Halfpenny with Britannia on both sides

[UK_Detectorist]

I found this halfpenny today. It has Brittania on both sides and also appears to have different dates on each side.

IMG_0089.jpg

IMG_0091.jpg

[RuthB]

Hi
Curious
Is it normal thickness or could it be two coins stuck together - a sneaky coin-toss trick?
Cheers, Ruth

[fred]

They are usually trick coins made by filing off the same side of two coins and brazing them together. Have a look at the edge. It will most likely be a bit thicker than usual and have a seam down the middle.

[UK_Detectorist]

I think that it does appear to have a seam.
Thank you for solving the mystery!

[Erik_the_Viking]

Quite an interesting piece of social history that is.

[LuckyB]

Given their age, both coins would have been made from the same specification of bronze, interesting to see that they have corroded slightly differently in the same ground conditions, must just be due to minor variations in composition but still within the original specification.

[Dave The Slave]

Quite like that.
Cheers,
Dave

[Fusion]

I recall reading that these coins were artificially patinated when made, as they looked too shiny and golden without. In circulation, this would wear off, and a natural patina would form. I think any chemically-patinated coin that was dropped soon after manufacture will corrode differently to one that's worn a bit from use. I've noticed streaking across the surface of some dug-up's that are very fresh-looking, this is probably related.
Regarding the different bronze alloys : The Mint did tinker with the bronze mix, during George 5th's reign, especially when dealing with 'ghosting' of the king's effigy on the reverse. I think this occured just before the smaller 'modified effigy' issues started. But I took a look on Tony Clayton's site, and there are no recorded alloy changes in Edward VII's reign.

[Erik_the_Viking]

I recall reading that these coins were artificially patinated when made, as they looked too shiny and golden without. In circulation, this would wear off, and a natural patina would form. I think any chemically-patinated coin that was dropped soon after manufacture will corrode differently to one that's worn a bit from use. I've noticed streaking across the surface of some dug-up's that are very fresh-looking, this is probably related.
Regarding the different bronze alloys : The Mint did tinker with the bronze mix, during George 5th's reign, especially when dealing with 'ghosting' of the king's effigy on the reverse. I think this occured just before the smaller 'modified effigy' issues started. But I took a look on Tony Clayton's site, and there are no recorded alloy changes in Edward VII's reign.

They also tried a recessed ear in 1915 and 1916. All 1916 recessed ear 1d coins have a broken tooth above the colon, some of the 1915 ones do as well. Presumably the die was damaged in 1915 at some point. The recessed ear didn't really help with the ghosting.

[Boulton800]

Very interesting, thanks for the post

[percy vere]

It's looking like tails you win heads we loose ha ha

Interestingly, A few weeks ago one of my customers showed me a Victorian penny that had had the same treatment but with two "heads" sides. There must have been a few of them around back in the day. Them Victorian rogues!!

[Makro 2]

Very interesting find...I have learnt something again today ..never heard of knee about these coins.

A great and interesting find...well done

Thanks for posting.

Regards.
M2

[fred]

It's looking like tails you win heads we loose ha ha

Interestingly, A few weeks ago one of my customers showed me a Victorian penny that had had the same treatment but with two "heads" sides. There must have been a few of them around back in the day. Them Victorian rogues!!

There is no guarantee that they were altered close in date to when the coins were made.

[NettleNibbler]

What a great find that is!

Well found and thanks for sharing

[swansea jack]

Social history at its best, thats great find thanks for sharing.