1940 Great Britain One Penny - Is This a Proof? (Hello, Everybody!)

terribleredmonster

Howdy, everybody! After something of a hiatus from the world of coins, I recently felt myself being called back. I got to chatting with a buddy of mine, who dropped a box of mixed world coins on me that he acquired as part of some crazy flea market deal he made. I've been enjoying sorting through them, cataloging them, reading about them and so on. It's been a pleasant refresher!

The box contained, among a lot of other random and mostly worthless stuff, a selection of 19th and early 20th century Great Britain pennies. I've always liked GB pennies, as big chunks of copper appeal to me and the design is engaging. There were a few decent low end coins in the lot, your standard ebay fodder, but there was also this 1940 example that has a completely different appearance from the rest.

It's easily possible that this coin has simply been polished in a way that I'm unfamiliar with, giving it the shiny, reflective character that first caught my eye. That said, while the surfaces are certainly impaired here and there, to me it doesn't look like a common buff job. Also, the details seem to be sharper on this coin than on the others I have. The devices and denticles stand out more. It has the overall appearance of a mid 20th century US Mint proof - before cameo devices became the norm.

I'm not sure what to make of it, exactly. The entire series is outside of my experience, and my experience hasn't been called upon and exercised in quite a long time anyway. Can any of you tell me what characteristics would best help me identify British copper proofs from this era - or better yet, point me towards a book or website that I might explore? Is this coin a proof, or just another victim of over zealous "preservation?" If it is, in fact, a proof, are the surface issues that it shows otherwise enough to keep collectors from wanting to own it?

I'd certainly enjoy hearing what all of you have to say. Thanks!

(I'm including pics at different angles in hopes that you all may get a better impression of what the surfaces look like. My photography abilities aren't great, and neither is my camera, but I think these pictures convey the general appearance of this coin fairly.)

7Jaguars

No, polished.

Cruzi

Have to agree, looks polished.

TomB

I have no special insight into these other than years of looking at coins and my gut is telling me this is a circulated business strike that may very well have had a little extra manipulation done to it.

7Jaguars

I'm away from home, or I'd try to post an actual proof 1940 - sorry to say def. is not.

terribleredmonster

7Jaguars, that would be great! Thanks for your input, folks. I would have been highly - HIGHLY - surprised if I checked in today to find people saying that this coin is a proof, so I'm not bummed out by your replies.

I am curious about whatever method may have been used to polish this coin, however. I've seen quite a few cleaned, polished, and otherwise wrecked coins while digging through boxes of mixed numismatic garbage over the years, and usually their surfaces look quite a bit more shredded than the ones on this coin. I suppose it probably helps the effect that the polishing appears to have taken place a long time ago as some toning has crept in around the edges on top of it.

Thanks again, folks!

TomB

I've seen quite a number of US coins where a soft cloth that has had jeweler's rouge applied to it has been used and these coins, at first glance, appear to be proofs. Oddly enough, many of these coins are fairly common date, mid-century coins. This, or something like it, might have happened with your piece, too.

terribleredmonster

Ah! I'm not familiar with jeweler's rouge. Off to Google!

ETA: I see that jewler's rouge is generally very fine. The marks I expected to see on the coin are most certainly there, they're just too fine to be seen through my cheap magnifier. This makes sense.