Interesting find regarding 1860s UK Farthings

StubbyMcNumbthumbs

I've been putting together a date set of milled UK Farthings and along the way, photographing my collection to record and enjoy on the screen. While looking through some photos, I noticed something very interesting. There is a mark on the edge of 3 of my coins, of different dates which seems like the same mark. To double check, I looked at the Aboutfarthings.co.uk website and voila, found at least 5, possibly 6 coins spanning 7 years with the same mark. I then went to Colin Cooke's site and found no less than 12 examples from 1862 to 1869 which exhibit this trait. It seems to only be present in SOME of the reverse varieties. It really shows up nicely on uncirculated examples!

On the inside edge of each coin which has this trait (on the reverse) just to the right of the "G" in "FARTHING", there is what first appears to be a rim nick, but it is identical in all examples. On the Aboutfarthings site, the following coins appear to also exhibit this "ding": 1862-rev1; 1863-rev2; 1864-rev3, 1865-rev2; 1866-rev3; and possibly 1868-rev1.

On Colin Cooke's site, they currently have for sale examples from: 1862 (4 examples); 1865 (2 examples); 1866 (4 examples); 1867 (1 example); and one 1869 example.

I'm thinking this would have been caused by a raised lump on an edge collar which was used for several years, or something like that, but I'm no expert.
Have any of you Farthings experts ever seen, or heard anyone ever mention this mark before? I haven't seen any mention of this anywhere before, so maybe I found something nobody has ever noticed.

This hobby never gets boring!

These are my 3 examples:




I won't post all the other examples on the other sites, but here's one the show it real nicely (from Colin Cooke's site):



Edited to note that since "discovering" this, I have found around 35 examples on various web sites and ebay (Occuring in all years from 1862-1869.)

Hussulo

Very interesting. I can't say I've noticed or seen it before. As you say its on the exact same place on different dated coins.
You would expect there to be some sort of a raised lump on the collar for it to leave an incuse "ding".

Perhaps someone like Rob who has studied patterns, die making and varieties might be able to add their view. Out of curiosity have you emailed Colin Cooke's to ask someone there?

MrEureka

I would think that the flaw is caused by a chip on the master die.

StubbyMcNumbthumbs

<< <i>Very interesting. I can't say I've noticed or seen it before. As you say its on the exact same place on different dated coins.
You would expect there to be some sort of a raised lump on the collar for it to leave an incuse "ding".

Perhaps someone like Rob who has studied patterns, die making and varieties might be able to add their view. Out of curiosity have you emailed Colin Cooke's to ask someone there? >>




No, not Colin Cooke's, but I did email Colin Goode with this info to see if he has seen or heard of this.

Think I might also try your suggestion.
Thanks!

StubbyMcNumbthumbs

In between Christmas festivities, when I need a little time to chill out (we had 18 people at our house for Christmas day lunch and dinner - siblings, cousins, in-laws, etc) I've continued the search for more information on this.

I have been looking a bit closer at the coins at Colin Cooke's web site, showing some nice collections (The Oxford Collection and Colin Cooke's personal collection, etc) and have found a few more examples with this "chip". I took Hussulo's suggestion and emailed the Colin Cooke people with this info. I'm sure they're shut down for the holidays, but it will be interesting to hear what their take on this is.

The time span has broadened a bit with the discovery of an 1872 with the edge chip. There were no Farthings minted in 1870 and 1871, so the culprit sat on the shelf for a couple of years, unless it was being used to mint other coins of similar size, maybe?
(This is not my coin - Photo used for illustrative purposes only)


Another interesting thing, I have not found a single example from 1868. All other dates from 1862 to 1872 have shown some examples. Time will tell.
Here are a couple more: (These are not my coins - Photos used for illustrative purposes only)




So, what should this be referred as? What should it be called? Every variety has a name or reference associated with it - "Bugs Bunny", "Low Tide", etc.
Since this is found on Victorian bronze farthings, on the edge near the "G", should it be called "Vickie's G-spot"? Or is that a bit too risque?

I hope everyone had a Happy and pleasant Christmas Holiday!

MrEureka

Can you find any other irregularities in the dies that repeat from year to year?

StubbyMcNumbthumbs

I've only got 3 examples myself to examine closely, but I haven't seen any other consistent irregularities in these or ones in photos.

Doing this sort of examination from photos on web sites and auctions, etc makes it a less than perfect scenario, but won't stop me from looking!


Also, Would this type of "irregularity" be caused from a master die or an edge collar? Would the same collar be used in a press, even while different dies are being changed out from time to time? I don't know what exact part/piece of the assembly would cause this.



edited for typo.

MrEureka

wybrit

Interesting discovery.

Another interesting thing is that Michael Gouby's research on bronze coinage of 1860-1869 uncovered that all (or perhaps, almost all) 1861 and 1862 farthings were produced by James Watt and Co (not by the Royal Mint). Whatever was the cause, it was transported to the Royal Mint after the Watt contract for farthing production was completed in 1862.

I checked my farthing pictures and found the same mark on:
1862 - small 8 / large 8 overstrike
1864 - plain 4
1865 - 5 over 2 overstrike
1866 - both with 6's close together and with 6's further apart

bosox

An incuse chip on a coin comes from a similar chip on either a punch (hub) or a master punch (master hub). Because of the incuse nature of the chip, it does not originate on a die or matrix (master die). The chip appears as a raised feature on the incuse dies and matrices.

Given the wide spread of years involved here, I would guess that all of the minting tools involved stemmed from the same master punch, which had the chip present.

Gazza

Pure speculation but as this chip appears year on year could it be related somehow to the minting process rather than a die fault, something like the coin being mechanically removed from the die after the pressing.
Gary

tbirde56

No sign of the 'rim nick' on my 1862, 1866, 1867 or 1869 farthings.

MrEureka

I agree with Bosox. I got sloppy with the terminology. Here's a useful description of the die-making process, found at thefreedictionary.com.

"The process of making dies to strike coins in today's mint has quite a few steps. First, an artist creates a large plaster model of the coin. The plaster model is then coated with rubber. The rubber mold is then used to make an epoxy galvano. All of this takes place on a scale of around eight inches. Next, a Janvier reducing lathe takes several days to reduce the image onto a steel master hub in a process that has not changed in over a hundred years. The master hub is then tempered to make it hard. A small number of master dies (incuse) are then made from the master hub. These are then used to make working hubs. The working hubs are then used to make working dies. With each step, the number goes up. The working dies are then used to strike coins. All dies are incuse, and all hubs look like the coin being struck (with the devices raised.)"

bosox

I suppose it is possible that the automatic feed and ejection mechanisms did cause the mark, but I think it is less likely than a chip on the master punch.

The only way to tell for sure where the mark came from would be to collect enough coins with the mark present and try to trace other unique die features from the multiple dies back to a common master punch (much the same process that I used in my latest book on Canadian cents). If they all tie back to one master punch, and those without the chips do not, then there is your answer. If that is not true, then the feed and ejection process becomes the primary suspect.

Another clue would be to find a coin with rotated dies. If the chip is in the same place on a coin with rotated dies, then the master punch (and not the feed and ejection mechanism) will almost certainly be the source of the chip.

I found that for Victorian cents of Canada, the mint used neither a galvano or a reducing machine to produce the dies. Although both technologies were present in the Royal Mint in the late 19th century, they did not use that process on all of the coins. My sense from studying the mint practices and Canadian coins of the period was that William Wyon like to "experiment" with such things, but that Leonard Wyon chose to hand engrave his master punches and master dies in actual size.

I qualify my remarks by stating that all of my study of the nineteenth century Royal Mint has been in the context of Canadian coins. I have done no detailed study of the Imperial coinage. Having said that, the bronze coinage of Britain and Canada were going on in the same place and time. Even when they contracted out the coinage, the masters were generally made by Leonard Wyon and others in London.