The blanks, having been thoroughly cleaned after annealing, are taken
to the coining press, which at the present time is, as to efficiency,
about what the old water-wheel is to the steam-engine; yet, as a relic
of the past, it is a magnificent conception. It is perhaps the most
interesting in its work of any of the coining machinery; its action
is truly pleasing to watch, but one must feel that the totally deaf
would enjoy the watching it at work more than do those who are endowed
with the sense of hearing, because the noise of the presses would not
disturb their thoughts. The noise is really painful. In these opinions
Messrs. Fremantle and Napier express entire concurrence. The blanks
taken from the colander oven are each by a single blow at this machine
converted into coins possessing the obverse and reverse impressions,
as well as the _crenated_ edge, which is one of the means employed to
protect the coin from the peculations of the clippers, those enemies to
coin of all ages and all countries, but whose business has departed,
not so much from the crenated edge as from the better balances placed
in the hands of almost every man—certainly within reach of every
man. The crenated edge is known to be no protection against the plan
called “sweating,” and which is effected by shaking the new coins in
bags, when perhaps an ounce of gold may be obtained from 1,000 new
sovereigns. The sovereigns thus treated are passed, and the operator
makes his profit, but the light gold is detected by the balance, not by
the eye. This is not the place to discuss[36] such a question, so that
we pass on to a description of the machine which is used to give the
image and superscription to coins which will be current in accordance
with the law.
The steel engraving illustrates Mr. Boulton’s screw-coining press. The
blank is laid by the automaton hand D on the lower die F; D retires,
and the collar then rises and encloses the blank, while the upper die,
fixed to the main screw of the press by the securing apparatus M, comes
down with a blow estimated to be about forty tons, and, striking the
blank, causes its particles to re-arrange themselves, and to assume
the form given by the engraving on the dies and the crenated collar
which surrounds them;[37] in other words, the plain blank becomes by
one blow a coin in every way complete. The following description will
convey to the reader an explanation of the processes as they arise.
The press having been set at rest, with the fullest space between the
dies, is called _up_—that is to say, the upper die has been raised from
the lower die, and in this position the automaton hand D has conveyed
a blank from the tube E to, and holds it over, the lower die F; upon
the first motion of the press downwards, the eccentric wheel or cam
A causes the lever B, which works on the pivot _a_, to withdraw D by
the pin C. The lever B may be lengthened or shortened at pleasure
by an arrangement against the lower B. The first motion towards the
withdrawal of D causes its finger or hand to open, and to release the
blank, which falls upon the face of the lower die. The opening of the
finger, or hand, is effected by a pin which works in a slit in the
movable finger of D, near to C. The continuation of the motion which
draws back D, causes the rods I, which are carried by the main screw
G, to release the collar K, by the levers J. The collar K, being thus
relieved from downward pressure, rises by the elasticity of the springs
L until it wholly encloses the blank which has been left on the lower
die. The rods I pass through the shoulder of the frame of the press,
and are destined for another service besides that just described; for
the main screw G, which travels through a female screw fixed in the
frame of the press (as may be seen by the dotted lines between G and
H), thereby receives its power to rise or fall upon each part of a
revolution, whereas the upper die must strike the blank a blow just
such as would be struck by a hammer, and without a twisting motion;
therefore that motion of G is lost just below H, where G fits into a
cup suspended rigidly on, and is prevented from twisting by, the rods
I, as shown at N. To the lower part of the cup N is fastened M, which
carries the upper die. So that, just at the moment that the levers J
have permitted the collar to enclose the blank, the upper die reaches
the full force of its blow, and comes upon the blank. The force of the
blow, by converting the blank into a coin, causes an instantaneous
recoil of the screw G, which is assisted in its rise by a kind of
balance just equal to its weight. The nature of this arrangement
will be better understood by reference to the engraving, where the
funnel-shaped tube O is seen to be traversed by a rod X, represented by
dotted lines, and which terminates in the head of the screw G near the
lowest X; the opening in the funnel being for the convenience of fixing
this rod to G. At Y is a swivel, where the twisting motion of X, given
by G, is lost. X is connected at its upper end with a balanced beam
W, the other end of which is in communication with the chamber V by a
rod which carries a piston working in V. The chamber V is not wholly
exhausted, but is in connection by a tube with the partially-exhausted
chamber T, an arrangement which, while it becomes a counterpoise to the
weight of the press, is used as a regulator of the blow to be given,
so that it is quite possible to coin blanks of differing denominations
by the agency of this chamber without altering the vacuum in the large
vessel T.
[Footnote 36: See pages 123-125.]
[Footnote 37: See page 80.]
The motive power of the press, that which brings down the die with
force, is gained by the pressure of the atmosphere upon a piston in
the cylinder R, and is conveyed to the press as follows:—The lever
P is fixed firmly on to the trumpet-shaped tube O, and is connected
by a series of rods, Q, with the piston in R, from which the tube S
communicates with T. The large chamber T is kept in a constant state of
partial exhaustion by the action of a thirty horse-power steam-engine,
through a well-made iron tube of considerable length. The boy who works
the press starts it by first pulling a cord _f_, terminating in the
box in which he sits; the cord _f_, by its spring _n_, releases the
valve _d_ at _i_, and permits it to act when required; he next pulls
the cord _g_, which by its loose lever opens the valve _j_, through
which the atmosphere passes freely across the bottom of the piston in
the cylinder R into the tube S, and so into the partially-exhausted
chamber T; this would cause a rush of air through the valve _d_, but
_d_, at the instant of its release by the line _f_, is closed by a
spring. Atmospheric air expands instantly if the pressure be removed
from it, so that immediately on the opening of the valve _j_, the air
beneath the piston in R expands, and part of it, entering the chamber
T, produces an unequal pressure upon the upper and lower sides of the
piston, and the result is that the piston is forced down by the weight
of an atmosphere it is unable to support. By the time that the piston
has completed its stroke, the rod _c_ has brought a button, which it
carries on its farther side, and situated at _k_, down so low that it
strikes the lever _l_, and closes the valve _j_, thus stopping the
expansion of air below the piston, while the button _m_ has at the same
instant permitted the falling of the lever _e_, and the consequent
opening of the valve _d_; when the recoil of the screw G takes place,
the piston in its descent expels (by compression) the small amount of
air remaining in the cylinder R through _d_, thus opening it so that
air can rush in at this valve and permit the rising of the piston. The
rising of the piston insures the removal of the button at _k_, and so
soon as _k_ is removed, _l_ is forced up by a spring at its farther
end, and opens the valve _j_, thus giving the means of consecutive
action to the press. If it be desired to stop the press, the boy
loosens the line _f_, and so permits the spring _n_ to keep the valve
_d_ permanently open. The boy, before supplying blanks to the tube E,
piles them on an iron block _b_, and flattens each blank in the pile by
one or two blows of a hammer on the top of the pile.
In “European Mints” are some apt words, with which I conclude my
remarks on this great invention of Mr. Boulton—great beyond compare
at the period of its birth, great beyond admiration if its results be
estimated faithfully and gratefully by a thoughtful people. We in our
day are indebted to Mr. Boulton for his press; yet its age has passed,
and as a park loses its timber, so must our Mint lose—sorrowfully
to all who love the past—its glorious mementos of men who dwell in
history to make present men mere manikins. Original minds are not
now tolerated; subservience if you will; but invention—not if a man
values or depends upon his office. Mr. Napier says truly, “The press
just mentioned and its apparatus are complicated, scattered, and
unhandy, reaching into three apartments, and require a foundation of
great solidity, and a special construction of building. The noise and
vibration accompanying their performance are disturbing to a greater
extent than in the case of the blank cutting screw press to which
reference has been made.”
It has been conceived that coins are made of two discs of metal
soldered together, and that the crenated edge is intended to hide
the join. This notion has arisen from the occasional appearance of a
cracked coin in circulation; the true explanation of the cracked coin
being that at the time of pouring the fluid metal into the mould, an
air bubble has been enclosed, and this air bubble has rent the fillet
asunder at the time of its being rolled; but the separation does not
exhibit itself until the final annealing, when it is too late for its
discovery: recently, however, it has become a custom to ring the coined
gold before it goes into circulation, and thus to detect and stop such
defective pieces.
[Illustration: Fig. 17.—Petition Crown.]
[Illustration: Fig. 18.—Inscription on edge of the Petition Crown.]
[Illustration: Fig. 19.—Fillet and Collar.]
The origin of the crenated, commonly called the “milled,” edge (thus
giving the name of the instrument to the substance operated upon),
was the desire to make any clipping of the coin easily noticeable.
Many devices were used, but John Evelyn suggested the motto, _Decus
et tutamen_,[38] and this was retained for some coins until 1854. The
crenated edge is now produced, without exception, and it is really
the best, as admitting of easier detection if counterfeited. The
distinctive marking of the edges of coins is of very early date, and
was performed by various species of hand labour, each in its turn easy
of falsification. At length this was effected by machinery, until
finally the coin was formed by striking the blank while enclosed in a
collar. The use of the collar, and its first invention, are somewhat
doubtful; Mr. Hawkins, however, appears to have established the fact
of its having been used at so early a date as William the Conqueror
(_vide_ “Ruding,” vol. i. p. 158); but the earliest coin which gives a
clear notion of the use of a collar is the celebrated Petition Crown
of Simon, which he coined for and presented to Charles II. Fig. 17
represents this very highly-prized coin, one of which was sold a few
years since for £275. This wood engraving is by Messrs. Cheshire and
Dickenson, from a fac-simile drawing taken by Mr. E. S. Gibson; it is
an exact copy of the coin in the Mint collection. It is surrounded
on its edge by a petition in raised letters, of which Fig. 18 is a
fac-simile. The late Mr. W. H. Barton thought that this coin must have
been struck while surrounded by a collar, or it could not have been
produced at all. This opinion induced a further search for the collar
which was used, and which is believed to be in existence, and to have
been seen by men now living,—it is probably amongst the collection of
curiosities of coining left by Mr. W. H. Barton. Mr. Barton suggested
that the petition must have been engraved on a fillet of steel, which
was then coiled up in a collar, as indicated by Fig. 19, and that the
blank to be coined was then placed in the coiled fillet of steel.
The coin having been struck, the fillet with the coin was knocked
out from the collar, just as medals are now knocked out; and, once
free, the fillet sprang off from the coin. This conjecture was so
strongly confirmed by minute examination, that it may be interesting
to represent the mode of operation by means of Fig. 19, where A is
the engraved fillet coiled up and just ready to drop into the collar
B; the opening C which is left is copied from the petition on the
coin, which shows the metal to have been forced through this part of
the fillet, where its ends, which were cut to fit each other, did not
quite meet. The head of this protruding part has been filed off, the
file marks still remaining visible on this part of the edge of the
coin. This fact renders Mr. Barton’s conjecture almost a certainty.
The coin weighs 517·10 grains; its average diameter is on the obverse
1·5784 inches, and on the reverse 1·5837 inches, both measures having
been taken on the extreme edge. The petition is somewhat sunken and
rounding inwards; if therefore it be measured from its lowest part,
the centre of the edge of the coin, the diameter of the coin is 1·5741
inches, giving 0·0043 inch which must be worn away before the top of
the letters of the petition can be touched in ordinary wear; thus the
coin would circulate for centuries, and its petition still remain
untouched. The coin being 0·0053 inch greater in diameter on its
reverse than on its obverse side, admitted of its being more readily
punched out from its collar, which was doubtless cut to admit of this
design being carried out. The engraving on this coin is the cause of
its great value, Simon having so perfectly carried out the idea that
coins should represent sculpture, that this specimen stands wholly
unrivalled as a coin. It has led to the impression that so good artists
are not to be found at this day as flourished then. The fact is that
artists seek such employment as remunerates them for their study; and
until their conditions of employment are satisfied we must abstain
from the desire to see coins such as were produced in ages past, and
which gave an honourable name to the country producing them. It may be
hoped that this means of preserving the history of the age in which so
much has been done may be continued. It was probably from this collar
of Simon’s that Sir Isaac Newton gained his idea for that which he is
said to have invented. The collar of the present day leaves nothing
to desire, for it gives so distinctive a mark to the edge of the coin
that any mutilation must be detected; while forgers are unable to
produce coins to imitate those struck in it, unless they use the same
means, which would incur too great an expense. The coinages of Victor
Emmanuel illustrate beautifully how easily coins may be struck, so
that, after years of wear, they still represent the original more than
creditably. To take an instance, a bronze coin, 5 centesimi, has been
purposely subjected, for nine years, to more than ordinarily rough
usage. This coin is little worn; the whole of the features are still
perfect, except that the hair is worn off above the ears, and part of
the moustache is removed. The secret of success in this coin appears to
be that the ear and adjacent parts are slightly sunken, while the whole
of the work and inscription are kept well below the protecting edges,
and there is not an indistinct figure or letter on the coin.
[Footnote 38: In Evelyn’s “Discourse of Medals,” 1697, p. 224, occurs
the following passage:—“Mr. _Slingsby_, to whom I suggested the
_Decus & Tutamen_ out of a _Viniet_ in _Cardinel de Richlieu’s Greek
Testament_, printed at the _Louvre_, hindering his intended Addition
(_in armis_), which neither would have become the _impress_, nor stood
gracefully in the circle.”]
In the British Mint false notions lead its authorities to believe that
apparent saving is real economy; so far from such being the case, if
our coins carried a better design they would not only look better, but
wear longer, and still maintain their weight. While it is my intention
to allude in another place to the large loss occasioned by our silver
coinage, I submit to the reader the facts arrived at by Mr. William
Miller, the late chief cashier in the Bank of England, who devoted
great attention to the rate of wear of coins. He found that coins which
had lost their protecting edges wear far more rapidly than those with
a protecting edge, and showed me tabular statements demonstrating that
fact. It was the intention of Mr. Miller to publish these tabulated
results. However, his painfully early removal has, I fear, prevented
that benefit being given to the public. His brother has no knowledge of
their having been published; but Mr. George Forbes, the chief cashier
in the Bank of England, has courteously given me a table closely
allied to those of which I speak, and another to which I shall refer
hereafter. I now, with permission, print this table, showing the rates
at which coins of the different reigns have worn, and which rates all
tend to prove clearly Mr. Miller’s opinion to have been correctly
formed. The fact of the increasing rate of wear would appear to be
explained by the larger surface exposed to friction by the removal of
the protecting edge. When a little later I come to the discussion, on
page 155, of the second table, I shall have occasion to say a few more
words on this, which seems to find a fitting place on the preceding
page, but contains matter which will cause too great a digression if
dwelt upon now.
A STATEMENT SHOWING THE RESULTS OF SOME EXPERIMENTS MADE UPON A LARGE
NUMBER OF SILVER COINS, OF WHICH 169,000 WERE EXAMINED SINGLY, WITH THE
VIEW OF ASCERTAINING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SILVER CIRCULATION,
AND THE LOSS BY WEAR.
It should be observed that the average of loss by wear in a century,
given in the Table, is founded upon the wear which the several coinages
have undergone up to the present time; but as the rate at which a coin
wears is an increasing rate, it is obvious that the actual loss in a
century would be much greater than that here given:—
+------------+-------------------------+------------+--------------+
| | Amount Coined since | Withdrawn | Remaining in |
| | 1816. | from | Circulation. |
| | |Circulation.| |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
| | | £ | £ | £ |
| | Victoria | 117,414 | | 117,414 |
|CROWNS | William IV | | | |
| | George IV | 140,726 | | 140,726 |
| | George III | 321,750 | | 321,750 |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
| | Victoria | 1,043,251 | | 1,043,251 |
|HALF-CROWNS | William IV | 380,556 | | 380,556 |
| | George IV | 1,113,848 | | 1,113,848 |
| | George III | 2,387,088 | 252,870 | 2,134,218 |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
|FLORINS | Victoria | 1,541,161 | | 1,541,161 |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
| | Victoria | 2,609,504 | 490 | 2,609,014 |
|SHILLINGS | William IV | 412,038 | 49,944 | 362,094 |
| | George IV | 878,922 | 350,622 | 528,300 |
| | George III | 3,304,224 | 867,674 | 2,436,550 |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
| | Victoria | 1,182,339 | 298 | 1,182,041 |
|SIXPENCES | William IV | 281,994 | 34,614 | 247,380 |
| | George IV | 81,378 | 47,738 | 33,640 |
| | George III | 919,314 | 312,250 | 607,064 |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
| | £| 16,715,507 | 1,916,500 | 14,799,007 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+--------------+
LEGEND:
(A) = Average of _Loss by_ wear in 100 _Years_,
at the rate at which the Coinages of the several reigns
have worn, up to the present time.
(B) = Loss by wear on Amount withdrawn.
(C) = Loss by wear on Amount in Circulation.
(D) = Number of Coins examined singly.
+------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
| | | (A) | (B) | (C) | (D) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
+------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
| | |Per Cent.| £ | £ | |
| | Victoria | 5·50 | | | |
|CROWNS | William IV | | | | |
| | George IV | 7·04 | | 15,776| 4,000|
| | George III | 7·46 | | | |
+------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
| | Victoria | 14·17 | | | |
|HALF-CROWNS | William IV | 15·30 | | | |
| | George IV | 15·80 | 13,546| 250,270| 20,000|
| | George III | 15·92 | | | |
+------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
|FLORINS | Victoria | 15·00 | | 10,147| 5,000|
+------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
| | Victoria | 26·55 | | | |
|SHILLINGS | William IV | 26·82 | | | |
| | George IV | 28·74 |167,684| 413,044| 80,000|
| | George III | 29·96 | | | |
+------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
| | Victoria | 37·00 | | | |
|SIXPENCES | William IV | 39·00 | | | |
| | George IV | 44·80 | 72,420| 221,380| 60,000|
| | George III | 45·00 | | | |
+------------+------------+---------+-------+---------+-------+
| | | | | 910,617|169,000|
| | | |253,650| 253,650| |
| | | | +---------+ |
| | | | £|1,164,267 total |
| | | | | loss by wear. |
+------------+------------+---------+-------+-----------------+
W. MILLER.
BANK OF ENGLAND, _December, 1860_.
As further showing the rate of wear, I append a note which I have
copied from the eighth volume of the _Journal of the Society of Arts_,
written by Mr. John Miller, to whose courtesy I have often been
indebted, and who shows that the general rate of wear is rather higher
than would appear from the above facts, for his figures prove a loss
by wear to the extent of £4 11_s._ 8_d._ on a hundred sovereigns in a
hundred years, as will be seen in his letter which follows:—
“BANK OF ENGLAND, GOLD WEIGHING ROOM,
“_29th August, 1859_.
“SIR,—According to your wish I collected one hundred
sovereigns of the date one thousand eight hundred and twenty,
which, on weighing, I find have lost in value one pound six
shillings and sevenpence.
“As these sovereigns were taken from parcels sent in from different
places, and at different times, during a long period, I think the
experiment is as likely to give a correct estimate of the loss
which the coin undergoes by wear as any that could be tried.
“I have the honour to be, Sir,
“Your very obedient servant,
(Signed) “J. MILLER.
“A. Latham, Esq., Deputy Governor.”
That I may convey as accurate information as possible I also give the
following tables from the same volume of the Society of Arts. These
tables seem so clear as to render detailed explanation unnecessary.
It would appear that coins wear pretty much in proportion to the kind
of usage they receive; for Professor Jevons, in his pamphlet “On the
Condition of the Metallic Currency of the United Kingdom,” shows
indisputably that at the West End of London they suffer less than at
the East End, where they are thrown with force on rough and often sandy
benches while at the West they are treated with more consideration.
RESULTS OF SOME CAREFUL EXAMINATIONS MADE IN 1858 OF LIGHT GOLD AND
SILVER COIN OF THE EARLY YEARS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF COINAGE, 1817
TO 1825, TAKING 1822 AS THE MEAN OF THOSE YEARS.
LEGEND:
(A) = Mint Weight of each Coin.
(B) = Mint Weight of £100 worth.
(C) = Weight of £100 worth of old Coin.
(D) = Loss in 36 Years, 1822 as the Mean.
+---------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| | (A) | (B) | (C) | (D) |
| | | | | |
+---------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| | Ounces. | Ounces. | Ounces. | Ounces. |
|Sovereign | ·25682 | 25·682 | 25·360 | ·322 |
|Half-Sovereign | ·12841 | 25·682 | 25·070 | ·612 |
|Half-Crown | ·4545 | 363·636 | 345·850 | 17·786 |
|Shilling | ·1818 | 363·636 | 315·575 | 48·061 |
|Sixpence | ·0909 | 363·636 | 296·950 | 66·686 |
+---------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+