Vintage Coins

[colliewalker1 0]

When looking at a vintage coin - e.g. an 1826 George IV half Crown in my collection - it is fascinating to speculate on where it has been for the last nearly 180 years.

Obviously at some stage these coins would have been withdrawn from circulation – at the latest for this example on the accession of William IV! I wonder what happens to them then - are any released to collectors or are they melted down, in which case the surviving coins we see today owe their existence firstly to owners deciding to hang on to them and keeping them in draws or tin boxes - then the coins passing to descendants/collectors. Presumably collectors have existed for a very long time?!

One would have thought that this random preservation of coins would have saved very few compared to the total produced - which makes the fairly easy availability of many vintage coins today rather surprising.

Looking at current coinage, the only coins worth saving are – in my opinion – the £1 and £2 coin....

[Emperor Oli 0]

Collectors have existed for a very long time - the first ever (documented) coin collector was Emperor Augustus of Rome (63BC-AD14). I think I know what you mean by saying "are any released to collectors". Proof sets have been issued since George II in 1746, comprising of the crown, halfcrown, shilling and sixpence, all in a wedge-shaped case. I would hazard a guess that one of the reasons we have these coins is because of hoarders - people may of held them because of the pure metal value in them.

[Sylvester 15]

Looking at current coinage, the only coins worth saving are – in my opinion – the £1 and £2 coin....

How many other people think that? I bet it's lots... so everyone saves them... they stay common and they don't go up in value very much...

How many people save the decimal halfpennys on the other hand?

[colliewalker1 0]

Proof sets have been issued since George II in 1746, comprising of the crown, halfcrown, shilling and sixpence, all in a wedge-shaped case.

Presumably we are not talking of restrikes here but proof versions of coins currently circulating.

On the subject of restrikes - certain countries have been issuing them long after the coins in question ceased to be in general circulation. The Royal Mint don't seem to go in for restrikes - surely these would be extremely popular and very profitable for the Royal Mint.

It would be interesting to know to what extent obsolete dies are kept: reproduction coins can fill a useful niche - but genuine restrikes would be something else - but obviously EXPENSIVE!

Your information Emperor Oli, on the history of coin collecting is very interesting indeed - thankls for that

[Sylvester 15]

The Royal Mint don't seem to go in for restrikes - surely these would be extremely popular and very profitable for the Royal Mint.

Don't give them idea please.

I think that would be a disaster. Firstly the Royal Mint should mint coins and should not make any extra profits from doing so, they should be able to fund buying in the raw materials, upkeeping the machinery, paying the staff and minting the next year's issues etc. Ideally they should not be a profit making organisation.

Secondly i strongly disagree thatthey should make repros of any kind cos newbies get fooled by unscupulous sellers on Ebay who sell them as real, even worse it would be if it had got a certificate of authenticy with it (i.e it's a geniune certified Royal Mint repro). No i don't think they should mint them. It's bad enough we have to put up with all this bullion and commemorative trash they release every year... does anyone really need a silver version of a 1994 £1 coin?

[Emperor Oli 0]

Ideally they should not be a profit making organisation

Why?

does anyone really need a silver version of a 1994 £1 coin?

Some people obviously want them, otherwise they wouldn't bother making them.

[Sylvester 15]

Because they'll spend more time making coins that makes them a profit than those that they are actually there to make.

[Emperor Oli 0]

If the mint fulfills their quota for the coins they need to make, why shouldn't they mint commemoratives? They obviously appeal to many people and the revenue is used to buy better machinery and to hire better engravers.

[Chris Perkins 228]

But do they appeal to real collectors or are they just aimed at people that read Sunday magazines, novices and tourists.

Novices see coins and they think wow, that set will be worth thousands one day, just like an 1826 proof set (for example) when really that will never be the case because the newer sets are made in huge numbers and readily available to every T, D and Harry.

I'm all for putting the populas (sp) straight on this matter, and have hedged towards that in CCGB2005. If people want to buy novelties because they look pretty, then so be it...But they should never imagine that what they have is exclusive or will ever have much more value above the issue price plus inflation. (although there are a few exceptions in the modern series of course, 1989 Sovs, error 2p etc)

[Emperor Oli 0]

If the Mint started doing restrikes , they may progress to such stupidity as this.

[Guest geordie582_I'm_a_Guest]

As to commemorative coins, the £5 is issued every year, sometimes more often, as "legal tender" but how many have you seen in circulation? Just what purpose do they serve? ( I confess to collecting them as an 'aside' )

[Emperor Oli 0]

I've seen about five in circulation, I picked up the Entente Cordiale £5 a few months ago. Someone at my school got the 2001 Victorian Anniversary thing in their change. The reason you don't see them is that many people (myself included) put the nice ones aside.

[colliewalker1 0]

If the Mint started doing restrikes , they may progress to such stupidity as this

"A thing of beauty is a joy for ever" John Keats

[mint_mark 9]

Because they'll spend more time making coins that makes them a profit than those that they are actually there to make.

Exactly. I remember getting plastic toys in cereal packets that exhibited better workmanship than today's circulation 5ps and 1ps...

...which means nobody will collect them... which means they'll be the valuable ones... oh no!

[Jennings 1]

For what it's worth, the quality and rarity of US coins started (at least in my opinion) to take a precipitous drop when the US Mint started to become a profit center for the Treasury Department. Some things are nice such as the silver proof sets (90% silver versions of the half dollar, quarter, and dime), but the vast majority is crap. Prices to the consumer have gone astronomical, quality has suffered, and now you have the mint selling things like gold bullion coins as necklaces and key chains. What is the mission of the mint (any mint)?

I agree that a government controlled mint should be in the business of making coins, not making profits.

J

[Emperor Oli 0]

That's one thing I'm vehemently opposed to - the UK Mint's marketing of "gifts". I can tolerate the commemorative coins but when the pottery wrens come out, along with, as you say, the coin keyrings, I think exploiting the most tenuous links to the coin world is plain degrading. Perhaps if they have some historical significance like the tankards with shillings in the base, then I can understand it. However, the silver bookmarks, certificate holders, the endless jewellery with sovereigns mounted in gaudy settings, the bar sets are taking it a step too far.

[Chris Perkins 228]

The packaging of special Wedding, Baby and Executive sets also falls into that catagory.

[Sylvester 15]

The packaging of special Wedding, Baby and Executive sets also falls into that catagory.

Oh tell me about it.

And whilst we're bitching about it, what is it with releasing the proofs in different cases? standard and delux etc?

Then of course we get speciman sets, piedfort proofs...

[Geordie582 18]

Seems that the Royal Mint is a VERY successful business!! Edited October 18, 2004 by Geordie582

[Chris Perkins 228]

Do you know, they make so much money, you wouldn't believe it!

[Sylvester 15]

Do you know, they make so much money, you wouldn't believe it!

Oh i would. In about 5 or 10 years it wouldn't surprise me idf they didn't sell of the circulation coin minting royalties to another private company, either that or they'll shift production to China/India like everyone else seems to have done and make a better profit.

[Master Jmd 88]

Do you know, they make so much money, you wouldn't believe it!

Oh i would. In about 5 or 10 years it wouldn't surprise me idf they didn't sell of the circulation coin minting royalties to another private company, either that or they'll shift production to China/India like everyone else seems to have done and make a better profit.

Or, knowing our luck, we go to the Euro (€) and our RM will be doing all Euro countries currency...we (us brits) used to make the coins for all of our colonies once didn't we?

[Sylvester 15]

we (us brits) used to make the coins for all of our colonies once didn't we?

Not always...

The Provincial mint Sovereigns SA, C, I, S, M, P etc. were usually minted in the provinces cos it saved shipping raw gold over on ships (where it could be looted), minting it into coins in England and then shipping it back over to the colonies on ships (where if they didn't get it the first time they could have a second attempt).

Therefore the sovereigns were minted near to the gold source and then shipped wherever required which meant only one shipping rather than two.

[Master Jmd 88]

The Provincial mint Sovereigns SA, C, I, S, M, P etc. were usually minted in the provinces cos it saved shipping raw gold over on ships (where it could be looted), minting it into coins in England and then shipping it back over to the colonies on ships (where if they didn't get it the first time they could have a second attempt).

Therefore the sovereigns were minted near to the gold source and then shipped wherever required which meant only one shipping rather than two.

Surely the colonial mints though were part of the royal mint, no?

[mint_mark 9]

Surely the colonial mints though were part of the royal mint, no?

Maybe the gold ones were.

Many minor colonial coins were minted by Heaton and Kings Norton (as some British coins were, of course), although there seems to be a distinction between the company that does the minting and the company that prepares the dies.

For example, some East Africa dies were prepared by the royal mint (I think) for use by both H and KN and bore both mintmarks, the idea being that each company erased the other mintmark before minting coins... but sometimes they forgot and you get coins with KHN. These coins also appear with I (India) and SA (South Africa)... and Indian coins have Bombay and Calcutta variations, Australia has Perth and Melbourne (and more).

So really the empire used lots of mints all over the world, including US mints. Just as many countries use the royal mint to make their coins, we have used other mints too.

I think it's best just to think of it as a factory... there's no reason why they shouldn't make anything they like, but I think it should be kept separate from the "legal tender" business.

My favourite story about the Royal Mint was last year (I think)... they were going to have an enquiry to discover why £25000 was taken from a safe... it was left open all day with builders in and out of the area