Chapter V: Part 5

Text size

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.

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 |
+---------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

The above data applied to 100 years give the following results:—

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 |
+------------------------+-----------+----------+--------+

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.

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.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.

+--------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| | Standard Weight. | Least Current Weight.|
| Denomination of +-----------+----------+-----------+----------+
| Coin. | Imperial | Metric | Imperial | Metric |
| | Weight. | Weight. | Weight. | Weight.|
| | Grains. | Grams. | Grains. | Grams. |
+--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+
|Gold: | | | | |
| Five Pound | 616·37239 | 39·94028 | 612·50000 | 39·68935 |
| Two Pound | 246·54895 | 15·97611 | 245·00000 | 5·87574 |
| Sovereign | 123·27447 | 7·98805 | 122·50000 | 7·93787 |
| Half-Sovereign | 61·63723 | 3·99402 | 61·12500 | 3·96083 |
| | | | | |
+--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+
|Silver: | | | | |
| Crown | 436·36363 | 28·27590 | — | — |
| Half-Crown | 218·18181 | 14·13795 | — | — |
| Florin | 174·54545 | 11·31036 | — | — |
| Shilling | 87·27272 | 5·65518 | — | — |
| Sixpence | 43·63636 | 2·82759 | — | — |
| Groat or Fourpence| 29·09090 | 1·88506 | — | — |
| Threepence | 21·81818 | 1·41379 | — | — |
| Twopence | 14·54545 | 0·94253 | — | — |
| Penny | 7·27272 | 0·47126 | — | — |
+--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+
|Bronze: | | | | |
| Penny | 145·83333 | 9·44984 | — | — |
| Halfpenny | 87·50000 | 5·66990 | — | — |
| Farthing | 43·75000 | 2·83495 | — | — |
+--------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+

+--------------------+----------------+----------------------------+
| | | Remedy Allowance. |
| Denomination of | +-----------------+----------+
| Coin. | Standard |Weight per piece.|Millesimal|
| | Fineness. +--------+--------+Fineness. |
| | |Imperial| Metric | |
| | | Grains.| Grams.| |
+--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+
|Gold: | | | | |
| Five Pound | Eleven-twelfths| 1·00000| 0·06479| |
| Two Pound | fine gold, | 0·40000| 0·02592| 0·002 |
| Sovereign | one-twelfth | 0·20000| 0·01296| |
| Half-Sovereign | alloy; | 0·10000| 0·00648| |
| | or millesimal | | | |
| |fineness 916·66.| | | |
+--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+
|Silver: | | | | |
| Crown | | 1·81818| 0·11781| |
| Half-Crown | | 0·90909| 0·05890| |
| Florin | Thirty-seven | 0·72727| 0·04712| |
| Shilling | fortieths fine| 0·36363| 0·02356| |
| Sixpence | silver, | 0·18181| 0·01178| 0·004 |
| Groat or Fourpence| three-fortieths| 0·12121| 0·00785| |
| Threepence | alloy; or | 0·09090| 0·00589| |
| Twopence | millesimal | 0·06060| 0·00392| |
| Penny | fineness 925·| 0·03030| 0·00196| |
+--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+
|Bronze: | | | | |
| Penny | Mixed metal, | 2·91666| 0·18899| |
| Halfpenny | copper, tin, | 1·75000| 0·11339| None. |
| Farthing | and zinc. | 0·87500| 0·05669| |
+--------------------+----------------+--------+--------+----------+

The weight and fineness of the coins specified in this
Schedule are according to what is provided by the
Act fifty-six George III., chapter sixty-eight, that
the gold coin of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland should hold such weight and fineness as
were prescribed in the then existing Mint indenture
(that is to say), that there should be nine hundred
and thirty-four sovereigns and one ten-shilling piece
contained in twenty pounds weight troy of standard
gold, of the fineness at the trial of the same of
twenty-two carats fine gold and two carats of alloy in
the pound weight troy; and further, as regards silver
coin, that there should be sixty-six shillings in
every pound troy of standard silver of the fineness
of eleven ounces two pennyweights of fine silver and
eighteen pennyweights of alloy in every pound weight
troy.

In annealing the precious metals, it is intended to use large retorts of Stourbridge clay instead of the naked flame, as is the present practice. The advantage of using retorts will be the protection they will afford to the substances to be annealed, and the uniform temperature at which they may be kept for any required time. So great are the obstacles to improvement in the British Mint, that, although this suggestion was made by me, and plans were prepared, in June, 1861, the necessary alterations have not yet been attempted; indeed, it has been reserved to Mr. P. F. Comber, the intelligent chief coiner of the New Mint in Melbourne, to adopt this suggestion. The furnace for his use has been made by Messrs. Deane, of Arthur Street East, London Bridge, who, from experience, know this kind of furnace to be successful; indeed, it has been long used to gain higher temperatures than are required for metals in the annealing of glass, pottery, &c. I have recently been permitted to make a long series of experiments at the works of the Patent Fuel Company, on their wharf at Deptford, and these have convinced me that their mode of converting hydrocarbons into vapour, and burning that vapour with a proper supply of air under pressure, could be applied in the Mint with great advantage to the heating of the annealing furnaces, especially if the authorities of that department should adopt the retorts proposed.

In my previous editions I have suggested the use of these retorts, and I am glad to see that the Royal Mint is likely to adopt them, for Mr. Napier recommends them in his Report, and Mr. Roberts not only coincides in that recommendation, but specifically says, “It is a question for consideration whether muffles of clay instead of iron, and gas as fuel, might not be used with advantage.”

The coinage of bronze is somewhat new; that is to say, it has, after centuries, been re-introduced; and as little is known respecting it, it will be well to consider one or two circumstances connected therewith. The dimensions of the bars are previously given,[45] those measurements were determined by me after much troublesome experimenting, and the bars are found to be capable of producing the best blanks, as regards equality of weight one for another, with the least labour. In the rolling of bronze there are some singular facts to be noted; for instance, the finding the same metal at one time ductile, and at another absolutely brittle; yet if the bronze has been properly melted, with due precaution to avoid the access of atmospheric oxygen, it is uniformly malleable and ductile, and may be rolled from such bars as described without once annealing. It is sometimes preferred not to use the knowledge gained, and then complications commence. The following mode of operating will meet all cases:—The bars may be rolled down to half their thickness, and then will anneal perfectly well in an open furnace on an iron truck. The heating should be conducted rapidly, and when the fillets get to a full red heat they should be withdrawn, thrown out singly on the floor, and allowed to remain till perfectly cold. Should any bars be annealed in the rough state, they must be kept away from water. A little water thrown upon the end of a bar when red hot causes it to become rotten throughout, and on submission to any pressure it will fall to pieces as would gingerbread; yet if the bars be partly rolled to a certain proportion of their thickness, they may be plunged at once into cold water without damaging them for work. After annealing, the fillets should be blanched in diluted sulphuric acid, containing one per cent. of the ordinary commercial acid. It is well to save time by blanching two or three tons at a time; but a few minutes effect all that is required—that is, the separation of the film of oxide from the surface. The film is then removed by a mop made of rag or cotton waste, and with little labour a few boys may clean many tons in a day. Fillets which have been blanched before being rolled produce clean and bright blanks. The blanks require somewhat different treatment. It is better to anneal them in copper tubes. The bottom of the tube should be covered to about the depth of an inch with charcoal dust, then the tube filled with blanks, except allowing for another layer of coarse charcoal dust, and the top put on to the tube. The annealing should not occupy more than thirty-six minutes; the highest temperature should be that at which the tube looks a full reddish white, and this should be gained as rapidly as possible. The tube, after removal from the furnace, should be allowed to remain at rest till perfectly cold. The charcoal is intended to combine with the oxygen, which would otherwise combine with the metals of the bronze during the heating and the cooling of the blanks in the copper tubes. Having regard to the production of perfect coins, the blanks should be cooled in an atmosphere of ordinary coal gas, by which every particle of oxygen is prevented from access, and a great part of the oxides already existing in the alloy reduced by the combination of their oxygen with the hydrogen of the coal gas, thus leaving the blanks somewhat porous, and comparatively soft, so that, when coined, the metal wholly fills the work on the dies, and the coin is produced with a good protecting edge. Bronze as used at the Royal Mint consisting of 95 of copper, 4 tin, and 1 zinc in 100 parts—zinc should be omitted because it causes useless labour—may be coined to great perfection if the blanks be cooled in coal gas after annealing: whereas bronze of a far softer nature cannot be made to fill the work of the dies satisfactorily by any other method yet known, unless the engraving on the dies be very shallow. The bronze coins, which have replaced the old copper money, have what is considered to be an innovation in the inscription by the repetition of the T in the abbreviation of Britanniarum, which is simply the classical mode of expressing in an abbreviated form the number of the possessions which together form Great Britain; it is equivalent to MS., which is the abbreviation for manuscript, while MSS. represents the word manuscripts; so BRITT. represents the cluster of islands or possessions called Great Britain. The objection to BRITT., on the ground of its being an innovation, is singular, as this word occurs on the shillings of George III., coined in 1816. It is also curious that the original dies for the bronze coinage were made to carry BRIT. only, until a coin found its way into the hands of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, who at once pointed out the error, and thus caused the re-introduction of the classical BRITT. Mr. Gladstone also suggested the issue of octagonal bronze coins, which undoubtedly would have been a mistake had it been adopted. Perhaps it may not be uninteresting to record that the pattern penny in bronze, which was submitted to and approved by her Majesty, was lost in its passage through the post, for the postman opened the letter and destroyed both it and the penny in a closet in the Royal Mint. Copper and bronze money are merely tokens; it is therefore well to reduce such tokens to as low a weight as is consistent with the rigidity of the coin.

[Footnote 45: See page 9.]

By Royal Proclamation, dated at Windsor, 13th of May, 1869, the old copper moneys are declared illegal; or, in the words of the proclamation, “No copper moneys whatsoever (other than and except such bronze moneys as are now current by virtue of our proclamation bearing date the 17th day of December, 1860, or any proclamation dated subsequently to the said 17th day of December, 1860) shall be allowed to pass or be current in any payment whatsoever within the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after the 31st of December, 1869.” So that since that date no copper moneys have been legally paid away. This, however, will not affect those who wish to preserve copper coins of this or former reigns as specimens.

Previous Next

Comments

The Royal MintChapter V: Part 5

0%35 min left in chapter