LEGEND:
(A) = Mint Weight of £100 worth.
(B) = Loss of Weight of £100 worth in a Century.
(C) = Loss of Value in a Century.
(D) = Loss of Weight of each piece in a Century.
(E) = Loss of Volume from 1,000 parts in a Century.
+----------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+---------+
| | | | | | |
| | (A) | (B) | (C) | (D) | (E) |
| | | | | | |
+----------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+---------+
| | Ounces. | Ounces. | £ m. | Ounces. | |
|Sovereigns | 25·682 | ·895 | 3·485 | ·00895 | 35· |
|Half-Sovereigns | 25·682 | 1·700 | 6·620 | ·00850 | 66· |
|Half-Crowns | 363·636 | 49·406 | 13·587 | ·06176 | 136· |
|Shillings | 363·636 | 133·503 | 36·713 | ·06675 | 367· |
|Sixpences | 363·636 | 185·239 | 50·941 | ·04631 | 509· |
+----------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+---------+
(Signed) W. MILLER.
BANK OF ENGLAND, _8th October, 1859_.
In this interesting table Mr. Miller curiously shows that the loss of
value and of volume bear equal relations to a coin, from which I infer
that he went so far as to measure determinately the amount of water
displaced by such coins as are referred to in these very valuable
researches; that he possessed a rigidly honest mind I know from
occurrences in my own dealings with him, and therefore I am sure his
figures are the results of actual experiment, and so, entirely reliable.
These facts show that before it is determined to withdraw our coins
when they have reached the age of eighteen years, the Mint authorities
should produce coins with a more perfect protecting edge, as was done
at my suggestion for shillings and sixpences, and then by abolishing
the annealing of blanks give to our coins a medium hardness so that
they will be able to bear comparison with the Italian as regards wear
and tear, and retain a juvenile appearance after the exercise, instead
of their present smooth worn surface.
The method of manufacturing the collar with the interior crenated
circle, which is employed to give the protecting edge to the finished
coin, is very simple:—A piece of flat, soft steel is bored with a hole
of the required diameter, and is fixed in a lathe so that it may be
made to revolve rapidly at pleasure. While the partly-formed collar
is revolving in the lathe, the slide-rest is made to place a kind of
cogged wheel, carried on a rod of steel, into the hole which has been
bored; by a screw in the slide-rest, the cogged wheel is brought down
until it touches the inside of the partly-formed collar; at the moment
of contact, the cogged wheel is turned round by the friction of the
collar against it, and its continued pressure upon the inside of the
collar causes the latter to receive an imprint from the cogged wheel.
When the imprinting is complete, the collar is hardened, and it is then
fit for use at the coining press. The system of manufacture is supposed
to be the most perfect; but it is manifest that no two collars are
produced of exactly the same internal diameter; hence the coin issuing
from each collar of the same denomination must, as it does, vary in
diameter; but this is of small consequence, the difference being so
minute that it is not detected unless by very accurate measurement;
indeed, coins coming from the same collar must vary in size, since
the collar wears away by use to a certain extent. The diameter and
consequent thickness of a coin are not determined by law, but by its
suitableness for the public to whom it is to be issued; consequently
the usual mode of arriving at the diameter of a coin is to make it of
such a size that it will emit the most musical sound it is capable of.
This rule was not sustained in the case of the small florin—better
known as the “godless florin;” hence, coupled with the omission of the
_Dei Gratia_[39] in its superscription, the coin fell into disfavour.
The following measurements, taken from a set of proof coins of the
present reign, will convey an idea of the probable size of any coin
of the realm; but from the reason before stated, a man need not be
disappointed should he find the diameters differ from any he may
examine by an accurate gauge. While stating the diameters (which never
vary beyond a few thousandths of an inch), it is thought proper to give
the legal weight and legal tender[40] of each denomination of coin
current in Great Britain:—
[Footnote 39: _Dei Gratia_ was also omitted on some of the coins of
George I.]
[Footnote 40: 33rd Vict., c. 10, cl. 4.]
+------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Denomination of Coin. | Diameter. | Weight in Troy. |
+------------------------+-----------+----------+--------+
| | Inches. | Grains. | Ounces.|
|Gold. Sovereign | 0·8680 | 123·2744 | 0·2568 |
| Half-Sovereign | 0·7622 | 61·6372 | 0·1284 |
+------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Crown | 1·5048 | 436·3636 | 0·9090 |
| Half-Crown | 1·2714 | 218·1818 | 0·4545 |
| Florin | 1·1826 | 174·5454 | 0·3636 |
| Shilling | 0·9296 | 87·2727 | 0·1818 |
| Sixpence | 0·7648 | 43·6363 | 0·0909 |
|Silver. Fourpence | 0·6456 | 29·0909 | 0·0606 |
| Threepence | 0·6383 | 21·8181 | 0·4545 |
| _Maundy._ | | | |
| Fourpence | 0·6957 | 29·0909 | 0·0605 |
| Threepence | 0·6383 | 21·8181 | 0·4545 |
| Twopence | 0·5294 | 14·5454 | 0·0303 |
| Penny | 0·4388 | 7·2727 | 0·0151 |
+------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Penny | 1·3502 | 291·6666 | 0·6076 |
|Copper. Halfpenny | 1·1155 | 145·8333 | 0·3038 |
| Farthing | 0·8575 | 72·9166 | 0·1519 |
| Half-Farthing | 0·6953 | 36·4583 | 0·0759 |
+------------------------+-----------+-------------------+
| Penny | 1·2000 | 145·8333 | 0·3038 |
|Bronze. Halfpenny | 1·0000 | 87·5000 | 0·1822 |
| Farthing | 0·8000 | 43·7500 | 0·0911 |
+------------------------+-----------+----------+--------+
+------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Denomination of Coin. | Legal Tender. |
+------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| | To the value of— |
|Gold. Sovereign | The highest sum |
| Half-Sovereign | known. |
+------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Crown | |
| Half-Crown | |
| Florin | |
| Shilling | |
| Sixpence | |
|Silver. Fourpence | Forty shillings |
| Threepence | sterling. |
| _Maundy._ | |
| Fourpence | |
| Threepence | |
| Twopence | |
| Penny | |
+------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Penny | One shilling sterlg. Proclaimed |
|Copper. Halfpenny | Sixpence ” illegal |
| Farthing | Sixpence ” since 31st |
| Half-Farthing | Sixpence ” December, 1869.|
+------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Penny | One shilling ” |
|Bronze. Halfpenny | One shilling ” |
| Farthing | One shilling ” |
+------------------------+-------------------------------------+
The press for coining is still defective: one of its defects is the
production of imperfect coins, of which Fig. 20 is a common type. It
is produced by the failure of the automaton hand to place the blank
exactly on the lower die, so that the collar, when it rises, fails to
enclose it; hence, when the upper die descends to strike the blank,
only that part of it which is over the die is impressed, the collar
being forced down by the pressure of the other part of the blank upon
its upper surface. On other occasions the automaton hand drops its
blank too early, or fails to bring it forward at all: on such occasions
it sometimes receives a severe pinch, and retires with an impression
produced on its end by the dies; and on either of these occurrences,
the dies may come forcibly together, and disfigure each other, so that
the next coin which is produced carries with it on each side a faint
impression of both dies as well as its proper impression. This could
never happen if the levers which carry the weights Z on the screw of
the press performed actually the whole of the functions for which they
are designed. A contrivance has been adapted to the coining presses
to stop their action should the automaton hand fail to bring forward
a blank for coining. This, after months spent in attempting its use,
is set aside because it increases the evil it was intended to remedy.
Fig. 21 is a representation of an imperfect half-crown which had been
submitted twice to the process of coining, and by oversight passed into
circulation in 1818. It had been current, and was taken in ordinary
change in July, 1861; it is much worn, but on each side may be clearly
traced the impressions of the obverse and of the reverse, singular
effects being produced where the crown of the reverse fits so neatly
on to the back of the head of his Majesty; and where, on the obverse,
the shield displaces his Majesty’s face. This could hardly have been
an accidental occurrence; it would seem that the workman of the press
must have struck the coin properly, and then taken some pains to fit it
into a larger collar and give it a second blow. If the collars were all
of precisely the same size such an act would be impossible; but there
are sufficient variations in the size of the collars to admit of this
explanation. Some accidental productions have been called by ignorant
writers _incused coins_, and conjectural histories of them have been
published; when, in fact, their history is simply this: it so chanced
that the coin last struck remained upon the upper die, and gave its
lower-side impression to the upper side of the next blank which was
coined. This is no uncommon occurrence, and the effect of it would be
that such a coin would have the same device on each side; but of course
one would present the design in relief and the other in intaglio.
[Illustration: Fig. 20.—Brockage.]
[Illustration: Fig. 21.—Brockage.]
Such being some of the imperfections of Mr. Boulton’s coining press,
it may perhaps be assumed that they can be readily overcome; but I am
not aware of the existence of any press which is free from them. The
French press has, however, many advantages, and the Mint authorities
have recently had a new one made, from which extraordinary results
were anticipated, but it now appears that this is simply another
improvement of the usual type, and that it has cost about £1,500 and
remains on the premises of the manufacturers.
As the coined money issues from the press it is collected in trays
and examined; all imperfect coins, curiously termed “brockages,” are
picked out; and the good coins weighed into drafts of 701 sovereigns,
equal in weight to about 180 ounces: these are at present sent to the
weighing room, where they are examined for imperfect coins by passing
over a kind of blanket, so arranged on a series of rollers that each
coin lying on its surface can be seen as the blanket revolves. The
blanket covered with coins is carried round a set of rollers, and thus
produces them on the upper side of a lower blanket, when the reverse
side can be seen. The effect of this machine is to worry the eye, if
constant watching be enforced, for no one can watch a string of coins
in continuous motion _and see each one_. A very minute alteration of
this machine would cause it to stop for a few seconds at intervals, and
during that stoppage the accustomed eye could readily detect and select
the imperfect coin.
After this overlooking, the coins are rung as blanks used to be, and
then weighed separately, _all_ the rejected going to the melting-pot,
by which a waste[41] of 50 per cent. is incurred at the extreme end of
an elaborate process; but this unwise course, it is to be hoped, will
soon be abandoned when its expensive and perfectly useless extravagance
is considered. After the various operations of the weighing room the
coin is collected and weighed into separate bags, each containing 701
sovereigns; the exact weight of the contents of each bag is noted;
and, the bags having been placed in a truck, are taken to the Mint
Office, where they undergo what is called _pyxing_, which is simply the
selecting from each and every bag a pound weight, from which two coins
are taken; each coin is weighed and its weight recorded. Of these coins
one is placed in the hands of the assayer to determine its value as
to per-centage of gold, and the other is sealed in a packet, which is
placed in a _pyx_ for the trial of THE PYX at Westminster—an ancient
process now useless, because any skilled man can detect by assay a
deterioration of the coin. These particulars having been taken, the
coin is in due course delivered to the officers of the Bank of England,
who conduct it in amounts of about £140,000 to the Bank in a waggon.
The law enacts that 20 lbs. weight troy of standard or crown gold shall
be made into 934·50 sovereigns, and this proportion gives the means of
determining the theoretical weight of one sovereign; for if the 20 lbs.
troy weight produce 934·50[42] coins, it is only necessary to divide by
that number the number of grains in 20 lbs. troy, and the quotient will
represent the weight of a single sovereign, viz., 123·2744783306581059
troy grains; therefore the journey of 701 sovereigns should weigh
180·032102728731942215 troy ounces, and a million 256821·829855377
troy ounces, equal to 7·8618927506797 tons avoirdupois; hence the War
Indemnity of France will weigh 1572·37855 tons.
[Footnote 41: See pages 42-45, 108, 109.]
[Footnote 42: See pages 73, 123, 124.]
Since the coins of a people must represent food in proportion as they
are of specific weight, it is to be regretted that the law does not
fix the weight (with a remedy) of the individual sovereign, instead of
fixing the number of coins in 20 lbs. weight, and giving a remedy[43]
of 12 grains on the pound troy. Irrespective of law, the practice of
the Royal Mint is to apportion the estimated amount of remedy (or
latitude for error) to each coin; but in America the pound weight alone
is studied; hence the individual coins vary so considerably in weight
that it pays as a commercial speculation to select the heavy coins, and
to sell them as bullion; thus leaving the light coins in circulation,
to the dishonour of the nation, because if a man take 1,000 American
gold coins to the Bank of England they will not be received at their
nominal value, but as bullion; hence the loss becomes personal, and so
the coins of America cannot, and do not, stand on a par with those of
England.
[Footnote 43: See pages 39, 73, 124.]
The paragraph above has stood unaltered since the first edition, and I
reproduce it because its history is perhaps curious. Mr. Graham, soon
after I entered the Mint, commenced urging reasons why the system of
weighing coins individually, which he considered expensive, should be
abandoned; as well as I was able I met his proposition by firm but
adverse arguments, until at last he “ordered me to omit the weighing
of individual pieces, and to _pound the work_ as is directed by law.”
I therefore asked him, as the matter was a very grave one, to _write
the order_. This he refused to do, and thought it hard of me to require
a written order, and so the matter dropped; when, however, Mr. John
Graham was appointed, Mr. Graham told me that he could now carry out
his wishes without a “written order.” In the meantime he had asked me
“to write a treatise on coining for Tomlinson’s Cyclopædia—in fact,
I have already referred Mr. Tomlinson to you, and he will call; your
difficulty will be to compress your information into a sufficiently
small space.” After so long an attempt to preserve the accuracy of our
coinage, I felt unwilling to allow such an opportunity to pass, and
therefore placed my opinions in print, and thereby gave Mr. Graham so
deep an offence that he refused to place my book in the Mint library,
although I gave him a copy for that purpose; it was still absent from
those shelves when I left the Mint. In August, 1864, Mr. John Graham,
acting under the “Master’s orders,” directed “that the contents of only
one bag in three should be weighed,” and this was carried out till
pieces which bore the device of florins found their way to the Bank of
England, and amongst them were found some of the intrinsic value of
1_s._ 6_d._, while others reached so high as 2_s._ 9_d._ Mr. Graham was
greatly distressed about this occurrence, and, notwithstanding his
brother’s position, directed me to stop this new system at once. He
then attributed the innovation to myself, and blamed me for all that
had happened. I therefore told him that he, and he alone, was to blame,
for I had persistently refused to do it unless fortified with a written
order. This caused, as I felt at the time, our final separation; but
had I been willing to accept blame which belonged, as I told him, to
himself first, and in a lesser degree to his brother, he would have
made it a fair ground for my removal from the Mint—a result he had
earnestly endeavoured to effect. I was so far free from blame that I
was actually absent from the Mint part of the time, and during the
remainder refused to enter the room where the blanks were cut, such
action on my part resulting from a desire to protest firmly, by deed as
I had done by word, against what I knew to be a fatal step. The wisdom
of my proposition to apportion the remedy to the individual piece
was so apparent that the Legislature incorporated it in the Act 33
Victoria, cap. 10, and as detailed information may be of special value
to many, I quote the first schedule to that Act on the opposite page.
That others concur in my thus claiming the origination of the
apportionment of the remedy to the individual piece, is, I think,
clearly demonstrated by the subjoined letter, which appeared in the
Money Market and City Intelligence of the _Times_, on Thursday, March
10, 1870.
“The following relates to the coinage question:—
“_March 8th._
“SIR,—In your article of this day you draw attention to
Mr. Ansell’s new work, ‘The Royal Mint,’ which I have studied
carefully. I shall feel obliged if you will permit me, through you,
to direct the attention of members of Parliament to the suggestion
thrown out by Mr. Ansell in his ‘Treatise on Coining’ in 1862, and
repeated in the book above alluded to.
“In the New Coinage Bill, which is to be discussed on the 10th inst.,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would appear to have adopted in part
the proposal of Mr. Ansell, to make the remedy on the individual
coin, instead of on the pound weight of coins, as is now the law.
Mr. Ansell gives very strong reasons, besides the expense, why
0·2568 grain should be enforced as the legal remedy on the
individual coin, and surely, while the legislature is invited by
Mr. Lowe to adopt 0·20 grain, it would be wise that those reasons
should be considered, for the Act, once obtained, will be difficult
to repeal, and the Mint seems capable of improvement.
“I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
“NUMMORUM FAMULUS.”
I may add that Mr. Fremantle has purchased a copy of my last impression
for the Mint Library.
The coinage of silver is precisely the same in every detail as the
coinage of gold; but there are one or two points that require to be
dwelt upon. Weight for weight, silver is more bulky than gold, and is
coined in larger quantities; hence it has become important to expedite
its coining by every means. Thus, in the process of annealing, it is
simply placed unprotected, except by a lid of iron, upon an iron truck,
and run into the annealing furnaces, from which, after twenty minutes,
it is withdrawn and plunged at once into cold water. In the annealing
of the silver blanks it is important to have the copper of the alloyed
metal removed from their surface; this is effected by annealing the
blanks for from seven to ten minutes in open pans, when the copper
becomes oxidised, and is removed by the process of blanching, described
under the coining of gold.[44]
[Footnote 44: See pages 48, 49.]