Proposed UK Coin Specification Changes of the 1980s

[Alan71]

I've just found this thread after having a wider look around the forum.  This is extremely interesting.  I knew that there was a review of the coinage in the late 80s (there had to be to result in the smaller 5p and 10p) but I had no idea until I saw this thread that there were alternatives.

I'm actually disappointed to discover that the option of reducing the size of the 10p to smaller than that of the 20p was not taken up.  It was clearly the favoured option, being in three of the four alternatives offered.  I actually quite like option 1 - the 5p wouldn't have been much smaller than it is now, would it?  Or perhaps a variation of option 1 - the 5p the same size as it is now and the 10p as shown in the illustration.  This would break the weight-value relationship between the coins but so what?  You can't mix coins in bags anyway. 

[<k>]

Option 1.



Option 4.

I'm actually disappointed to discover that the option of reducing the size of the 10p to smaller than that of the 20p was not taken up.  It was clearly the favoured option, being in three of the four alternatives offered.  I actually quite like option 1 - the 5p wouldn't have been much smaller than it is now, would it?  Or perhaps a variation of option 1 - the 5p the same size as it is now and the 10p as shown in the illustration. 

See the images of option 1 and 4 above. It shows that the 5p in option 1 would have been considerably smaller than the version we now have (seen in option 4). Our current 5p is 18mm in diameter. It's just a nice size for such a low value coin, I think. Any smaller and it would be too small, and in fact there are already people who complain about it. So, I think the 5p in option 1 would have been considerably below the minimum size that people would find acceptable - judging from the image, maybe 15mm or 16mm.




5 pence versions overlaid.

[Pabitra]

Had the mint gone for smaller 5 and 10p, perhaps changeover to nickel plated coins from copper nickel ones for these denominations would have been deferred for some more time.

Did they not consult vending machine manufacturers at that time, as they have done for non- round pound?

[Alan71]

You're perhaps right, <k>, about the 5p.  Not sure about the brass 5p though.  We'd got used to brass representing higher value coins (£1, commemorative £2).  The cupro-nickel 5p (or nickel-plated as now) still represents value even though the denomination is practically worthless now.  I think breaking the weight-value relationship in order to have the same size 5p as now and a smaller 10p would have worked.

What surprises me most about the other options on the table was how radical they were.  The 10p was a huge coin, and reducing it to smaller than a 1p would have been a major change.  In that sense I'm not too surprised that the "safe" option 4 was adopted. 

If they did it again now I doubt there would be much resistance to a smaller 10p.  That opportunity has been lost though - they could have done it at the same time they changed the metal to steel which would have been much easier in the long run.  Withdraw all cupro-nickel and have the smaller, nickel-plated 10p replacing it.

Options 1 to 3 would have made the 1p and 2p (or 5p in option 2's case) look even more ridiculous though.  I don't understand why why didn't reduce those in size.  Again, when the metal changed to copper-plated steel would have been the ideal opportunity.  Instead, we now have two different metals in circulation for each of the 1p, 2p, 5p and 10p.  Surely mass withdrawals of larger coins would have been much easier than what they are doing now (ie. gradually removing the old metals from circulation, which can't be fully completed).

[<k>]

You're perhaps right, <k>, about the 5p.  Not sure about the brass 5p though.  We'd got used to brass representing higher value coins (£1, commemorative £2).

You have a point, though the pound coin is ridiculously thick, so nobody would have confused the two.

What surprises me most about the other options on the table was how radical they were.  The 10p was a huge coin, and reducing it to smaller than a 1p would have been a major change.  In that sense I'm not too surprised that the "safe" option 4 was adopted. 

You have to remember that the Mint thinks in terms of formats: colour and shape. So, the 5p and 10p are round and "white" (in the jargon), and represent one "format" in use - the tradition is that the coins in one format increase in size with the denomination, until they reach a sensible maximum, and then another format takes over, in this case the seven-sided white coins. That is why it doesn't matter in principle that a "white" coin (the proposed tiny 10p) would have been smaller than the "red" 1p coin. However, in psychological terms, the public may have balked at seeing a higher denomination that was smaller than the smallest denomination. However, in predecimal times, the UK silver threepence was smaller than the farthing, and in the 1960s the sixpence was smaller than the halfpenny, and nobody considered that to be an issue, back then.

[<k>]

we now have two different metals in circulation for each of the 1p, 2p, 5p and 10p.  Surely mass withdrawals of larger coins would have been much easier than what they are doing now (ie. gradually removing the old metals from circulation, which can't be fully completed).

Easier for whom? Businesses who used vending machines had to undertake the expense of upgrading, and in the 1990s there were a lot of changes, so I can imagine they got rather fed up. The metal change, I presume, is easier on them, as I believe it doesn't change the weight. The Mint must take care not to change coin formats too often. The public quickly get used to new coins, but it irritates the shops and businesses who have to accommodate the new coins.

I certainly agree with your idea of breaking the weight relationships, though. The euro does not adhere to such an outmoded system - or does it? Overall our coinage is still larger and heavier than it needs to be, when compared to others, especially the euro. The bonus from that, though, is that there is more room for detail on the designs of our circulating commemoratives. The euro coin designs have less space, and the available space is reduced even more by the inevitable circle of stars around the rim. The advantage of the stars, however, is that they provide an easily recognised visual identifier, so that the euro users, who have many coin variations to recognise, can quickly clock that the coin is a valid euro coin.

[Alan71]

My understanding is that slot machines did have to be adjusted to accommodate the nickel-plated 5p and 10p coins, as they were thicker than the cupro-nickel versions due to steel being lighter and the apparent need to maintain the same weight.  Fairly recently a supermarket self-service till rejected a new 10p and the assistant said it was because of the change in specifications (they sorted it though).

[<k>]

Interesting. So it still costs money. Maybe your idea of reducing everything to the size of a molecule would be better after all. As for the 1p and 2p coins, Gibraltar has already deliberately omitted them from its new 2014-dated design series. Surely they'll be gone by the 2020s?