Lions faces on Edward VII & George V shillings

[Oxford_Collector 0]

Hi -I have a small number of Edward VII & George V shillings, on the Edward shillings the Lion's face looks well-formed and distinct, yet on the George V shillings it looks less well-formed more indistinct, though the coins look otherwise near-UNC, so I'm unsure if this is due to weaker strikes for this reign (as with the upper lion's faces on the first series of George V florins) or just wear. Is it known that the shillings of George V have a more weakly struck reverse or is wear the more likely cause? I also have a 1914 sixpence of George VI that looks a good UNC overall (the obverse being particularly well-struck), but again the lion's face is not well-formed and am wondering if this is due to a weakly struck reverse or not (though also, I guess you will get less detail on the sixpences anyway...)? Am still learning how to grade these coins correctly...

[Oxford_Collector 0]

Hi -I have a small number of Edward VII & George V shillings, on the Edward shillings the Lion's face looks well-formed and distinct, yet on the George V shillings it looks less well-formed more indistinct, though the coins look otherwise near-UNC, so I'm unsure if this is due to weaker strikes for this reign (as with the upper lion's faces on the first series of George V florins) or just wear. Is it known that the shillings of George V have a more weakly struck reverse or is wear the more likely cause? I also have a 1914 sixpence of George VI that looks a good UNC overall (the obverse being particularly well-struck), but again the lion's face is not well-formed and am wondering if this is due to a weakly struck reverse or not (though also, I guess you will get less detail on the sixpences anyway...)? Am still learning how to grade these coins correctly...

BTW the lion's face seen in my current avatar is from an 1902 Edward VII shilling I own, and is clearly defined

[VickySilver 883]

Well, a couple of other factors might play a role (probably more but still not up for the day yet):

on the .925 1914-19 were relatively long die life strikes = worn dies and possibly less deeply struck

on the 1920 and later dates, save the proofs, these were struck into harder coin alloy

dies redesigned on this with less depth of field

[Oxford_Collector 0]

Well, a couple of other factors might play a role (probably more but still not up for the day yet):

on the .925 1914-19 were relatively long die life strikes = worn dies and possibly less deeply struck

on the 1920 and later dates, save the proofs, these were struck into harder coin alloy

dies redesigned on this with less depth of field

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks

[Peckris 579]

Well, a couple of other factors might play a role (probably more but still not up for the day yet):

on the .925 1914-19 were relatively long die life strikes = worn dies and possibly less deeply struck

on the 1920 and later dates, save the proofs, these were struck into harder coin alloy

dies redesigned on this with less depth of field

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks

There's one factor which overrides - when comparing Edward VII reverses to George V, you must bear in mind that the Edward portrait is quite noticeably shallower than George's, which was notoriously high relief. This had a very definite impact on reverses, which have 'metal sucked away' from them compared to Edward. I would therefore expect most Edward reverses to look better struck and also less ghosted, than George's.

[Nick 329]

Well, a couple of other factors might play a role (probably more but still not up for the day yet):

on the .925 1914-19 were relatively long die life strikes = worn dies and possibly less deeply struck

on the 1920 and later dates, save the proofs, these were struck into harder coin alloy

dies redesigned on this with less depth of field

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks

I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era.

[Peckris 579]

I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era.

Nick, did we overlap posts? See my reply above yours!

[Nick 329]

I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era.

Nick, did we overlap posts? See my reply above yours!

Indeed we did.

[Oxford_Collector 0]

Well, a couple of other factors might play a role (probably more but still not up for the day yet):

on the .925 1914-19 were relatively long die life strikes = worn dies and possibly less deeply struck

on the 1920 and later dates, save the proofs, these were struck into harder coin alloy

dies redesigned on this with less depth of field

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks

I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era.

So for George V shillings and sixpences, missing details for the lion's nose is more likely due to a weak strike, rather than wear, if the rest of the coin looks UNC? BTW what do mean by the "pre-ME George V era"? Thanks again.

[Nick 329]

Well, a couple of other factors might play a role (probably more but still not up for the day yet):

on the .925 1914-19 were relatively long die life strikes = worn dies and possibly less deeply struck

on the 1920 and later dates, save the proofs, these were struck into harder coin alloy

dies redesigned on this with less depth of field

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks

I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era.

So for George V shillings and sixpences, missing details for the lion's nose is more likely due to a weak strike, rather than wear, if the rest of the coin looks UNC? BTW what do mean by the "pre-ME George V era"? Thanks again.

ME stands for modified effigy which was first used in 1926.

[Oxford_Collector 0]

Well, a couple of other factors might play a role (probably more but still not up for the day yet):

on the .925 1914-19 were relatively long die life strikes = worn dies and possibly less deeply struck

on the 1920 and later dates, save the proofs, these were struck into harder coin alloy

dies redesigned on this with less depth of field

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks

I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era.

So for George V shillings and sixpences, missing details for the lion's nose is more likely due to a weak strike, rather than wear, if the rest of the coin looks UNC? BTW what do mean by the "pre-ME George V era"? Thanks again.

ME stands for modified effigy which was first used in 1926.

Ah, makes sense now, thanks! So do the coins with the modified effigy tend to be better struck? Though these of course are debased 50% silver, though I guess the metal composition will have an impact here too

[Nick 329]

Well, a couple of other factors might play a role (probably more but still not up for the day yet):

on the .925 1914-19 were relatively long die life strikes = worn dies and possibly less deeply struck

on the 1920 and later dates, save the proofs, these were struck into harder coin alloy

dies redesigned on this with less depth of field

I don't have many reference points for George V shillings/sixpences - can anyone else confirm whether these are often weakly struck on the reverse and whether the Edward VII coins (though scarcer) are more defined? Thanks

I've seen many weak lion reverses on both shillings and sixpences. The lion's nose is the most likely to be missing details along with the right hand side of the mane (generally worse on sixpences) and sometimes the right hand fleur de lys. I think that the Edward VII shillings are generally slightly better struck than those of the pre-ME George V era.

So for George V shillings and sixpences, missing details for the lion's nose is more likely due to a weak strike, rather than wear, if the rest of the coin looks UNC? BTW what do mean by the "pre-ME George V era"? Thanks again.

ME stands for modified effigy which was first used in 1926.

Ah, makes sense now, thanks! So do the coins with the modified effigy tend to be better struck? Though these of course are debased 50% silver, though I guess the metal composition will have an impact here too

I would say that the ME coins are better struck, but whether that is purely down to the new portrait I don't know. I don't think the metal composition is the reason as that was .500 silver from 1920 onwards and there are plenty of weak 1920-1925 examples. Perhaps the new metal composition, being less dense, allowed the striking pressure to be increased.

[Peckris 579]

So for George V shillings and sixpences, missing details for the lion's nose is more likely due to a weak strike, rather than wear, if the rest of the coin looks UNC? BTW what do mean by the "pre-ME George V era"? Thanks again.

"Weak strike" is not quite the right term I think. Even early strikes from new dies can show weakness on the reverses where the obverse portrait is highest. It's a phenomenon unique to the early series of George V and is often accompanied by a 'ghost' of the portrait appearing on the reverse, especially halfpennies, pennies, and shillings, and to a less extent sixpences. It's not a weak strike so much as an imbalance in the two sides of the design, which saw the portrait of George cut much too deep. For 'lion's nose' on shillings, read 'Britannia's face and chest' on the bronze.

Ah, makes sense now, thanks! So do the coins with the modified effigy tend to be better struck? Though these of course are debased 50% silver, though I guess the metal composition will have an impact here too

I would say that the ME coins are better struck, but whether that is purely down to the new portrait I don't know. I don't think the metal composition is the reason as that was .500 silver from 1920 onwards and there are plenty of weak 1920-1925 examples. Perhaps the new metal composition, being less dense, allowed the striking pressure to be increased.

It's difficult to say as the reverses for ME coins are a single-year type, given that the entire coinage was redesigned for 1927, drastically so for silver. But I've seen many 1926ME shillings, they lack ghosting and seem to be pretty well struck up.

[Oxford_Collector 0]

So for George V shillings and sixpences, missing details for the lion's nose is more likely due to a weak strike, rather than wear, if the rest of the coin looks UNC? BTW what do mean by the "pre-ME George V era"? Thanks again.

"Weak strike" is not quite the right term I think. Even early strikes from new dies can show weakness on the reverses where the obverse portrait is highest. It's a phenomenon unique to the early series of George V and is often accompanied by a 'ghost' of the portrait appearing on the reverse, especially halfpennies, pennies, and shillings, and to a less extent sixpences. It's not a weak strike so much as an imbalance in the two sides of the design, which saw the portrait of George cut much too deep. For 'lion's nose' on shillings, read 'Britannia's face and chest' on the bronze.

Ah, makes sense now, thanks! So do the coins with the modified effigy tend to be better struck? Though these of course are debased 50% silver, though I guess the metal composition will have an impact here too

I would say that the ME coins are better struck, but whether that is purely down to the new portrait I don't know. I don't think the metal composition is the reason as that was .500 silver from 1920 onwards and there are plenty of weak 1920-1925 examples. Perhaps the new metal composition, being less dense, allowed the striking pressure to be increased.

It's difficult to say as the reverses for ME coins are a single-year type, given that the entire coinage was redesigned for 1927, drastically so for silver. But I've seen many 1926ME shillings, they lack ghosting and seem to be pretty well struck up.

Thanks for all the information, I feel like I'm slowly learning about things - this sort of information doesn't seem to get mentioned in any books I've read

[Gary D 76]

I'm never sure if it's wear or a weak nose. The problem is that the nose is the highest point so will be the first to go. If there is any rubbing to the front paw I always assume the nose has worn.

[VickySilver 883]

As a side issue with these coins (and many others as well), when the coin is not fully struck that planchet prep marks are still remaining on the "unstruck" areas of coin surface - and these include marks and scrapes, etc. on the planchet BEFORE being struck. These are occasionally misintrepeted as wear when in fact it is not.

[Colin G. 147]

As a side issue with these coins (and many others as well), when the coin is not fully struck that planchet prep marks are still remaining on the "unstruck" areas of coin surface - and these include marks and scrapes, etc. on the planchet BEFORE being struck. These are occasionally misintrepeted as wear when in fact it is not.

Thread hijack....I agree you get the same feature with some farthings where the prep marks are visible, the 1902 weak breastplate is a fine example!!

[Peter 615]

As a side issue with these coins (and many others as well), when the coin is not fully struck that planchet prep marks are still remaining on the "unstruck" areas of coin surface - and these include marks and scrapes, etc. on the planchet BEFORE being struck. These are occasionally misintrepeted as wear when in fact it is not.

Thread hijack....I agree you get the same feature with some farthings where the prep marks are visible, the 1902 weak breastplate is a fine example!!

Just to add there is a well struck variety as well for 1902(the weak breastplate being rarer but only obvious on GEF+ examples)