George V First Series Silver Coins

[ozjohn 647]

Looking an the quality of the first series of George V silver the product from the Royal Mint is of very poor quality especially the florins with pronounced ghosting on the reverse, poorly defined lions in the upper shield on the reverse and poor detail on the effigy on the obverse some examples being so poorly struck that they would be graded as fine for an UNC coin if you did not know better. Looking at the Australian florins minted at the same time and same mint up to 1916 with the exception of some being struck at the Heaton mint these coins are of the highest quality and show no sign of being poorly struck. It has been said that the poor quality of British silver coins was due to WW1 diverting skilled labor into other industries but this is not apparent in the Australian issues in fact the quality did not really improve until the modified effigy appeared in 1926 while the low relief effigy of 1920 did little to improve the situation. However by 1924 the reverse of the florin seem to fully struck in the upper shield although the striking of the obverse was still weak. Maybe

some of the issues with the coins after 1919 may be due to the alloy composition being changed but this does not explain the constant poor quality over this whole period.

I guess this still begs the question as to why the output of the Royal Mint was so poor when they managed to produce high quality coins for Australia. Any ideas?

[ozjohn 647]

I would have thought someone would have a view on this.

[Coinery 1,153]

I thought you were trying to drag Peckris out of retirement?

[ozjohn 647]

A serious discussion would be a good thing.

[ChKy 61]

As far as I know, they had problems with the design of the dies. The amount of material within the blanks was unsufficient to reproduce the features of the chosen design.

During mintage under high pressure the metal behaves like a liquid. The metal fills out the cavities caused by the die. If the blank has not enough initial material you end up with ghosting and weak strike effects as shown on many coins of that early peroid of George V coinage. The design was subsequently changed several times to overcome that problem.

[VickySilver 830]

Well I think a lot has to do with silver content as well - Aussies were struck to sterling, and the homefront relegated to 0.500 which made for much harder planchet material. There was a lot of experimentation with alloy, some not too successful; the BM has some specimens of differing alloy composition if you should ever visit there.

[ChKy 61]

Ghosting can be observed on Bronze as well as Sterling Silver.

[ozjohn 647]

The series that are being compared ie 1910 to 1916 were both struck in .925 silver probably from the same blanks as they were struck at the same mint and for all intents and purpose the same coin with the exception of the design. The Australian coins are well struck while the UK coins were for the most part poor. The only difference is the design. Again the Edward coins before these were for the most part well struck and free from ghosting. If it was the design why did it take so long to correct it with the modified effigy and redesigned reverses. The copper coins also suffered similar problems.

[shagreen 24]

The key difference is Sir Bertram MacKennals' crowned effigy used for the colonial coinage was in lower relief that the truncated crownless design used for UK coinage. Much easier to achieve the metal flow required to minimise (not eliminate) ghosting during striking

[shagreen 24]

The key difference is Sir Bertram MacKennals' crowned bust effigy of GV used for the colonial coinage was in lower relief that the truncated crownless design used for UK coinage. Much easier to achieve the metal flow required to minimise (not eliminate) ghosting during striking

[ozjohn 647]

I think you are probably right. I just wonder why it took so long to fix the problem.

[ChKy 61]

Again the Edward coins before these were for the most part well struck and free from ghosting.

I have a 1906 Penny showing ghosting and weak strike, so it was a problem before as well.

[copper123 1,486]

Ghosting is quite common on Edward Penny's less in halfpennies and almost none existent in farthings

[sound 25]

According to Peckris (Chris) Die wear.

Read the full article on www.jncoins.co.uk Go to Articles at the top. Its the second article for GV period. Third and fourth in prep.

Mark

[Coinery 1,153]

According to Peckris (Chris) Die wear.

Read the full article on www.jncoins.co.uk Go to Articles at the top. Its the second article for GV period. Third and fourth in prep.

Mark

Give him back, Mark!

[Peter 615]

He is in Marks cellar and being stretched.

[Peter 615]

Give him the nipple clamps.

[Coinery 1,153]

Give him the nipple clamps.

Let's not have him enjoy the break too much! We'll never get him back once the S&M gets started!

[copper123 1,486]

Ok I'm sick of the nipple clamps and the stretching in the cellar , Now i give in, "Ok You can go to that bloody coin fair at Birmingham this coming weekend"

[ozjohn 647]

The article gives a credible explanation for the war years but the mint's quality suffered long after the war. Alloy changes may explain the problem but it still exposes design flaws in the original design as the same problems

still occurred on coins minted after WW1 with the only response was to introduce the low profile effigy from 1920 to 1926. It still represents an inordinate amount of time to correct the strike quality during this period and as stated before

the Royal Mint managed to produce some high quality coins for Australia from 1910 to 1916 using exactly the same presses and blanks. Of course the dies were different. I guess all of this points towards the original designs for these coins.

[copper123 1,486]

Well yes, the designer of these coins thought more about the quality of the design than the practicalities of making the darn things , best left to other folks in the know they thought, i'm sure of that

[Mr T 175]

The sizes of the designs probably contributed too:

As for why it took so long to fix, well it wasn't for lack of trying, but I guess the Royal Mint was pretty busy with other things too - they had to step up production during World War I and they were making a lot more than just British coins too.

[copper123 1,486]

Yep like medals and the like.

There were so many medals given out in the first world war that for the first time they were not awarded at ceremonies but posted out in the post at the time - this did not go down well with the ordinary privates (who to be fair put their lives at risk every day , just like the rest).

Many even threw them in the bin in disgust.

[ozjohn 647]

I can't say I have ever seen any sign of poorly struck WW1 medals although they use the same effigy of the King which is sometimes blamed for the poor quality of the coins because of its size, It has to be said the WW1 silver medal

is thicker than the florins and halfcrowns of the time more the crown size which may have allowed the metal to flow during the striking process. Just as an aside all WW1 silver medals in Australia were inscribed around the edge with the recipients

name rank etc. whereas in the UK they were not unless requested for at a charge.

[copper123 1,486]

my grandads were inscribed on the edge , or just the silver one was he was an ord tommy in the royal marines - not sure if he had to pay extra for that.

By the way ist WW medals were superbly struck though it is rare to see one these days that has not been well cleaned.

English WWW1 medals are often called Pip squeak and Wilfred , after a popular cartoon in a national newspaper I think

Edited June 13, 2015 by copper123