Victorian Copper/bronzed Copper Proofs 1939-1860

[Chingford 166]

Reading through the 1853 four pence thread I picked up on Robs and Shargreens discussion 1853 Bronzed and Copper proofs, I thought it relevant to start a new discussion and have added my ramblings below to get things started in response to Robs observations.

I have discussed the article in the SNC at length with Michael Gouby, and draw similar conclusions to Rob that the numbers achieved are from sales, as discovered with Robs researching the 1841 Inverted axis halfpenny. Many of the records quoted are duplications for the same coin, for instance, Lists published do not always result in immediate sale and the coin later relisted, also the coin being bought is put into auction or appears on the buyers own list leading to double counting,

Of the 12 occurrences the 1839/43 is listed, the number of actual coins were whittled down to 6/8 probables, so it is likely numbers listed by Peter in the SNC article could be as few as 50% of the conclusions drawn.

There does seem to have been a change after 1841 where Copper proofs replaced Bronzed proofs, Peck records all Proofs after 1841 as being Copper, with the exception of the 1853 coin,

The distinct difference here being that both the 1853 Penny and 1853 halfpenny having an inverted die axis.

There are several other dates recorded by Pecks as being Bronzed Copper, not described as proofs but having the distinct colouring of the earlier Bronzed proofs.

Another observation I have made is in the quality of the Proofs from 1853, a large number are struck with flawed or repaired dies

1853 Halfpennies have the O in Victoria and the 8 in the date showing signs of doubling or repairs to the die.

1853 Proof pennies I have seen have repairs to the E in DEI and the E in DEF either or both showing doubling or repairs.

Peter Duff also made the observation of a raised triangular feature on the Left knee of Britainniar in his article for the inverted axis 1853 Bronzed penny, I have seen this flaw on an upright 1853 Copper proof recently sold on Ebay so it is not unique to the inverted coin.

It does raise a possibility that inverted Bronzed proofs where struck for a specific purpose, recorded references show the following occurrences.

1839/41,1839/43, 1853 halfpennies and 1853, 1860/59 pennies, all seem to be very limited in numbers, possibly unique in one or two.

I have been trying to work out the number of dies and pairings on 1839 proofs after Robs post last year, but lack of good quality images make a conclusive study almost impossible.

Internet available records start around 2008, most are without good quality images but I have been collecting records/images of all Victoria Copper/Bronzed proofs as they come up for sale, I would appreciate any images forum members could contribute of their own coins, including provenance to help exclude the chances of doubling up, also links to articles/sales and historical records as or when they appear

I have had a few images from Forum members already in response to direct contact, and I would like to thank them for their contributions.

John

[Accumulator 52]

Glad you separated this out, John. A very interesting thread! I have two contributions:

Starting with an 1839 bronzed proof, bt. DNW 111 12-13/06/13, ex. Andrew Scothern Collection.

[Accumulator 52]

Then an Peck 1502 copper proof, ornate trident, far colon, reverse upright. Bt. London Coins 02/06/13:

[Chingford 166]

Excellent coins, Thankyou

John

[Rob 3,185]

I would just like to throw in a possible spanner regarding late strikings. As we know, the coppers stopped in 1860, so any dies resurrected for a late run of sets would be at least 20 years old if contemporary with the 3rd YH/1839 sixpence die pair. Although this is not a problem if the dies were properly stored in grease, somewhat less likely is that sufficient dies would have been put aside for further runs of proof sets, which are only a small branch of the Mint's work. i.e. I think it unlikely that dies for obsolete currency types would be retained on the off-chance that a proof set might be required a generation hence. Therefore it might be prudent to carry out a bit of lateral thinking here and consider all possibilities, however hair-brained they may seem at first glance. Reinventing the wheel is allowed.

One possibility is that only late silver sets were made.

Another is that the proof sets were made to order in anticipation of the end of the copper currency in 1859-60.

A third possibility is that they were made up to say 1868 given the existence of the 1868 fractional farthing proofs of that year. These are a real anomaly given they have used the old design for halves and quarters at a time when they were striking the bronze coinage to the modern design for all denominations (1d, 1/2d, 1/4d & third 1/4d). Maybe they were struck for completion of the small coins? (not convinced). Using ESC & Davies which are the most convenient references here, the 1868 silver denominations known in proof form are - none. In fact this is conspicuously a non-proof year for silver. Furthermore, there were two aluminium third farthings listed in Peck from the Saward sale in 1910, now untraced. They probably went west, but more importantly, aluminium wasn't commercially available until the early 1880s as far as I know. Were these 1868 strikings therefore actually struck later? The 1868 cupro-nickel pieces tie in with the trials for the Jamaican currency introduced in 1869, and so I think these stand alone as an issue that satisfies the date criteria.

There were proofs of some silver in 1862 (2/6d, 2/-, both in plain & milled edge, 4d plain edge), and 1867 (2/-, 1/-, both plain & milled, and 6d milled). The latter date would tie in well with the 1867 bronzed proof pennies, halfpennies and farthings of the modern type. The absence of third farthing bronzed proofs is consistent with no coins struck of this date, suggesting the latter dies were not even prepared in anticipation.

There are a few proofs known for 1870. This probably ties in with the Minton pattern pennies dated 1862, 1865 and 1870. As all use the same obverse die, it is likely that a few reverse dies were cleaned up and used all at the same time.

One short period stands out in the case of the silver, (1879-1881). This period has proofs struck of 2/6d, 2/-, 1/-, 6d, 3d. Only the 3d is not known for 1881 (I think). You also get both milled and plain edge proofs of this date. At this time the mint had an equipment upgrade where the Soho presses were replaced, which is why the 1882 pennies are rare for example and the obvious sub-contracting to Heatons also applies. This also coincides with a period when the last two digits of the date were no longer punched in. This should give us a terminal date for the potential production of 1839 sets. It beggars belief that dies would be adapted to fit the new equipment, or could the new equipment use the old dies without modification?

We also have to consider the pre-occupations of the mint at various times. There was a lot of design and development leading up to 1860 with the decimal patterns appearing dated 1857-1859, and the 1860 bronze(d) patterns. There was also the political consideration of the Latin Monetary Union in the late 1860s for which a number of Royal Mint patterns in decidedly continental denominations were produced.

Establishing which Una & the Lion is found in any particular complete 1839 original set could be really helpful with the chronology as Spink list 8 types dated 1839. They obviously would not have produced 8 concurrent types of £5, therefore some chronology should be possible, particularly as the early sales (post-1839) often listed the £5 pieces separately, elaborately described, implying they were issued singly to order, as well as in sets. (And what goes for one denomination, could easily work for all the others). There is a lot of info to be gleaned in this area, even for the 1841 proofs from sales in 1841. Uniform plain edge proofs are likely to be found in sets, just as a uniform milled edge set is likely.

Maybe John can help with some chronological order based on emblem degradation or similar. The answers are out there, it just needs a bit of thought.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Rob

[shagreen 24]

This is a good project and please be patient as its a labor of love compressing all of these down - they are 1MB files; I will start with the 1839 farthing - 3 different types the cased example is from a put together set purchase 2011 the slabbed PF66 coin align was bought from Heritage the final is as per the file identifier. Obverse first, the reverse in next mailing. Can someone concur that the sov dies were possibly used to strike these coins???

[shagreen 24]

reverse 1839 proof farthings

[shagreen 24]

Here are the 1839 halfpennies all in medal alignment obverses first - I had to use different lighting for the overdate to show it up -provenances are built into in the file identifiers

[shagreen 24]

1839 halfpenny reverses

[shagreen 24]

Its getting late here in Australia so this is it for now I will send the 1853 pics later. Here are the 1839 pennies - they fit in one sending again all medal and the cased one came from the put together set as per farthing and halfpenny

[Rob 3,185]

There are some serious colour differences there. Are they so diverse in hand?

[shagreen 24]

not as extreme as shown here but they are different - the pictures were taken in different sessions and the only way to really compare colour directly would be to photograph them together all at the same lighting angle. I wouldn't judge colour by any pics only in the hand these pics are good for die marker analysis

[Peckris 579]

There's one question we haven't discussed. What was so significant about the date 1839 that it was used on proof sets for such a long period? Victoria's accession was 1837 so that couldn't be anything to do with it.

[Rob 3,185]

There's one question we haven't discussed. What was so significant about the date 1839 that it was used on proof sets for such a long period? Victoria's accession was 1837 so that couldn't be anything to do with it.

Pass. I guess the same question could be asked of 1853. The 1839 being the first set could have been popular, just as 1970 and 1971 sets are more popular than other modern years

Edited February 24, 2014 by Rob

[Rob 3,185]

Apologies for the usual photographic skills, but in an attempt to show some colour differences here are 4 halfpennies imaged together. Top row is 1839/41 and 1839/43. Bottom row is Norweb's 1853 copper proof discussed in the latest SNC as being doubtful if bronzed, and finally a currency 1858/6 with virtually full lustre to help put the colours into perspective. If you combine this image with the thread on the 1839/41 proof in the unlisted varieties section, that scanned image is a less glossy version of the milky chocolate colour the coin is in hand, but is not wildly out. As you will see, in comparison to the 39/43 it is much lighter in colour. Any proof that approaches the colour of the 39/41 would be useful if an image of both sides was available as would any image of an 1839 proof halfpenny with an inverted die axis.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Rob

[Rob 3,185]

The bottom of the 1853 earhole is apparently a different shape, but this is a photographic red herring. All are the same shape under a loupe.

[Rob 3,185]

Using my limited resources for the period 1839 - 1887, the sale references I have specifically pertaining to the Una & the Lion are as follows:

1. Sotheby 23/2/1844 Thomas Thomas lot 1034. 'Only 10 of these pieces are said to have been struck and it differs from that in the set, in having a plain edge and in other trifling detail: weight 1oz. 4dwts. 10grs. The field has unfortunately received a trifling injury; it is otherwise fine (£6/2/6).

2. Sotheby 8/6/1854 J D Cuff lot 1795 is a plain edge silver proof from the Una die, reads DIRIGE

lot 1810. Reads DIRIGIT with inscribed edge.

lot 1811 ditto with plain edge, both this and the previous lot without the garter on the Queen's shoulder.

3. Sotheby 13/7/1875 J E M Rishton,

lot 175, Victoria proof crown,half crown, shilling, sixpence and groat 1839, plain edges, a very fine set.

lot 176, pattern £5 piece, reads DIRIGE, with the garter on her shoulder. Plain edge.

lot 183, Mint proof set in case. This is in the silver section, as is the previous lot 176, so we can assume that 176 is silver because there is also a gold section to the sale.

4. Sotheby 21/4/1879 Wm. Yorke Moore

lot 348, pattern crown with badge of the Garter

lot 367, gold £5 DIRIGIT without garter star, plain edge

lot 368, gold as above with inscribed edge DECVS etc and of much greater weight (thick flan presumably)

lot 370 set in case £5 to farthing

5. Sotheby 2/2/1880, G Sparkes

lot 175, Proof £5 in silver, inscribed edge

6. Sotheby 27/5/1880 Lake Price

lot 205, Gold, DIRIGE, with garter, edge inscribed in small letters.

7. Lord Hastings - one full set

8. Sotheby 7/4/1881, Halliburton Young

lot 541, gold. DIRIGIT, without garter, plain edge only 10 presumed struck. (ex-Wigan, collection sold to Rollin & Feuardent 1872)

lot 542, gold, DIRIGE, with garter star, plain edge. From the Marshall cabinet.

9. Sotheby 3/5/1876, Harrower Johnson

lot 402, silver DIRIGE, with garter on shoulder plain edge.

lot 424, gold DIRIGE, with garter, edge inscribed. Ornamented diadem and fillet.

lots 425 & 426, gold. DIRIGIT, without garter, plain edge, plain fillet

lot 436, Set in Morocco case. bt Webb.

The sets are usually just described as such without elaboration.

William Brice Duplicates Sotheby 15/6/1881

146 was a lot of plain edge proofs, 2/6d, 1/-, 6d, 4d and a maundy set.

149 was a lot of 6 copper proofs dated 1868 - penny, halfpenny, farthing, 1/2, 1/3 & 1/4. bt. Lincoln (a dealer). The question is whether they were copper or bronze. Sections were divided into a generic gold, silver and copper, but the presence of proofs of other years suggets that the two terms were interchangeable. Digressing somewhat, Peck lists all 1868 proofs as bronze, whilst Freeman lists copper proofs for the farthing and penny. Peck's hand-written notes had copper, but subsequently erased and replaced with Bronze. Freeman doesn't give an analysis for allegedly copper pieces, so I wonder if an analysis was actually done?

Ruding 3rd. ed. (1840) p.132 states that the order of council made on the 8/6/1838 stipulated a £5, £1 & £1/2 should be all of the same type and have the wreath and crowned shield reverse, with the £5 inscribed DECVS etc. The new coinage (£5 - 1/4d) was proclaimed on 5th July. On the 18th of July, a proclamation was passed directing that the double sovereign, sovereign and half shall be received and pass as current money. Where did the double sovereign come from as there are no currency £2 pieces in the first coinage? There is no mention of the Una & Lion reverse on the £5 and the plates cast no light on this.

on first impression I'm not sure there is much to be established from this small amount of data. Rishton 175 may possibly indicate that the plain edge proofs were from a silver short set. Brice's duplicates are the same except for the crown, but these are likely to be the lesser of his examples suggesting mix and match had already taken place. The Thomas description implies the boxed sets were edged and the plain ones single pieces(?)

Edited February 24, 2014 by Rob

[Colin G. 147]

John,

If you drop me an e-mail I will respond with some library images I have and images of mine

It will be nice for me to assist you for once

[Colin G. 147]

I don't want to drag this thread off topic, but I have been trying to locate and information in mint reports relating to proofs, I have managed to get copies of early annual reports but they are from 1870 onwards. Does anyone know whether something similar was in place prior to 1870 and what it was called?