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.

Recommended Posts

It isn't rocket science though when all's said and done. You are only going to look for something you are aware of; but once you know, a quick check of the date and if 1926 a check on the position of the BM. I haven't got the slightest interest in pennies, but wouldn't have any difficulty recognising one. Whether a date collector or a full-blown variety collector, both would check the date first because it's the most likely gap in the collection. There seems to be a presumption that previous collectors weren't able to recognise the variety, but the information has always been there if they were so minded. The obvious conclusion is that either collectors took no interest in contemporary currency (similar to the attitude of many collectors today regarding current mint output), or that the coins were never that common in the first place.

I'm not sure I entirely agree here. Any fool can spot an H or a KN but it takes practice to isolate an ME from the ordinary effigy. Coin collectors are like anybody else and their level of interest and thence skill will vary widely. Only a tiny minority will have had the interest to buy or borrow a publication which shows them what to look out for. My change collecting of pennies as it related to MEs went in three stages;

1) I had no knowledge of there being two varieties of 1926, although I did know about Hs and KNs;

2) I found out that there were two types but initially thought they had a small head like 1928-36. I hadn't picked up on 1927 being a different design;

3) Somebody pointed out to me what I should be looking for and after a while I could recognise one at ten paces.

As £400 and 1949 Threepence have pointed out, pre-internet collectors were often lone wolves and it took time to garner information about the subject. Many will have learnt more by borrowing Seaby's (now Spink's) from the library, as I did, but library books have to be returned and you can't learn everything in the two week period before the fines start to kick in. My point is that because of the level of skill involved there were always going to be less people looking out for MEs, although I suspect that like KNs (not Hs) the majority were eventually harvested from circulation but as this took a long time, they were typically in worn condition.

On the assumption that nobody recognised the ME and the collector wanted the best example of a 1926 penny he or she could find, then the percentage of mint state pieces of either 1st or 2nd effigies should be directly proportional to the ratio in which they were produced. There is no reason to discriminate in favour of or against either type if both were freely circulated. If you did know of the ME's existence, then it is reasonable to assume that you would look out for both varieties. I can accept that conceivably there were few collectors in proportion to the total collector base who were aware of it, but the limited number of coins collected as opposed to freely circulated should mean that the first sentence is a very good approximation to reality. Once the existence of a rarity, perceived or real, enters general knowledge there will be a tendency to hoover up all examples encountered whatever the grade. KN & H pennies (or even the 20p mule) are good examples of this. The result is that they are relatively common in circulated grades when compared to actual mintage figures for all types because they survived the great melt at decimalisation. This should also apply to the MEs because they would not have been withdrawn from circulation until decimalisation. The key to the mintages should therefore lie in the number of mint state examples extant. In an information free environment the statistics are going to be as unbiased as you can get.

Once you have the knowledge that there were two types of 1926 penny and have read about the differences. I don't think it is too much to expect that the collector looks for a date first of all and then the position of the BM. And if they don't care or can't remember these two features, then the first sentence will apply in whatever grade.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only issue i have with the BM checking is.. it isn't always very clear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the assumption that nobody recognised the ME and the collector wanted the best example of a 1926 penny he or she could find, then the percentage of mint state pieces of either 1st or 2nd effigies should be directly proportional to the ratio in which they were produced. There is no reason to discriminate in favour of or against either type if both were freely circulated. If you did know of the ME's existence, then it is reasonable to assume that you would look out for both varieties. I can accept that conceivably there were few collectors in proportion to the total collector base who were aware of it, but the limited number of coins collected as opposed to freely circulated should mean that the first sentence is a very good approximation to reality. Once the existence of a rarity, perceived or real, enters general knowledge there will be a tendency to hoover up all examples encountered whatever the grade. KN & H pennies (or even the 20p mule) are good examples of this. The result is that they are relatively common in circulated grades when compared to actual mintage figures for all types because they survived the great melt at decimalisation. This should also apply to the MEs because they would not have been withdrawn from circulation until decimalisation. The key to the mintages should therefore lie in the number of mint state examples extant. In an information free environment the statistics are going to be as unbiased as you can get.

Once you have the knowledge that there were two types of 1926 penny and have read about the differences. I don't think it is too much to expect that the collector looks for a date first of all and then the position of the BM. And if they don't care or can't remember these two features, then the first sentence will apply in whatever grade.

I think your second point (in purple) answers what seems to be the flaw in the logic of the first (in blue), Rob? The survival of both types in high grade being proportional to the ratio of mintage, only applies if both appeared concurrently. But as we know, the survival in quite reasonable grades of rarities such as the 1895 2mm and 1902 LT pennies is because - though both are varyingly scarce - both were also the very first of their kinds and so proportionally more would have been put aside than you might otherwise expect. However, in the case of the 1926, it was the commoner variety that appeared first and would have largely satisfied the demands of those just 'wanting the date'. Maybe a few (lucky) souls were aware of, interested in, and able to distinguish between, the two varieties and knew what to look out for. But, if the total mintage was - say - 100,000 then some of those few would have been looking forever with no luck of ever seeing one.

Edited by Peckris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the assumption that nobody recognised the ME and the collector wanted the best example of a 1926 penny he or she could find, then the percentage of mint state pieces of either 1st or 2nd effigies should be directly proportional to the ratio in which they were produced. There is no reason to discriminate in favour of or against either type if both were freely circulated. If you did know of the ME's existence, then it is reasonable to assume that you would look out for both varieties. I can accept that conceivably there were few collectors in proportion to the total collector base who were aware of it, but the limited number of coins collected as opposed to freely circulated should mean that the first sentence is a very good approximation to reality. Once the existence of a rarity, perceived or real, enters general knowledge there will be a tendency to hoover up all examples encountered whatever the grade. KN & H pennies (or even the 20p mule) are good examples of this. The result is that they are relatively common in circulated grades when compared to actual mintage figures for all types because they survived the great melt at decimalisation. This should also apply to the MEs because they would not have been withdrawn from circulation until decimalisation. The key to the mintages should therefore lie in the number of mint state examples extant. In an information free environment the statistics are going to be as unbiased as you can get.

Once you have the knowledge that there were two types of 1926 penny and have read about the differences. I don't think it is too much to expect that the collector looks for a date first of all and then the position of the BM. And if they don't care or can't remember these two features, then the first sentence will apply in whatever grade.

I think your second point (in purple) answers what seems to be the flaw in the logic of the first (in blue), Rob? The survival of both types in high grade being proportional to the ratio of mintage, only applies if both appeared concurrently. But as we know, the survival in quite reasonable grades of rarities such as the 1895 2mm and 1902 LT pennies is because - though both are varyingly scarce - both were also the very first of their kinds and so proportionally more would have been put aside than you might otherwise expect. However, in the case of the 1926, it was the commoner variety that appeared first and would have largely satisfied the demands of those just 'wanting the date'. Maybe a few (lucky) souls were aware of, interested in, and able to distinguish between, the two varieties and knew what to look out for. But, if the total mintage was - say - 100,000 then some of those few would have been looking forever with no luck of ever seeing one.

Some very interesting points, and I have to say, Rob, your logic is actually very compelling, dependent on when the ME pennies, were issued in relation to the rest. If they were all issued at roughly the same time ~ typically towards the end of the year ~ then what you say is undeniable. If, however, there was a significant gap between the two types, or a hybrid of say one batch at the end of 1926, and another batch of unmodified and modified issued together sometime in 1927, then your conclusions seem to hold water, Peck. Trouble is we will never know, and the position is further complicated by just how many collectors at that time, knew about the ME. Moreover, as was said earlier, wouldn't it be like us putting aside 2010 1p's in our collection cabinets ? Just who would have been interested in such coins, back then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the assumption that nobody recognised the ME and the collector wanted the best example of a 1926 penny he or she could find, then the percentage of mint state pieces of either 1st or 2nd effigies should be directly proportional to the ratio in which they were produced. There is no reason to discriminate in favour of or against either type if both were freely circulated. If you did know of the ME's existence, then it is reasonable to assume that you would look out for both varieties. I can accept that conceivably there were few collectors in proportion to the total collector base who were aware of it, but the limited number of coins collected as opposed to freely circulated should mean that the first sentence is a very good approximation to reality. Once the existence of a rarity, perceived or real, enters general knowledge there will be a tendency to hoover up all examples encountered whatever the grade. KN & H pennies (or even the 20p mule) are good examples of this. The result is that they are relatively common in circulated grades when compared to actual mintage figures for all types because they survived the great melt at decimalisation. This should also apply to the MEs because they would not have been withdrawn from circulation until decimalisation. The key to the mintages should therefore lie in the number of mint state examples extant. In an information free environment the statistics are going to be as unbiased as you can get.

Once you have the knowledge that there were two types of 1926 penny and have read about the differences. I don't think it is too much to expect that the collector looks for a date first of all and then the position of the BM. And if they don't care or can't remember these two features, then the first sentence will apply in whatever grade.

I think your second point (in purple) answers what seems to be the flaw in the logic of the first (in blue), Rob? The survival of both types in high grade being proportional to the ratio of mintage, only applies if both appeared concurrently. But as we know, the survival in quite reasonable grades of rarities such as the 1895 2mm and 1902 LT pennies is because - though both are varyingly scarce - both were also the very first of their kinds and so proportionally more would have been put aside than you might otherwise expect. However, in the case of the 1926, it was the commoner variety that appeared first and would have largely satisfied the demands of those just 'wanting the date'. Maybe a few (lucky) souls were aware of, interested in, and able to distinguish between, the two varieties and knew what to look out for. But, if the total mintage was - say - 100,000 then some of those few would have been looking forever with no luck of ever seeing one.

I don't know if the 1st effigy dies were used up before the ME was used or not, as it is equally possible they were used concurrently if the mint was using more than one machine. In fact there would be a very good reason for running them side by side as this would allow the die characteristics to be properly evaluated. No newly introduced design would have been previously subjected to a test to destruction if that involved striking 50-100000 or so coins. That is why I was hoping somebody might have the mint records for this period on the off chance that it might shed light on the dates when 1926 pennies were struck and when the ME dies were introduced. Whatever date this happened, the pennies weren't struck until the second half of the year with either obverse design as per my previous post regarding the articles in the SNC, although modified effigy dies must have been produced in 1925 as the halfpenny is known with this date, but again presumably not until the end of the year as its existence wasn't recorded by Garside until the August 1926 article. Even if the precise dates are not available, it should be possible to make an educated guess of the limits based on the striking rate of the equipment in use at the time and total output.

At the moment we are all hypothesising without firm evidence, so could do with a bit of research. Any members of the BNS in the London area could take time out to visit the Library in the Warburg Institute for example as they have probably got a copy of the Mint records for 1925, 1926 & 1927.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the assumption that nobody recognised the ME and the collector wanted the best example of a 1926 penny he or she could find, then the percentage of mint state pieces of either 1st or 2nd effigies should be directly proportional to the ratio in which they were produced. There is no reason to discriminate in favour of or against either type if both were freely circulated. If you did know of the ME's existence, then it is reasonable to assume that you would look out for both varieties. I can accept that conceivably there were few collectors in proportion to the total collector base who were aware of it, but the limited number of coins collected as opposed to freely circulated should mean that the first sentence is a very good approximation to reality. Once the existence of a rarity, perceived or real, enters general knowledge there will be a tendency to hoover up all examples encountered whatever the grade. KN & H pennies (or even the 20p mule) are good examples of this. The result is that they are relatively common in circulated grades when compared to actual mintage figures for all types because they survived the great melt at decimalisation. This should also apply to the MEs because they would not have been withdrawn from circulation until decimalisation. The key to the mintages should therefore lie in the number of mint state examples extant. In an information free environment the statistics are going to be as unbiased as you can get.

Once you have the knowledge that there were two types of 1926 penny and have read about the differences. I don't think it is too much to expect that the collector looks for a date first of all and then the position of the BM. And if they don't care or can't remember these two features, then the first sentence will apply in whatever grade.

I think your second point (in purple) answers what seems to be the flaw in the logic of the first (in blue), Rob? The survival of both types in high grade being proportional to the ratio of mintage, only applies if both appeared concurrently. But as we know, the survival in quite reasonable grades of rarities such as the 1895 2mm and 1902 LT pennies is because - though both are varyingly scarce - both were also the very first of their kinds and so proportionally more would have been put aside than you might otherwise expect. However, in the case of the 1926, it was the commoner variety that appeared first and would have largely satisfied the demands of those just 'wanting the date'. Maybe a few (lucky) souls were aware of, interested in, and able to distinguish between, the two varieties and knew what to look out for. But, if the total mintage was - say - 100,000 then some of those few would have been looking forever with no luck of ever seeing one.

I don't know if the 1st effigy dies were used up before the ME was used or not, as it is equally possible they were used concurrently if the mint was using more than one machine. In fact there would be a very good reason for running them side by side as this would allow the die characteristics to be properly evaluated. No newly introduced design would have been previously subjected to a test to destruction if that involved striking 50-100000 or so coins. That is why I was hoping somebody might have the mint records for this period on the off chance that it might shed light on the dates when 1926 pennies were struck and when the ME dies were introduced. Whatever date this happened, the pennies weren't struck until the second half of the year with either obverse design as per my previous post regarding the articles in the SNC, although modified effigy dies must have been produced in 1925 as the halfpenny is known with this date, but again presumably not until the end of the year as its existence wasn't recorded by Garside until the August 1926 article. Even if the precise dates are not available, it should be possible to make an educated guess of the limits based on the striking rate of the equipment in use at the time and total output.

At the moment we are all hypothesising without firm evidence, so could do with a bit of research. Any members of the BNS in the London area could take time out to visit the Library in the Warburg Institute for example as they have probably got a copy of the Mint records for 1925, 1926 & 1927.

It would certainly help to pour water on certain assumptions - such as the one I've ALWAYS held, that the first issue of 1926 pennies appeared before the ME. But as you say, there's no proof of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's throw another possibility into the mix.

The ME was clearly intended to be the way forward in 1925 because the 1925 ME halfpenny was produced. What if the 1926 ME penny was the first to be struck with this date, but the die broke early on and so the balance of the order was made up using old obverse dies? This would leave an unquantifiable (but potentially very small) number struck unless the Mint Records could shed some light on the subject. Again there's no evidence, but with all options open it has to be considered.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How relevant would the production timeframe be in relation to whether the ordinary or modified effigy was minted first?

I only ask because at the moment how often/early in the year do we see the new date coinage we are using today?

I do not know how the coinage would have been released in 1926/7 but I am pretty sure that some areas of the country would probably never have had an issue of ME'e released through their banks. It is quite possible that the entire mintage was released into circulation in one area only, thus by the time an ME penny reached the Manchester area for example it would already have seen quite a bit of circulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How relevant would the production timeframe be in relation to whether the ordinary or modified effigy was minted first?

I only ask because at the moment how often/early in the year do we see the new date coinage we are using today?

I do not know how the coinage would have been released in 1926/7 but I am pretty sure that some areas of the country would probably never have had an issue of ME'e released through their banks. It is quite possible that the entire mintage was released into circulation in one area only, thus by the time an ME penny reached the Manchester area for example it would already have seen quite a bit of circulation.

Today's releases are driven by the marketing department, or so it appears. Sets are produced for the beginning of the year so that they can make inflated prices for their packaged products. The currency ones are released to the banks as they ask for new supplies. There are far more coins in circulation than you might assume would be required, but so many are sat in piggy banks or the like that the mint has to keep on producing them. Look at the number of 1p's officially in circulation, which is far more than are required for normal commerce. I don't think that scenario would have been relevant in 1926 when currency would have been released as required purely on commercial grounds and agree with the idea that most if not all were sent to a small area of the country.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's releases are driven by the marketing department, or so it appears. Sets are produced for the beginning of the year so that they can make inflated prices for their packaged products. The currency ones are released to the banks as they ask for new supplies. There are far more coins in circulation than you might assumed would be required, but so many are sat in piggy banks or the like that the mint has to keep on producing them. Look at the number of 1p's officially in circulation, which is far more than are required for normal commerce. I don't think that scenario would have been relevant in 1926 when currency would have been released as required purely on commercial grounds and agree with the idea that most if not all were sent to a small area of the country.

You are probably right here. We know for example that the vast bulk of 1951 pennies went to Bermuda (I think it was Bermuda) and 1950s to Northern Ireland. We only know this because they are entirely separate areas and comparatively easy to isolate what is in circulation. The same must happen to all other coins but because there are no physical boundaries to cross, the whereabouts of issue remains entirely unknown. It must therefore be odds on that all the MEs were released in one area, but at this distance in time it is impossible to tell where this was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anybody who collected copper or bronze was considered a bit of an oddball
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D Edited by ski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's throw another possibility into the mix.

The ME was clearly intended to be the way forward in 1925 because the 1925 ME halfpenny was produced. What if the 1926 ME penny was the first to be struck with this date, but the die broke early on and so the balance of the order was made up using old obverse dies? This would leave an unquantifiable (but potentially very small) number struck unless the Mint Records could shed some light on the subject. Again there's no evidence, but with all options open it has to be considered.

I've always regarded the 1925ME as a bit of an oddball - it may have been a test issue to see how well the ME stood up?

The slight problem I have with the theory that the ME penny was struck first (and then broke) is this : the penny, silver 3d, sixpence, shilling, and halfcrown were all issued in both types. Wouldn't it be more likely that all of those repeated a similar pattern, i.e. the ME was the later issue? And perhaps the reason for that is : due to the very low mintages of silver in 1925 there were plenty of obverse dies still unused, so the Mint decided to use those up first before starting on the ME issues? Just a thought. (The same would apply to pennies too of course, with no issues for three years before 1926).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of the above is possible. Tardis anyone to resolve it once and for all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its in mid 1920's that a red phone booth is introduce just a comment.

It is also UKGB is planing to return to gold standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest richbedforduk

Hi,

I am currently sorting coins. I am often struggling with the variations. (Although it was also news to me that crowns & 5 shillings were the same, and I won't mention florins). This is a particular problem with the pennies. I am a bit stuck with 1861, 1863 and 1895. I will post pics shortly for assistance.

In the meantime, I have 54 1926 pennies. I cannot work out what the difference is for an ME (yes I know it's a Modified Effigy). Unless you have two different pics side by side, it's really tricky. Can anyone post 2 comparison pics please?

Rotographic does say see appendix 1, but there is nothing labelled appendix 1 that I can find. There are pics of small/large head, but the small head is 1928+, not 1926.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your wish is my command. If my computer's not playing silly b*ggers, the second image is the ME. Quality may not be great in order to fit within the size limits.

Yes, it's playing silly b*ggers, it told me that was going to be 10 cm. across... You should however be able to download and enlarge if you have the right equipment.

post-798-092926300 1299233770_thumb.jpg

post-798-037544900 1299233790_thumb.jpg

Edited by Red Riley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime, I have 54 1926 pennies. I cannot work out what the difference is for an ME (yes I know it's a Modified Effigy). Unless you have two different pics side by side, it's really tricky. Can anyone post 2 comparison pics please?

I don't have any pictures of pennies, but the ME was issued on several 1926 denominations. The heads are quite different when viewed side by side and have a number of differences. By far the easiest way to tell them apart is the size and location of the BM initials on the truncation. The ME has the BM smaller and further to the right than the non-ME (which has B.M.)

Here is a picture of a non-ME shilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is a picture of a ME shilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest richbedforduk

Red,

Thanks for the quick response. When I enlarged the pics they lost focus, so I couldn't see any difference.

Nick,

Also thanks. Good pics and I can see what to look for. I would never have found that.

I will report back with the number of ME's (if any), in the 54.

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red,

Thanks for the quick response. When I enlarged the pics they lost focus, so I couldn't see any difference.

Nick,

Also thanks. Good pics and I can see what to look for. I would never have found that.

I will report back with the number of ME's (if any), in the 54.

Rich

If you think any are, post pictures on here and we'll check them for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i only have a non-ME but with good detail

976818.jpg

as you can see the B.M. isn't that well struck

your best bet is to compare with a 1927

Edited by scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at home so can't post pics, but the easiest way to distinguish an ME penny is by the position of the colon ( : ) between BRITT and OMN, rather than looking at the BM or other slight differences in the bust. If no one posts details in the meantime I'll post a photo later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at home so can't post pics, but the easiest way to distinguish an ME penny is by the position of the colon ( : ) between BRITT and OMN, rather than looking at the BM or other slight differences in the bust. If no one posts details in the meantime I'll post a photo later.

Personally I prefer the I of DEI. I to tooth ME, I to gap non-ME

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the colon after GRA as an identifier of the ME. On the ME, the bottom dot of the colon almost touches the A in GRA. If it is a non-ME, then the bottom dot of the colon is centered between the A and the B, of BRITT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×