George V Pennies, H And Kn

[Rob 3,152]

This sort of ties in with a previous topic I brought up where I asked if the H or KN dies were reused at the mint after I thought there was a shadow of a letter present, but nothing clear. Can't remember the thread name though.

[Mr T 175]

I've also read somewhere that the Australian pennies struck in India 1916-1918 had the I mintmark applied in London (using an I punch used for Edward VII Maundy twopence).

[Gary D 76]

That's fascinating David - it looks from that, that the RM pre-engraved the H & KN on the dies? It would make sense, as punching tiny letters onto individual dies would be an irregular and inconsistent thing for the recipients.

I wonder how this effects the varying spacing of the KN, perhaps there were KNs punched with and without the H.

[Accumulator 52]

Very interesting, David. Does anyone have an example of a penny with a feint mintmark letter?

[davidrj 194]

David Groom in his variety book mentions a 1919 penny with a raised dot where the H would be - is this returned die with the H poorly obliterated?

Anyone seen or have a picture of this variety?

[Accumulator 52]

David Groom in his variety book mentions a 1919 penny with a raised dot where the H would be - is this returned die with the H poorly obliterated?

Anyone seen or have a picture of this variety?

Sadly, I probably have a couple of hundred 1919's in average circulated condition. They may not good enough to show the variety, but I'll take a look when I have a moment.

[Mr T 175]

David Groom in his variety book mentions a 1919 penny with a raised dot where the H would be - is this returned die with the H poorly obliterated?

Anyone seen or have a picture of this variety?

I think it also mentions H and K in KN either being aligned with or between beads.

[Colin G. 147]

Yet the 1881H farthings would go indicate this was not the practise at that time, because of the various positions that are encountered. This would indicate that they were possibly being cut into individual dies/master dies. Yet the 1875H, 1876H and 1882 H farthings are very consistent in terms of placement

I

[sound 25]

Judging by some of the comments here would this represent a strong strike for a 1918 KN? I'm inclined to think so.

Regards

M

[sound 25]

Sorry, missed the file. Hopefully here it is.

[sound 25]

Reverse would help .

[Red Riley 2]

I know next to nothing about these so my coat is within easy reach, but is it possible that Heaton and/or Kings Norton processes/raw materials were different?

Clearly they both used slightly different alloys - that would explain why Heaton pennies are nearly all black (or darker than RM) and K.N. - who supplied blanks to the RM over quite a few years - are very often reddish. But the dies they used were provided by RM and presumably all they did was to punch in the H / KN? I imagine that the Mint, who used dies to wear beyond normal during the War, told their subcontractors not to worry too much about wear, which explains why you see it so often.

I don't know what their processes were, but Heatons had been used to mint bronze since the 1870s, so I imagine they were subject to RM approval and inspection?

Sorry if I'm a bit behind the curve here as I've been on holiday. The subject of the 18-19 H & KN pennies interests me immensely (we can forget 12 altogether as this supposed 'rarity' is purely down to hype). Both KNs seem to be much rarer than their H bretheren, but as a collector from change before decimalisation it always appeared that the 1919H was far more common than the 18 and yet, panning forward at least 45 years the 19 is much rarer in high grade and in my mind usually better struck.

I am not sure I agree with you, Peck on the alloy used by King's Norton - they presumably had to adhere quite closely to Royal Mint specifications which would,I imagine, have been fairly stringent. I have a feeling of deja vu here somewhere but it is my opinion that the source of the metal and the level of impurities in it is likely to have been just as significant - King's Norton must always have used metal from the same source, hence the consistency of tone, whereas the Royal Mint and Heatons whose products both show variation of tone could have obtained their metal from multiple sources. To illustrate what I mean, check the differences in tone exhibited by the 'pure' copper issues from before 1860; no question of metal mix there but the colour range is still pretty wide with some years being consistently one tone whereas other years will be completely different. I wonder if this subject has ever been covered by the BNJ - looks like the sort of thing they might be interested in?

Edited February 10, 2014 by Red Riley

[Peckris 579]

Reverse would help .

The obverse is not so much a 'good strike', as what one would expect from any decent GV obverse under normal circumstances (WW1 being far from normal of course). However, an obverse strike like that one, is usually accompanied by a Britannia reverse not fully struck up - particularly on the face and chest - due to the 'sucking away' of metal from the reverse. However, that particular reverse is quite superb, and that example would command a high premium and be much in demand if it appeared on the market.

I know next to nothing about these so my coat is within easy reach, but is it possible that Heaton and/or Kings Norton processes/raw materials were different?

Clearly they both used slightly different alloys - that would explain why Heaton pennies are nearly all black (or darker than RM) and K.N. - who supplied blanks to the RM over quite a few years - are very often reddish. But the dies they used were provided by RM and presumably all they did was to punch in the H / KN? I imagine that the Mint, who used dies to wear beyond normal during the War, told their subcontractors not to worry too much about wear, which explains why you see it so often.

I don't know what their processes were, but Heatons had been used to mint bronze since the 1870s, so I imagine they were subject to RM approval and inspection?

Sorry if I'm a bit behind the curve here as I've been on holiday. The subject of the 18-19 H & KN pennies interests me immensely (we can forget 12 altogether as this supposed 'rarity' is purely down to hype). Both KNs seem to be much rarer than their H bretheren, but as a collector from change before decimalisation it always appeared that the 1919H was far more common than the 18 and yet, panning forward at least 45 years the 19 is much rarer in high grade and in my mind usually better struck.

I am not sure I agree with you, Peck on the alloy used by King's Norton - they presumably had to adhere quite closely to Royal Mint specifications which would,I imagine, have been fairly stringent. I have a feeling of deja vu here somewhere but it is my opinion that the source of the metal and the level of impurities in it is likely to have been just as significant - King's Norton must always have used metal from the same source, hence the consistency of tone, whereas the Royal Mint and Heatons whose products both show variation of tone could have obtained their metal from multiple sources. To illustrate what I mean, check the differences in tone exhibited by the 'pure' copper issues from before 1860; no question of metal mix there but the colour range is still pretty wide with some years being consistently one tone whereas other years will be completely different. I wonder if this subject has ever been covered by the BNJ - looks like the sort of thing they might be interested in?

Yes, I agree. My wording was a little careless perhaps. But it is indisputable that KN blanks and pennies do have this characteristic redness, which can only be accounted for by the quality and source of the metal (presumably copper) used. Birmingham being the heart of the metals industry - foundries, gunmaking, jewellery, chains, household goods, coins and tokens, etc - would use their own sources, unlike London perhaps. Though it's odd that Heatons - also a Birmingham firm - would have a completely different colour. Theory : Kings Norton produced their own blanks, but Heatons were supplied by the RM in a tradition going back to the 1870s? OR.. Heatons were the major supplier of blanks TO the RM under normal circumstances?

[sound 25]

Peckris,

Thanks for correcting my ignorance. I hadn't appreciated the significance of the "superb reverse".

Regards

M

[davidrj 194]

The Birmingham Mint were major suppliers of bronze and other blanks to the RM and other mints worldwide, far exceeding the number of coins they produced 1860-1970

The Birmingham Mint provided 1680 tons of 1p blanks 1968-71 and 460 tons 10p blanks

[Accumulator 52]

Peckris,

Thanks for correcting my ignorance. I hadn't appreciated the significance of the "superb reverse".

Regards

M

That's a really nice example and, as Peckris says, would command a premium for the strength of the strike. The KN's are generally a lot better than the H's for the same year.

[Coinery 1,148]

Very pretty example! Like it!

[Rob 3,152]

I suppose the question is, is it available? I have many images of desirable but unavailable coins.

[sound 25]

Hi Rob,

I obviously realised that is a nice coin when I purchased it from Lockdales. I didn't realise how good it was until pecks comments.. Got me thinking now.

Regards

Mark

[Peckris 579]

Sorry if I'm a bit behind the curve here as I've been on holiday. The subject of the 18-19 H & KN pennies interests me immensely (we can forget 12 altogether as this supposed 'rarity' is purely down to hype). Both KNs seem to be much rarer than their H bretheren, but as a collector from change before decimalisation it always appeared that the 1919H was far more common than the 18 and yet, panning forward at least 45 years the 19 is much rarer in high grade and in my mind usually better struck.

The 1912 is priced as it is due to market demands I'm thinking - it's the only way some collectors could afford a high grade GV H penny. Also, they are usually much better strikes.

My own assessment of rarity of the others is :

1919H

1918H and KN (KN a bit scarcer)

1919KN

with quite a gap between each group.

However, I've learned comparatively recently how difficult it is to find high grade 19H's, which is probably why they are now so high priced : it's arguably nearly as scarce in top grades as the KN?

Edited February 10, 2014 by Peckris

[VickySilver 830]

I have had absolute nightmares finding a superb obv. and rev. 1919H, and have some that might be ok but most unsightly metal discolouration. Extras of the others not for sale here....

[sound 25]

"Forget the 'mushy Britannia' - that is absolutely normal and standard for most GV pennies between 1911 and 1921 (the recessed ear varieties excepted). Yes, the obverse hair detail is faint, and that occurs often on the Heaton and Kings Norton pennies 1918-19 because they used dies way beyond their sell-by date. You would expect to pay a premium for a well struck-up obverse, but on your example, the fact of near full lustre kind of offsets that. I've seen a lot stronger UNC strike (London Coins?, a few years ago), but the lustre on yours is the first I've seen with that amount.

Swings and roundabouts.

Edited May 26, 2014 by sound

[Peckris 579]

Having just acquired a number of pennies from 1911 to 1936 I note that two particularly 1917 & 1919 or possibly the 1920 have these "mushy" Britannia's.

Just wondered if you could remind us of the minting problems that contributed to this? I can't remember whether it was the metal mix or the dies or indeed both that caused the problem.

I have seen several that look as if they have a thumb in printed. Interestingly noted the same on some early GV shillings as well.

Basically, it was the obverse design - there was far too much metal on the high profile first series George V portrait (compare it to the Edward VII larger head but much shallower relief); this caused not only weakness to parts of the reverse designs* but also the notorious 'ghosting' problem seen especially on pennies, halfpennies, florins, shillings and even sixpences. (*metal was 'sucked away' from the reverse)

It drove the Mint demented trying to eliminate the problem which is why you see so many experiments going on: the 1911 hollow necks, the 1913 pennies, the 1915/16 recessed ear pennies, and the entire modification in 1920 that saw a shallower portrait. Of course, it wasn't finally sorted out until the Modified Effigy of 1925/26.

But this is why so often Britannia has a weak face and chest, lion heads are weak, etc.

[sound 25]

Peck,

Thanks

So on shillings could this contribute to why some apparently uncirculated in every other respect have a slightly punched in face.

Of course I realise that this could be because of wear. However I have noticed some immaculate coins can have this feature.

Regards

Mark

[Peckris 579]

Peck,

Thanks

So on shillings could this contribute to why some apparently uncirculated in every other respect have a slightly punched in face.

Of course I realise that this could be because of wear. However I have noticed some immaculate coins can have this feature.

Regards

Mark

Do you have any pictures?