Types, Varieties & Micro-Varieties!

[Accumulator 52]

Personally, I regard the kind of varieties displayed by the 1957 halfpenny as appropriate to the category of 'minor varieties' as opposed to 'micro'. For what it's worth, I feel that the term 'micro' should be reserved for the genuinely microscopic differences that occur. At the risk of plugging my own book, here's my quote from the 'silver' one, which perfectly illustrates what I mean.

'Whilst researching this book, I came across an extraordinary design issue, which I had never heard of before, but which can be regarded as leading to micro-varieties (as if minor types are not enough!). In the Coin Monthly magazine of December 1977, there is an article by J.C.Rudge entitled ‘The 19 Varieties of the 1949 Shilling’, which talks about the successful prosecution of a Mr. James Steele of Edinburgh. This individual was found guilty of forging excellent quality florins, in part at least, because the Royal Mint were able to show that his coins, whilst superbly forged, had errors in the number of ‘nicks’ in the edge milling. Apparently, the Mint declined to provide information about this means of validating their coins on security grounds, suggesting that the number of nicks could be regarded as a kind of ‘mint mark’ in order to validate the year they were produced. In a feat of truly heroic study, J.C.Rudge set about analysing these nicks for the silver series i.e. the sixpence, shilling, florin and halfcrown (I’m not sure about crowns), publishing his results in the British Numismatic Journal for 1968. The 1977 Coin Monthly article concluded that the 1949 Shilling has at least 19 varieties based on the number of edge nicks. Multiply this typical figure by all the silver coin denominations and dates for the 20th Century and the number of micro-varieties based on the number of ‘nicks’ will be truly staggering.'

In my view, the use of the term 'heroic' is entirely appropriate for the work done to establish these micro types, but as I say, I don't think it likely that anybody would want to try and collect them all. Now I've said this, I guess somebody on here will pop up and say that they've got a complete set of 1949 shillings!

Fortunately copper an bronze coins have no nicks! Phew...

[Peckris 579]

Personally, I regard the kind of varieties displayed by the 1957 halfpenny as appropriate to the category of 'minor varieties' as opposed to 'micro'. For what it's worth, I feel that the term 'micro' should be reserved for the genuinely microscopic differences that occur.

I would regard the 1957 'calm sea' 'wavy sea' varieties hover between major and minor - yes, you have to look at just one feature (the waves), but it is a glaringly obvious difference in my opinion and I'd personally rank it as a major variety. What I would term 'micro' are the precise differences between the ship on the reverse of each date of Elizabeth II halfpenny. Each one is a minutely different size, but not interesting at all (to me, anyway).

As for the precise position of the 7 in the date on 'calm sea' halfpennies, that seems the ultimate in 'micro' to me.

[Coinery 1,153]

Personally, I regard the kind of varieties displayed by the 1957 halfpenny as appropriate to the category of 'minor varieties' as opposed to 'micro'. For what it's worth, I feel that the term 'micro' should be reserved for the genuinely microscopic differences that occur. At the risk of plugging my own book, here's my quote from the 'silver' one, which perfectly illustrates what I mean.

'Whilst researching this book, I came across an extraordinary design issue, which I had never heard of before, but which can be regarded as leading to micro-varieties (as if minor types are not enough!). In the Coin Monthly magazine of December 1977, there is an article by J.C.Rudge entitled ‘The 19 Varieties of the 1949 Shilling’, which talks about the successful prosecution of a Mr. James Steele of Edinburgh. This individual was found guilty of forging excellent quality florins, in part at least, because the Royal Mint were able to show that his coins, whilst superbly forged, had errors in the number of ‘nicks’ in the edge milling. Apparently, the Mint declined to provide information about this means of validating their coins on security grounds, suggesting that the number of nicks could be regarded as a kind of ‘mint mark’ in order to validate the year they were produced. In a feat of truly heroic study, J.C.Rudge set about analysing these nicks for the silver series i.e. the sixpence, shilling, florin and halfcrown (I’m not sure about crowns), publishing his results in the British Numismatic Journal for 1968. The 1977 Coin Monthly article concluded that the 1949 Shilling has at least 19 varieties based on the number of edge nicks. Multiply this typical figure by all the silver coin denominations and dates for the 20th Century and the number of micro-varieties based on the number of ‘nicks’ will be truly staggering.'

In my view, the use of the term 'heroic' is entirely appropriate for the work done to establish these micro types, but as I say, I don't think it likely that anybody would want to try and collect them all. Now I've said this, I guess somebody on here will pop up and say that they've got a complete set of 1949 shillings!

Thanks for the elucidation, Dave! I do agree there is a wide 'grey' area between variety and micro-variety which is nicely served by the middling term minor-variety!

Can I just ask your own thoughts on the individual hammered dies, which all display clear legend differences (letter rotations, significant gaps, alignments etc), how would you describe them?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the work of BCW, but they have broken up the types into varieties using privy marks, busts, and the punches used for the major components (roses, LIS, lions, etc.), as well as major legend differences (HI/HIB, FR/FRA etc)! Do you think the next stage, moving into die identification, where there are still very clear differences seen easily with the naked eye, crosses into the 'minor' area, or are they a further extension of the major varieties? This could potentially extend the sixpence series into a thousand+ from what I'm seeing? Each would be clearly distinctive in hand, any thoughts?

Edited September 14, 2012 by Coinery

[Coinery 1,153]

Fortunately copper an bronze coins have no nicks! Phew...

You'd have to have a major expansion of bandwidth on your website if they did!

I did hear the mint did something similar for copper! If i remember rightly, didn't they reduce the curvature of a single denticle by a degree for each die?

[Rob 3,152]

These days the design is engraved on Dave's dinner size plates and reduced. The hammered coinage was made up from many small punches which means that individual punches can be identified. We are talking about two totally different technologies here. By extension there will be very few features that are significantly individual to any issue of modern currency from the last 100 years. Dare I say it, but micro-varieties are likely to be the majority, with tooth pointings probably the most significant.

[Accumulator 52]

Fortunately copper an bronze coins have no nicks! Phew...

You'd have to have a major expansion of bandwidth on your website if they did!

I did hear the mint did something similar for copper! If i remember rightly, didn't they reduce the curvature of a single denticle by a degree for each die?

Now, now!

[DaveG38 405]

Personally, I regard the kind of varieties displayed by the 1957 halfpenny as appropriate to the category of 'minor varieties' as opposed to 'micro'. For what it's worth, I feel that the term 'micro' should be reserved for the genuinely microscopic differences that occur. At the risk of plugging my own book, here's my quote from the 'silver' one, which perfectly illustrates what I mean.

'Whilst researching this book, I came across an extraordinary design issue, which I had never heard of before, but which can be regarded as leading to micro-varieties (as if minor types are not enough!). In the Coin Monthly magazine of December 1977, there is an article by J.C.Rudge entitled ‘The 19 Varieties of the 1949 Shilling’, which talks about the successful prosecution of a Mr. James Steele of Edinburgh. This individual was found guilty of forging excellent quality florins, in part at least, because the Royal Mint were able to show that his coins, whilst superbly forged, had errors in the number of ‘nicks’ in the edge milling. Apparently, the Mint declined to provide information about this means of validating their coins on security grounds, suggesting that the number of nicks could be regarded as a kind of ‘mint mark’ in order to validate the year they were produced. In a feat of truly heroic study, J.C.Rudge set about analysing these nicks for the silver series i.e. the sixpence, shilling, florin and halfcrown (I’m not sure about crowns), publishing his results in the British Numismatic Journal for 1968. The 1977 Coin Monthly article concluded that the 1949 Shilling has at least 19 varieties based on the number of edge nicks. Multiply this typical figure by all the silver coin denominations and dates for the 20th Century and the number of micro-varieties based on the number of ‘nicks’ will be truly staggering.'

In my view, the use of the term 'heroic' is entirely appropriate for the work done to establish these micro types, but as I say, I don't think it likely that anybody would want to try and collect them all. Now I've said this, I guess somebody on here will pop up and say that they've got a complete set of 1949 shillings!

Thanks for the elucidation, Dave! I do agree there is a wide 'grey' area between variety and micro-variety which is nicely served by the middling term minor-variety!

Can I just ask your own thoughts on the individual hammered dies, which all display clear legend differences (letter rotations, significant gaps, alignments etc), how would you describe them?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the work of BCW, but they have broken up the types into varieties using privy marks, busts, and the punches used for the major components (roses, LIS, lions, etc.), as well as major legend differences (HI/HIB, FR/FRA etc)! Do you think the next stage, moving into die identification, where there are still very clear differences seen easily with the naked eye, crosses into the 'minor' area, or are they a further extension of the major varieties? This could potentially extend the sixpence series into a thousand+ from what I'm seeing? Each would be clearly distinctive in hand, any thoughts?

Coinery,

When I produced my books I tried very hard to include all the known varieties so that there was a practical record of the various die types of the 20thC. This was made possible by the huge amount of material left from pre-decimal days to study, although even now there are new discoveries being made. To try and do the same for the hammered series would in my view be almost impossible. Maybe for a specific denomination and monarch it can be done, but to do so for the wide range of dies, striking forces, centralisations of flans etc. would be more than my lifetime's work I guess.

[mick1271 159]

On 9/14/2012 at 0:20 PM, DaveG38 said:

Personally, I regard the kind of varieties displayed by the 1957 halfpenny as appropriate to the category of 'minor varieties' as opposed to 'micro'. For what it's worth, I feel that the term 'micro' should be reserved for the genuinely microscopic differences that occur. At the risk of plugging my own book, here's my quote from the 'silver' one, which perfectly illustrates what I mean.

'Whilst researching this book, I came across an extraordinary design issue, which I had never heard of before, but which can be regarded as leading to micro-varieties (as if minor types are not enough!). In the Coin Monthly magazine of December 1977, there is an article by J.C.Rudge entitled ‘The 19 Varieties of the 1949 Shilling’, which talks about the successful prosecution of a Mr. James Steele of Edinburgh. This individual was found guilty of forging excellent quality florins, in part at least, because the Royal Mint were able to show that his coins, whilst superbly forged, had errors in the number of ‘nicks’ in the edge milling. Apparently, the Mint declined to provide information about this means of validating their coins on security grounds, suggesting that the number of nicks could be regarded as a kind of ‘mint mark’ in order to validate the year they were produced. In a feat of truly heroic study, J.C.Rudge set about analysing these nicks for the silver series i.e. the sixpence, shilling, florin and halfcrown (I’m not sure about crowns), publishing his results in the British Numismatic Journal for 1968. The 1977 Coin Monthly article concluded that the 1949 Shilling has at least 19 varieties based on the number of edge nicks. Multiply this typical figure by all the silver coin denominations and dates for the 20th Century and the number of micro-varieties based on the number of ‘nicks’ will be truly staggering.'

In my view, the use of the term 'heroic' is entirely appropriate for the work done to establish these micro types, but as I say, I don't think it likely that anybody would want to try and collect them all. Now I've said this, I guess somebody on here will pop up and say that they've got a complete set of 1949 shillings!

Was an interesting article ,He also counterfeited 1920 and 21 halfcrowns  in 1927-30 .I have recently bought what I believe to be one of his counterfeits .The article doesn't say much about them except they were made from nickel .

 

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Can we have a look at a picture please Mick ?.

[mick1271 159]

[mick1271 159]

[mick1271 159]

13.6 grams .definite forgery , but is it one of James Steele's ?

[Rob 3,152]

Possibly not if his were made in nickel. You would be looking at something which was about 1.1g light assuming the dimensions were correct. Densities for Cu and Ni are nearly the same, so only the 50% silver component would be reduced by a factor of 8.91/10.49

[VickySilver 830]

Wonder if some of the OMS G5 half crowns for sale recently are counterfeit - they have awful detail, and have disagreed with statements such as: "detail weak due to harder metal of flans", or "excellent milling demonstrates Royal Mint product", etc.

 

PS Any idea how much metal weight might be added with an average silver plate to a penny - I have one overweight by 0.16 gm.

Edited June 14, 2017 by VickySilver

[mick1271 159]

6 hours ago, Rob said:

Possibly not if his were made in nickel. You would be looking at something which was about 1.1g light assuming the dimensions were correct. Densities for Cu and Ni are nearly the same, so only the 50% silver component would be reduced by a factor of 8.91/10.49

It was quoted that his were made of nickel or German silver .

from the article .

The mention of machinery (rather than moulds) points to the likelihood that the method of manufacture was that used in another enterprise of the same James Steele, with Robert Ramsay, from 1927 to 1930—when they were detected through the superabundance of coins bearing the same date. Halfcrowns dated 1920 and 1921 were then made from nickel 'or German silver'; the charge was of having a puncheon, four dies, an electrotyping machine, a rolling machine, an edging machine, a charcoal stove, an annealing box, electro-plating tanks, frames, an hydraulic press, and an ejecting machine . . . 'These misdirected geniuses had perfected what was virtually a miniature Scottish Mint'.7 In the early nineteen-sixties this remained the only successful case in which counterfeiters had struck pressed sheet metal in the same manner as the Royal Mint.

[mick1271 159]

6 hours ago, Rob said:

Possibly not if his were made in nickel. You would be looking at something which was about 1.1g light assuming the dimensions were correct. Densities for Cu and Ni are nearly the same, so only the 50% silver component would be reduced by a factor of 8.91/10.49

It does appear to have a slightly thicker rim .nothing really noticeable till you lay it side by side with an authentic one .

 

[Rob 3,152]

If it is nickel it will be magnetic.

[mick1271 159]

3 hours ago, Rob said:

If it is nickel it will be magnetic.

Non magnetic 

 

[Sleepy 107]

Probably German Silver then (Copper 60%, nickle 20% and zinc 20%).

[mick1271 159]

25 minutes ago, Sleepy said:

Probably German Silver then (Copper 60%, nickle 20% and zinc 20%).

If it is ,then it corresponds with the article .what would it do to the weight though .would it correspond with the slight weight difference or would there be more of a discrepancy?

[PWA 1967 2,135]

You might find this of interest Mick and sorry i cant put the link up .....you may of already read it 

Milled edges and counterfeit florins.

I know it says florins but also half crowns ,just type it in google.

Its from the BNJ 1968 and may be of some interest as about James Steele.

[Rob 3,152]

28 minutes ago, mick1271 said:

If it is ,then it corresponds with the article .what would it do to the weight though .would it correspond with the slight weight difference or would there be more of a discrepancy?

Zinc's density is only about 75% that of copper and nickel, so the weight would be even lighter unless the physical dimensions increased proportionally.

[mick1271 159]

24 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

You might find this of interest Mick and sorry i cant put the link up .....you may of already read it 

Milled edges and counterfeit florins.

I know it says florins but also half crowns ,just type it in google.

Its from the BNJ 1968 and may be of some interest as about James Steele.

Yes, I have read that .there is less ridge milling on mine as well .On first viewing ,there is nothing about the coin that would make you think it is a fake ,except the colour and tone .under a lens ,there still isnt any real obvious signs of it being fake either .the only noticeable discrepency is a slight ridge round part of the rim on one side (possibly done when the milling was applied) Its a very well made counterfeit .

 

[Rob 3,152]

A ridge around the rim is often seen and is due to a small gap between the flan and collar which allows a small amount of metal flow into the gap. That doesn't mean anything regarding whether it is a forgery or not.

[mick1271 159]

33 minutes ago, Rob said:

Zinc's density is only about 75% that of copper and nickel, so the weight would be even lighter unless the physical dimensions increased proportionally.

As I said ,the rim does seem to be slightly thicker (not sure if the rest of the coin is also the same ) .It would be nice if it could be verified as one of his ,as he was reasonably local to me ,but it seems a lot more was known about his later florins enterprise than his earlier works lol .