of steel were uncertain, the mint stockpiled worn out but uncracked dies in case they were needed in future and in the case of pennies they were! Don't forget that the reverse in this period could also be pretty shocking. So my hypothesis on why pennies are so appalling in this period is:

1) They were the most difficult coin to produce and were thus most easily affected by skill shortages; and

2) As they were produced in greater numbers than anything else, if there was a complete embargo on the mint acquiring steel, as it was needed for tanks, warships etc. penny dies would have to be used to produce more coins, ergo they were more worn out than those used for halfpennies, farthings etc.

I think different denominations revealed the lack of skill which went into their production in different ways, again entirely unscientific, but I have a 1916 2/6d in GEF with a very 'soft' strike and a completely flattened rim on the obverse - once more probably due to a worn die, but in this design the effigy is rather recessed meaning it isn't the highest point and therefore the die wears first elsewhere.

Anyway, an interesting subject for somebody else to research!

I agree about the difficulty striking pennies properly : the halfcrown was also a large coin with the same deep portrait, but the reverse design was far deeper and more "raised" than the penny, and the rim higher, so therefore the design was more balanced both sides. It's interesting to note that shillings (which in my experience have well-struck up obverses) often have ghosting on the reverse; the lion on crown design being quite shallow.

I'm unsure about the embargo on steel for dies? For two reasons : 1) the amount of steel required for the entire Mint output would have amounted to a couple of capstans on the average battle-cruiser! and 2) the importance of the economy to the war effort would have meant that the Mint would have had quite a high priority in the 'pecking order' of things ... the total circulating coinage forming a large % of the money supply compared to now.

You'd have to think that after all those portrait revisions, it has to be something to do with the machinery striking too hard hasn't it ?

Perhaps it was calibrated to strike crowns (did ghosting occur on crowns ?) and when penny planchets were struck the force was just too much ?

I doubt the striking force of the machinery would have altered? It's the unbalanced nature of the first series designs I'd think - particularly pennies, halfpennies, shillings, and sixpences, where the worst ghosting occurred. (The depth of the portrait is less pronounced on farthings and threepences, and the rims are comparatively bigger in relation to the overall coin size). On all these designs, the depth and size of the obverse design compared to the shallowness and thin rims of the reverses, caused this 'metal displacement' that led to ghosting.

The Mint's interventions prior to 1927 are to do with reducing the obverse in some way or another.

There were no crowns until 1927, so no ghosting. I imagine that the strike for each blank size was calibrated separately? In any case, the shallower obverse design of every bronze penny prior to 1911 resulted in little or no ghosting, thus putting even more of a finger of suspicion on the design, rather than the strike or machinery.

[josie 8]

Just posting.

1923 or 1925 downwards MC BP 95%cu,4%tin,1%zinc???