More Pennies

[azda 979]

50 minutes ago, Green said:

1912 H Penny

Is this coin really worth the money or is the seller chancing it? Given the seller's feedback it might well be a special coin but I am not too sure. 

Makes you wonder how he got so much feedback with so many crazy prices. He has been mentioned on here before for his over inflated pricing structure and i also messaged him over ebay about a 1689 halfcrown in a PCGS slab graded as XF which is British VF and he insisted that it was a British EF selling it for £1k, true value, about £130

[PWA 1967 2,135]

22 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

Inversely, please do send your.. ahem.. figures.

The UNC F139 in that last auction went for around  £100 iirc  pm me Kip..

Behave yourself Matt ,you would not be able to sleep at night if you bought it from a dealer at that price 

[Nordle11 564]

 

[terrysoldpennies 763]

On ‎16‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 11:59 AM, Nordle11 said:

 

Here you go gents. Happy reading.

 

I've been scratching around in my boxes of pennies, to see if I could find the 1909 penny Mr Cole describes as, quote. ' The upper portion of the area between the plume and the back of Britannia's head is raised up from the flan'.  I found this coin in the box, and I assume its the one he is talking about.  it appears as a line which runs both below the helmet passing through the plume , and above the hooked shaped part of the helmet. It looks to be a die clash mark, as it follows the same line as the Ghosting of Edwards bust, which shows through on the reverse side of this coin.  Terry

[Nordle11 564]

Looks to be right Terry. Either die clash or ghosting, I would go with ghosting, however, as it was so common on this series.

[terrysoldpennies 763]

2 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

Looks to be right Terry. Either die clash or ghosting, I would go with ghosting, however, as it was so common on this series.

Yes, its difficult to tell, die clash or Ghosting , but Ghosting was much more of a problem on the George V pennies.   Terry

[PWA 1967 2,135]

I would think ghosting 

[Guest 1861]

A clean overstrike but is it a V or an over Y and has anyone seen something similar? Y over Y is common but this definitely doesn't look like a Y over Y. Your thoughts please? Thanks! 

[Nordle11 564]

3 minutes ago, Guest 1861 said:

A clean overstrike but is it a V or an over Y and has anyone seen something similar? Y over Y is common but this definitely doesn't look like a Y over Y. Your thoughts please? Thanks! 

Definitely Y over Y. The bars wouldn't meet at the bottom if they continued on their path, so it couldn't be a V.

[Guest 1861]

Thanks that was quick

[Nordle11 564]

4 minutes ago, Guest 1861 said:

Thanks that was quick

I was cleaning up some stuff, must have clicked on new activity just as you posted  

[secret santa 2,325]

37 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

Definitely Y over Y. The bars wouldn't meet at the bottom if they continued on their path, so it couldn't be a V.

Could it be a Y from a halfpenny die/punch ?

[Nordle11 564]

Just now, secret santa said:

Could it be a Y from a halfpenny die/punch ?

Looks a bit too similar in size to the penny's Y to me. How much smaller would a halfpenny Y be? I have none to compare.

[Colin G. 147]

You tend to find recut letters often leave behind a smaller underlying letter, because the metal fills in around the old letter as the new one is cut.

[1949threepence 3,367]

Yep, Y over Y - absolutely no doubt at all. 

[1949threepence 3,367]

18 hours ago, secret santa said:

Could it be a Y from a halfpenny die/punch ?

It is smaller looking. Although I take Colin's point, and Matt's.

Edited January 20, 2017 by 1949threepence

[1949threepence 3,367]

On 12/20/2016 at 9:16 AM, PWA 1967 said:

Going back to the Mint Toned coins as cant find any information elsewhere ,does anyone know why the 1934 was Mint Toned please ?.

Pete.

 

On 12/21/2016 at 10:58 AM, PWA 1967 said:

Thank you for the replies .

I have asked a few people but nobody seems to be sure.

If i get an answer that stacks up i will post 

Pete.

Pete - curiosity got the better of me with this issue, and I e mailed the Royal Mint with a FOI request. Today I got a reply, and here a copy and paste of it:-

 

Quote

 

----- Original Message -----

From: FOI

To: 

Cc: FOI

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 2:55 PM

Subject: RE: Freedom of information request

 

Dear Mr 

 

 

 

I now attach our detailed response to you Freedom of Information request of 21 December 2016.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Chris Inson
Legal Counsel
chris.inson@royalmint.com

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Sent by email only to:

 

20 January 2017

 

 

Dear Mr

 

Your Freedom of Information request of 21 December 2016 (the “Request”)

 

Thank you very much for your Request which I set out below for ease of reference.

 

 

“I would like to ask the following archival type question regarding certain British pre decimal pennies:-

 

We know that some pennies dated 1934, 1935, and 1944 to 1946 inclusive, were "mint toned" using "hypo", which is the common name for Sodium Thiosulphate, such that when issued for circulation they did not possess the normal golden lustre, but were instead a sort of chocolate brown.

 

The question I have is why these pennies were pre-treated to achieve this specific look. I've searched everywhere and can find no answer. Both Peck and Freeman acknowledge that the mint toning occurred in those years, but neither speculate as to why.” 

 

 

I contacted colleagues at The Royal Mint Museum to see if they could assist with your Request and they provided the following, fascinating, narrative:

 

 

“The issue of toned pennies in 1934 and 1935 was the result of the Mint trying to reduce the demand for new, bright pennies for use in children’s Christmas stockings. The Mint viewed this as creating a problem by artificially raising the demand for the production of pennies which they believed ultimately led to large surpluses being held by the banks. In an attempt to combat this, they toned the pennies for the years 1934 and 1935 and you will find attached an extract from the Mint’s Annual Report of 1934 that provides more details.

 

The second period, 1944-46, was caused by the shortage of tin during the Second World War. This led to a change in the composition of bronze coin produced at the Mint and resulted in the pieces struck being far more pink in colour than bronze coins produced using the old composition. As a result, the Mint toned the coins to make them appear much more like all the previous bronze issues. Yet again, I have included an extract from Michael Freeman’s The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain which provides more details.”

 

I attach both extracts as referred to with this response.

 

 

I do hope you find this response of help and interest but, by way of formality, if you are dissatisfied with the way we have handled your request, you may request a review of our decision or make a complaint by writing to:

 

Vin Wijeratne

Chief Financial Officer

Royal Mint

Llantrisant

Pontyclun

CF72 8YT.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of your complaint, you may refer the matter to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Please be aware that the Commissioner will be unlikely to make a decision until you have been through our internal complaints procedure first. You can write to the Commissioner at:

 

FOI/EIR Complaints Resolution

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

or use the online complaints form published by the Commissioner which is available at www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss your request further or have any other queries. My contact details are set out below.

 

Kind regards

 

Yours sincerely

 

Chris Inson

Legal Counsel

The Royal Mint Limited

 

FOI@royalmint.com

01443 623063

 

 

 

 

Accompanying the above were two pdf attachments, and one other attachment which is reproduced above. One of the two pdf attachments was an extract from The Royal Mint Annual report 1934 - unfortunately the copy quality is appalling, and I shall request another. But basically, as far as I can tell, what is said above about 1934, echoes what is in that annual report.

The second attachment is an extract from Freeman's "The Bronze Coinage of Great Britain". I think we already knew about that anyway.

1934 report 1

1934 report 2

1934 report 3

       

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by 1949threepence

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Thank you for asking them and going to the trouble Mike 

 

[1949threepence 3,367]

21 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Thank you for asking them and going to the trouble Mike 

 

No worries, Pete. Who would have imagined that would be the reason for the 1934 toning ?! 

[scott 144]

I thought the years were 1932 and 1934, rather then 1935?

[Rob 3,152]

With hindsight, the demand for bright new pennies to put into stockings was likely, as it would be prefereable to put one with the correct year if possible into a present. If you wind the clock back, a penny was a significant amount for a child to receive, being comparable to a gift of a pound today. People would also look for the best looking one (for which read bright). Making them all mint toned however is probably not addressing the problem, because if all pennies are mint toned, then you provide a mint toned penny as the new norm. The gift value doesn't change, and that was the real reason for the demand.

Releasing a few bright ones as well might have made people think twice about putting a penny in the stocking at all and hence reduced demand. This is clearly not a new problem, as the majority of current pennies sit in jars and effectively do not circulate. Biggest mintage figures by far, but the least used.

[1949threepence 3,367]

33 minutes ago, Rob said:

With hindsight, the demand for bright new pennies to put into stockings was likely, as it would be prefereable to put one with the correct year if possible into a present. If you wind the clock back, a penny was a significant amount for a child to receive, being comparable to a gift of a pound today. People would also look for the best looking one (for which read bright). Making them all mint toned however is probably not addressing the problem, because if all pennies are mint toned, then you provide a mint toned penny as the new norm. The gift value doesn't change, and that was the real reason for the demand.

Releasing a few bright ones as well might have made people think twice about putting a penny in the stocking at all and hence reduced demand. This is clearly not a new problem, as the majority of current pennies sit in jars and effectively do not circulate. Biggest mintage figures by far, but the least used.

Hence the reason you can easily locate examples direct from circulation, of 1 & 2p's dated as long ago as 1990, still with mint lustre on them.  

[scott 144]

Pretty sure South African issues were also darkened around the same time.

[Rob 3,152]

1 minute ago, scott said:

Pretty sure South African issues were also darkened around the same time.

Yes they were. They stopped them in 1942 assuming the darkened and normal types for that year is a clean break point.

[Mr T 175]

On 16/01/2017 at 9:59 PM, Nordle11 said:

 

Here you go gents. Happy reading.

 

Thank you. What was the year and month for that Coin Monthly?