|
|
Vol. 9, No. 6 June, 2010
MICCy Speaks "The Impact of WWII on Canada 's Money: Part 1" "The Phantom U.S. Half-dollar" . . . . . . . . . 11 - 13 "The World's Longest-Lived Coin" . . . . . . . . 13 - 15 "Secretly Supplying Newfoundland Tokens" . . . . . 15 -16 "Variety Hunter: Canada 1929 Cent . . . . . . . . 16
Above: Victoria , 50-Cents, 1881-H in copper. Unpublished except as a Stack's offering in 2004. Does not seem to be a pattern but may be an off-metal die test since the 1881-H 50-Cent saw the first appearance of the "H-3" portrait of Victoria . The Mid-Island Coin Club, Meetings: The second Thursday of every month at 7:00 p.m. , A.B.C. Restaurant, Mary Ellen Drive, north Nanaimo , B.C. Dues $12 per year.
Mailing Address:
Mid-Island Coin Club, c/o West Coast Stamp & Coin, 4061 Norwell Drive , Nanaimo , B.C. V9T 1Y8
Executive Officers:
President: Felix Stawski Vice-President: Chris Linfitt Treasurer: Joan Ryan Secretary & Editor: Wayne Jacobs Directors: Bruce Bell, Art Dowswell, Steve McAdam Webmaster: (www.rightclickhome.com) Rob Tallone
The meeting of May 13th was attended by 31 members and guests. Good turnout; keep it up.
The theme of the evening's infotainment was animals on coins, tokens and notes. As a part of this, the speaker was our own Vivian W. who delivered a talk on the aims and functions of the S.P.C.A. (for which a donation to that association was voted). Speaking before a group (I'm told) is one of our greatest and most common fears. If so, we can take a lesson from Vivian, young in years but accomplished in delivery. Good on ya!
A couple of notes (at least tentative) to be made on our calendars: the internationally famous Mid-Island Coin Club Barbecue will be held on the afternoon of Sunday, July 18, at Joan's place in Cedar as it was last year (more next month).
We also wish to announce that the Alberni Valley Coin Club is planning to hold its 50th Anniversary blowout on October 22nd at the Echo Centre, Port Alberni . There are whispers that there may be a C.N.A. executive presence there. This is a major occasion and unless you're counting on waiting for the 100th, shouldn't be missed. More on this in future Journals .
From: American Traveller by James Zug. (Chap. 4, p.39). In 1776, Captain Cook was starting his third and last voyage of discovery on his ship Resolution . Stopping at the Cape of Good Hope for supplies, the Resolution's armourer, William Hunt, was caught counterfeiting coins. He was flogged and sent home by another English ship before the Dutch could hang him.
(Thanks for the submission, Ben)
The Impact of WWII on Canada 's Money. Part 1.
(a) Notes of the Bank of Canada .
Some of the earliest changes in Canada 's currency caused by the Second World War occurred on her paper money, the notes of the Bank of Canada. However, we can look almost in vain to detect them and, at the time, Canada did not set aside any special serial numbers or letters to denote "test notes". We have only written information that they did indeed occur, not much by way of the appearance of the notes themselves.
Bank of Canada, $20, Series of 1937, Gordon/Towers signatures. Because Donald Gordon was Deputy-Governor of the Bank 14 September 1938 to 1 January 1950, all these WWII changes took place during the early time of his office.
Prior to the outbreak of the war, the paper used for the Bank of Canada notes was made especially to government specifications by Howard Smith Paper Co. of Beauharnois, P.Q. (later becoming Domtar Paper). Generally speaking, the notes were printed on 100% rag content paper consisting of 75% linen fibre and 25% cotton. Pure "linen paper" is very tough but hard and does not take printing well; "cotton paper", in contrast, is weaker, limper but takes printing well. Therefore the mix. Even so, it was found that printing was expedited by being done by "wet process": the paper was moistened to a water content of about 30% during printing, after which it was immediately dried.
Because Canada grows very little "linen flax", the linen fibre was imported during the late 1930s from the general Baltic area - Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania and Soviet Russia - in the form of cloth cuttings and new waste. With the outbreak of the war in September, 1939, this source was immediately cut off. Tests were then made with the straw from "seed flax", the source of linseed oil, that was grown on the Prairies. Although the plants are shorter and thinner than linen flax, the resulting paper made from this fibre was pronounced "satisfactory" and a factory set up in Morden , Manitoba , to produce bulk "linen composition". This was shipped to Beauharnois where it was made into the final paper used for the notes.
Due to other more urgent war requirements, the chlorine bleach used to whiten the paper was reduced greatly in quantity and the titanium oxide used to brighten it almost totally eliminated. The result was a duller paper but no one seemed to notice.
For years, one of the most desired characteristics of bank note paper was its wearability but early in the war, the Bank of Canada was surprised to find that the bulk of the retired notes were not returned for reasons of wear at all, but rather because they were absolutely filthy with dirt and grease. Actually, they could have been laundered, pressed and returned to circulation (the U.S. did exactly that around WWI) but it was found to be nearly as cheap - and a whole lot less trouble - to simply replace them with new notes, which was the course taken.
But if wear had ceased to be a big factor, it allowed the Bank to pursue less expensive means. In about 1941, the linen content of the bank note paper was dropped to 60% and by war's end it was 50/50 linen and cotton. Again, no one noticed.
These were all impacts of the war but today they are visually unnoticeable.
The Mint at War.
It's almost miraculous that the Mint didn't buckle with the strain under which it was placed. Production of coin rose dramatically to satisfy a wartime economy; during the first three years of the war, the Royal Canadian Mint produced more coin than it previously had since its opening in 1908. At the same time, there was a shortage of trained manpower as personnel joined the armed forces. This was partly due to the government's own actions, Mint rules of 1941 prohibiting the employment of anyone eligible for service. Numbers of 17-year-olds were employed, all waiting for their 18th birthday and enlistment. Then there was the difficulty in obtaining the high-quality coining steel as previously. Time constraints caused an alarm system to be used at the coining presses, one operator responsible for up to 7 machines, with the consequent unnoticed cracking of dies until they broke. Planchets were annealed in double-sized batches at double the heat with the result some were over-softened, others hardly at all with their attendant wear and tear on the dies.
Then there was the extra work. Weights to very fine tolerances were produced for contractors engaged in war production, and the Mint itself produced no fewer than 77,500 pressure plates for the British Admiralty to be used on naval shells, each plate requiring six pressing operations. Britain also turned over the Newfoundland coinage to Canada who satisfied the demand by numerous smallish shipments shoehorned into their schedule as best they could.
All in all, the Mint was operating in the red zone, well above its designed capacity, its difficulties compounded by lack of trained personnel and ideal materials. But in spite of it all, the mission was accomplished, even if the presses rarely had a chance to cool off.
(b) The Silver Dollar.
The first and most obvious casualty of war was the Canadian silver dollar since mintage ceased completely for the five-year war period of 1940-4 inclusive. Even superficially, we shouldn't wonder greatly as to the cause: it was never much more than a curiosity/collectors' piece, circulating so little that many Canadians had never seen one. Nor did it fill any economic niche that was not already filled more conveniently and to an infinitely greater extent by the $1 note. Part of the large 1939 silver dollar issue (total original mintage: 1,363,816) was released through post office outlets but during the war, 158,084 of these pieces - about 11 ½ % of the total - were returned to the Mint for melting.
But beneath this, there may have been other causes. One of these was its very low coins-per-die ratio which, averaging the years 1938/9 and 1945/6, stood at a mere 6817 pieces. Then, of course, these low-production dies were also wasteful of time and materials, both of which would have been in short supply at the Mint during wartime.
If we take as a benchmark of die replication the 50-cent piece, we may conclude that for them , a single "master die" could raise about four "intermediate punches" (or "hubs"), each of which could sink about five "working dies" for about 20 (but actually a little less, perhaps 18) identical dies which each would strike thousands of coins. But in the replication process for the dollar, the figures could well have been about half those above.
Every die required several pressings in proportion to its diameter. By "British Rules" used at the Royal Mint, every die was pressed at least twice - even the tiny 3d/5¢ silver - and ranging up to 5 pressings for the crown/silver dollar. The Canadian silver dollar received at least four, as evidenced by the 1947 "Quadruple HP" silver dollar - and there may have been five. Between each pressing in the "hobbing press", successively impressing more of the design, the receiving die was removed, softened by annealing (heating to a dull red and allowed to cool on its own, taking perhaps a day), the waste metal lathed off, then placed back in press (in exactly the same position) for its next pressing. Then, if needed, the process repeated.
So: we have a coin whose die manufacture took up a lot of the Mint's time in proportion to its limited numbers, each of which could strike a relatively small number of coins which were unneeded and fairly unpopular in the first place. Small wonder the silver dollar was shelved during the war.
50 Cents.
Of all the wartime denominations, the 50-cent has deserved the most, and received the least, attention. It is full of anomalies that have yet to be fully explained.
For instance, while the rather modest mintages of 1937-9 shows that the denomination had a limited commercial need (a total of 672,010 pieces was struck for these 3 years), during the five war years, 1940-44, total mintage was 11,255,393! Even more striking is the fact that in 1940 alone, mintage rocketed from that of 1939 to just under 2-million, a 7-fold increase not even closely equalled by any other coin. Why?
Perhaps (oddly) it was because the 50-cent was intended to be semi-eliminated, much like the dollar. Each step in the die replication process required at least three pressings (since there are wartime 50-cent pieces with the rim denticles tripled) - and maybe four if the British Rules were being followed. Pre-war production per working die was not huge (15,746 pieces per die average). Consequently, it may have been felt that a large "over-mintage" in 1940 would cause demand to cease for this denomination, perhaps for several years if the previous demand was an indication.
Their expectations were wrong. Wartime mintages rose mesa-like, averaging more than 2-million per year and falling off abruptly as peace came, reaching a production nadir of a mere 77-thousand coins in 1948. Again, Why? Why the seeming momentary popularity?
Perhaps it was, contrary to their expectations, because the 50-cent turned out to be something of an efficient coin. By various means, the coins-per-die during the war years rose 57% from its pre-war figure to stand at an average of 24,776 coins per die. Much of this was due to an increased tolerance for lesser quality. Die breaks on the wartime 50-cent pieces are very common as are evidence of both worn working dies and worn hubs (as "wear-doubling"). But the fact was that by whatever means, the average WWII die struck $12,388 face value in 50-cent pieces. Even considering that the 50-cent die probably required an extra pressing, its coins-per-die average was not far off that of the popular quarter for these same years (28,962 coins per die average or only $7,240.50 face value). Therefore, in terms of manufacture by face value, the 50-cent held a distinct edge with any extra work more than adequately compensated.
A fully dated reverse master die for the 50-cent typically could be replicated into something like 18-20 working dies, which in turn could strike about 450-500,000 coins, all absolutely identical. But the 1940 issue is also absolutely identical, with no die varieties, even though its total mintage was roughly 4 times a master die's capability.
But the mint workers had their tricks in replicating beyond the apparent bounds. (1) "Double Matrixing". In this system, the very first (and therefore sharpest) working die was not used to strike coins but rather reserved to be used as a second master die. For the 50-cent piece, initial production was reduced by 5% (there being about 20 working dies) but by its use, nearly doubling production to 195%. (2) "Double Hubbing". This was even more productive. The first and sharpest hub was not used to sink working dies but rather, in the case of a fully-dated 50-cent reverse, used as something that didn't even exist the first time around: a production punch. By this method, production of the first round suffered by 25% but allowed the use of 4 or 5 extra rounds, production then 475% or 575% of original use. This was the method used most often by the Mint to accommodate the big wartime coin mintages in the absence of means to make their own production punches, normally done with a reducing machine (which the Mint didn't acquire until 1949) from a model. Canada was dependent on the Royal Mint to provide such primary coining tools.
But for the 50-cent piece, particularly its reverse, double hubbing was most efficient when done in blocks. Extra obverses could be used in the following year but extra fully-dated reverses could not and had to be discarded. Therefore, in 1941, a new method appeared for 50-cent production and, unlike the years 1937-40 when all 50-cents were identical, a great many die varieties appeared per year, practically all of them due to the shifting of the last two figures in the date (to 1949) and the last figure (1951-2). (1950 was again "totally identical" but not really - the "Design in 0", "Partial Design in 0" and even a second weak obverse can be explained by a less-than-expert use of the new reducing machine). Apparently , from 1941 onward, Mint personnel made the determination of the upcoming year's 50-cent needs in blocks of roughly 500,000 coins, for each "block" replicating through a fully dated reverse master to 18-20 working dies. Any extra needs were met by a stock of working dies dated "19--", on which the date would be hand-punched as required, thus preventing any leftovers as waste. But, again, they underestimated badly during the war years and there are many more die varieties than there should have been. For 1944, for instance, they seem to have shot for a goal of about 1 ½ -million pieces, replicating through three fully dated reverses to about 50 working dies, expecting to be fleshed out with a few individually-dated working dies; but when the dust settled in 1944, production had been just under 2 ½ -million coins struck by 101 reverse working dies consisting of 3 common varieties from fully replicated dies and no fewer that 49 uncommon varieties from unreplicated hand-dated dies. Had they properly judged the needs, we would today see 5 common varieties plus a few uncommon. Again, how come?
We get a clue from a mint report at the end of the war that states the mint - and government - were continually surprised by the "unprecedented demand for coin at Christmas". True, there was a war economy on but it still doesn't explain such demand at this time of year, particularly (in the case of 1944) when there had already been record-making mintages since 1940.
Perhaps it wasn't the government's fault. Perhaps it ours, the general public. From a collector who was young during the war years, I have been informed that during the war, one of the favourite stocking-stuffers for kids at Christmastime was a "shiny, new 50-cent piece", an old battered coin from Dad's pocket unacceptable. If this demand was truly widespread, it could have ramifications of multiplying demand far beyond normal.
At that time, banks were responsible for obtaining their own coin - by the bag - from the local agency of the Bank of Canada, there being an office in the largest city in every province. With Christmas nearing, that bank might have lots of 50-cent pieces on hand - but in conditions of EF down to VG or less. A demand for even a few hundred "new" pieces might prompt them to bring in a bag and keep their customers happy; after all, they would probably have to order such coin a couple of months later anyhow. Simultaneously, a number of such banks might make their unexpected demands on the local Bank of Canada agency, causing their supply of such coin - ordinarily sufficient for a month or so - to shrink alarmingly and prompt an urgent call to head office for replenishment. And every agency in every province might be doing the same thing. In Ottawa , there would be equally urgent demands made on the Mint to supply these coins.
Such demand could not come at a worse time so far as the Mint was concerned - and especially down in the Die Room where they were busy manufacturing the hundreds of dies needed for the upcoming year. But orders are orders and we can presume there would have been a scramble to date-punch the appropriate reverse dies (making each of them a new variety) and strike the necessary coin. The projected 1 ½ -million coins for 1944, perfectly adequate for ordinary commercial needs, had expanded by a million, simply to meet a "cultural demand" of only a fraction of that. It seems that this fad ended with the war and, certainly, we see subsequent mintages progressively shrink, the wartime coinages meeting a large part of current needs for years to come.
************************************************************************
The Phantom U.S. Half-dollar.
If you scan the standard U.S. coin catalogues of the last fifty years or so, you will find that there is no such thing as a half-dollar dated 1804 - or at least this date is unlisted. All the same, there was at this time a die dated as such for something like a quarter of all surviving 1805 U.S. half-dollars are actually 1805-over-4. Presumably, it was prepared but never used, even though die trials were fairly normal.
But there is little doubt that an 1804 half-dollar of some kind existed at one time. Held to be unique, and never cheap, it was owned by a succession of knowledgeable collectors and dealers which would seem to argue against fakery. It's first mentioned in Dickeson's Manual of American coins in 1859 and, years later, the then-secretary of the A.N.A., George Rice, maintained that until 1861 the coin had been in his father's collection. Over the years it sold at several auctions, including a spate conducted by Woodward in the early 1880s (Ferguson Haines, 1880; J.E. Burton, 1881; and Winslow Lewis, 1883). The only photographic evidence of this coin comes from a Woodward plate at this time. By roughly 1900, the coin had dropped from sight only to bob up again in 1933 in a collection purchased by the Texas coin dealer, B. Max Mehl, who sold it that November. Since that time, the 1804 half-dollar has dropped from sight completely; after nearly 80 years we have no idea who owns it or even if it still exists.
We might reasonably expect that such an 1804 coin would correspond in all respects to the 1805/4 except that the 5 would not appear. We would be wrong. The Woodward plate and collectors' examination show that the 4 is a "plain 4" in contrast to the "crosslet 4" used on the 1805/4 (and in 1794 and 1814 as well).
U.S. Half-dollar, 1805/4. Approx. 1 ½ -2x
In more recent times, this anomaly has been held as proof of the fraudulent nature of the 1804 half-dollar rarity. However, that is not all cut-and-dried, either. The 1804 gold $10 "Eagle" of nearly the same size (about 33mm diameter for the gold versus 32.5mm for the half-dollar) also used a "plain 4". So this proves that at the time, the mint's arsenal contained a set of number-punches which included a "plain 4" in the appropriate size. And could possibly have been used on a separate die that was never used except for a single die trial.
The 1805/4 date, greatly enlarged. Note the "crosslet 4".
When the problem is considered at all by collectors today - none of whom have seen the coin "in the flesh" - the majority rule it as an altered-date fake: the overlying 5 was "cleverly" engraved away, leaving only the underlying 4. If this "artist" was so clever, why did he also engrave away the crosslet on the 4, thus casting doubt on his work? Then, too, for decades - right up until Mehl in 1933 and, presumably, the person to whom he sold the coin - a great many knowledgeable numismatists were able to examine the coin itself and while many (perhaps most) collectors are of the "prestige type", more concerned with rarity than legitimacy - the 1804 U.S. silver dollar being a classic example - this is not true of all. And we could expect that any evidence of altered-date fakery would have been condemned by them, long and loud. Yet from that time, we hear no such word. Apparently the coin was considered genuine in this respect.
Then there is the secondary explanation: the coin is a concoction of the Mint from the 1850s period using original dies. This was being done at the time to the extent that became almost a scandal, the purpose being to raise money or make trades in order to enhance the Mint cabinet collection. "Instant rarities" included all sorts of patterns, off-metals, restrikes and mules. This could be such an animal - but here's a fly in this ointment as well: no matter the limited "concoction issue", the Mint Cabinet always kept one specimen for itself. But an 1804 half-dollar does not exist there, and apparently never did.
So what is (or at least was ) this thing? A legitimate die trial from 1804? An extremely clever altered date? A Mint concoction from the 1850s? Where is it now? And does it even still exist? A long time ago the "standard cataloguers" evaded these uneasy questions by taking the easy way out: the coin simply isn't listed. But imagine the hullabaloo and testing if it ever shows up again. (And the price - if it's genuine!)
************************************************************************
The World's Longest-Lived Coin.
Some time before 255B.C. the Chou Dynasty of China began to cast a brass currency in the form of a "commodity token", small portable representations of larger objects such as knives, hoes, spades and the like. There was also what collectors today sometimes call the "pants money", small square-shouldered, square-footed pieces that were referred to as "pu" at the time.
A change was effected shortly after 255 B.C. upon the overthrow of the Chous by the Chin Dynasty. During the reign of Emperor Shih (221-208 B.C.), the old heavy commodity currency was replaced by round coins with a square center hole, called "Pan Liang". Translating as "half liang", the first of them were roughly the size of our silver dollar, and supposedly represented the value of a half-"liang" (a "liang" weighing just under 1 ½ of our ounces) of silver and, as such, also representing a weight of 12-"chu" (pronounced "shu" and each chu weighing 100 barley grains). Over the years, the value - and size - of the coins shrank from 12-shu to 8 (187 B.C.) to 4 (179 B.C.) to 3 (140 B.C.) even though the coins themselves continued to inscribed as "pan-liangs".
In the year 118 B.C., the currency was entirely overhauled by the withdrawal of the "pan-liangs" after about a century's use and the substitution in their place of the longest-lived currency of all, the "Wu Chus". Despite the inscription on the "pan-liangs", at their termination it took roughly 1000 of them to buy a "liang" of silver in the marketplace. The high purchasing power of even the most minor brass coins in China at the time also set off spates of counterfeiting by the melting of the earlier, heavier "pan-liangs" and their conversion into the later, smaller ones. Withdrawn or not, some of the later "pan-liangs" were still to be found in circulation even in the late 19th Century, no doubt by route of discovered hoards whose lucky finders would simply circulate them as ordinary "cash".
From the record of Han Wu-ti we read: "In the fifth year of Y ü an-shou (118 B.C.) the Pan-liangs were withdrawn and Wu-chus (Five chu) circulated instead". These latter coins became the longest-lived in history, being issued from this time until more than seven centuries hence, most of which were identical to that shown below from first to last. For this reason, it is impossible to attribute most of them to a given emperor or time. These coins were never withdrawn in the same manner as the "pan-liangs" had been and even in modern times, occasionally showed up - again, probably by the found-hoard route. But during their lifetime, they were cast by the innumerable ton over the centuries.
The introducer of the "wu-chus", Y ü an-shou, did very well by them. Of approximately the same size as the last of the "pan-liangs", valued at 3-chu, the new coin was valued at 5-chu. (To put it another way: Buy for 3, sell for 5 equals 66 2/3% markup. Not bad)
In their turn, the "wu-chus" were superceded in 619 A.D. by the form of coin that became the norm until the late 19th Century. The new coin gave no indication of weight or value (which had fluctuated widely in the past anyway) but rather four characters, the top and bottom of which named the emperor of the time and two more, right and left, which read "T' u ng Pa o " (literally: "Circulating Treasure" - i.e., "Currency")
It's doubtful if any other coin will see an essentially "frozen" design carried on for a total of 737 years, as did the "wu-chus". Even then, numbers of them continued to circulate side-by-side with their successor for many years.
************************************************************************
Secretly Supplying Newfoundland Tokens.
(from Canadian Numismatic Journal, October, 1960. Used with permission)
In The Prince Edward Island Magazine of May, 1899, appeared a Letter to the Editor from Joseph T. Rowe of Ship Harbour , Nova Scotia , discussing his role in the rather surreptitious supplying of tokens to Newfoundland . From his letter, it seems clear that although all are catalogued under Prince Edward Island today, at least part of the issue was struck by Heaton's especially for Rowe to ship to Newfoundland . The token in question is the PE-5A (plough clevis) and -5B (plough hook). (Br-917) .
Prince Edward Island . Ch-PE5B
The Letter reads: "There was one I was particularly familiar with. That was "Speed the Plough and Success to the Fisheries", inasmuch as I over deluged the city of St. John's Nfld., with 800 lbs. weight of them, so much so that the press handled me pretty roughly about them and forced the then Government to issue a copper coinage of their own. In 1860, the first batch I took out with me to that place was on my way out to Charlottetown to settle up my affairs on the Island , 400 lbs weight of which I exchanged for silver and gold in three days. These tokens were struck off by Ralph Eaton ( sic: H eaton ) & Co. , Birmingham , G.B., who coined them at 90 to the lb. of copper, the usual number being 80, which was detected, and the only apology I could make, was, that they were more portable and convenient for the breeches pocket, and infinitely superior to their then miscellaneous rubbish, such as brass buttons, flattened, and even iron, shaped round, without any figureheads or hieroglyphics upon them, and that they were governed, as in other trade matters, by supply and demand. The other 400 lbs. I sent out in 1859 by the Lever Line through Ireland (then in existence) and by steamer from Galway to St. John's, getting there just in the nick 'o time, and were disposed of by my agents, Clift Wood & Co., and it is needless to say, if they had not checked me in time, I might have flooded the country, may be with a ton of them. You see, I had supplied them with about 72,000 - equal to 30.2 ¹ coppers capita - the population then being about 20,000, so it was no wonder the Government of the time "smelled the rat". The cost of them to me was 1s9d, sterling, per lb., and the 90, equal to 3s9d per pound, land currency. That was rather too good a thing to throw over one's shoulder. Eh? Not likely for Joseph in those days!"
( Note: 30.2 ¹ . 72,000 ÷ 20,000 = 3.6. Misprint?)
************************************************************************ Variety Hunter: 1929 Cent
Left : 1929 cent, "Low 9" variety (top of the 2 and 9 nearly level; tail of the 9 well below the base of the 2). Right : 1929 cent, "High 9" variety (top of 9 above that of 2; bottoms of 2 and 9 nearly level.)
The "High 9" variety would appear to be much the scarcer of the two.
|
June 2010
|
|---|
