UK 1826 George IV with Britannia seated left

[tsr1955]

hello,

according to KM catalogue, all copper coins of George IV feature Britannia seated right. anyone familiar with 1826 George IV copper coin with Britannia seated left?

thanks,

tsr1955

[FosseWay]

Can you show us a picture, preferably of both sides? And tell us the diameter and weight - the regal farthings, halfpennies and pennies of that period are identical except for size.

My immediate thought is that it is some kind of evasion, though 1826 is a bit late for these as by then there was a reasonable supply of regal coinage in use, and the law had clamped down on token issuers and the like.

If it is an evasion, the legends will not be the same as for the real thing. It will say GEORGE RULES or something round the king's head, not the normal royal titles.

[tsr1955]

thanks!
please see the attached scans.
the size and the weight are unavailable right now (i will get the coin in a couple of days).

hope it helps,

tsr1955

[Figleaf]

Clever call, FosseWay. The portrait indeed makes it clear that this is an evasive. The turned around reverse is a way to skirt the law (Your honour, the reverse is so different from real coins it should be clear that this is just a hommage to the king, not a fake coin!) Haven't seen this type before, though. Very interesting.

Peter

[FosseWay]

I haven't seen anything like this before either - very interesting.

Most evasions have intentional deviations in the design. Most often this involves non-standard legends, but also you get portraits of other people than the king, or some other seated figure than Britannia.

This isn't the case with this piece. Instead, the deliberate error consists in effectively creating a mule of two designs that were genuinely used on the coinage. In other words, this is as much a mule counterfeit as all those £1 coins with reverse designs, dates and edge texts that don't match. The difference is that the latter are done through ignorance (there are plenty of correct ones as well), while the one shown here is I suspect a deliberate attempt to sail close to the wind.

The reverse is correct for the 1806-07 issue of coppers - on that, Britannia faces left.

The obverse is from the 1822-23 Irish copper coinage, except for the addition of the date, which is on the reverse below the harp on the real Irish issue. George IV's British coppers have a different portrait and fuller legends.

[FosseWay]

Now I'm home I can show the two coins I believe have been used as templates for this evasion or counterfeit. Both are pennies but the halfpennies are identical except in size.

[tsr1955]

gentlemen,

thanks for your thoughts and expertise.
i am amateur at the best, though trying my best.
first, the weight is 17g and the diameter is 34mm. it fully resembles the parameters of the copper penny.
second, at least according to what i found on the internet, 1826 is too late for evasive coins. also, there are no typical (for evasions) changes in the legend.
as for the option of the counterfeit - since the weight is identical to genuine penny, what is the point of counterfeiting?
just an idea - the obverse (Britannia) is identical to George III pennies, the reverse - to Irish pennies (as you rightly pointed out). could it be that this is still a mule, when using two different dies in the same mint (apropos, were the Irish pennies minted in the same mint as the British ones)? if so, what is your opinion - it was by mistake or on purpose, and if so, why?
and the last question - how would you appraise this coin? what would be it's collectors value?

thanks, tsr1955

[FosseWay]

Some thoughts/suggestions on the good points you raise:

first, the weight is 17g and the diameter is 34mm. it fully resembles the parameters of the copper penny.
second, at least according to what i found on the internet, 1826 is too late for evasive coins. also, there are no typical (for evasions) changes in the legend.

Yes, the weight/diameter match the British penny of 1806 and the Irish penny of 1822 (actually the 1806 penny I showed weighs 18g, but it's near enough). I agree it is late for evasions and otherwise an odd example.

as for the option of the counterfeit - since the weight is identical to genuine penny, what is the point of counterfeiting?

This is probably the easiest of your questions to answer! The pennies of this period (and later) are "token coins" in the sense that they do not contain their value in metal but derive their value from what the government says they're worth, coupled with consumers' confidence in that declaration. The 1797 coins were an attempt to make copper coins worth their weight in metal and they were far too large. Therefore, if you bought £1's worth of copper ingots, you could make significantly more than 240 pennies with it. Buying the metal is also not a prerequisite to turning it into coins: criminals have been known to steal stuff!

Forgeries of the 1770s series of halfpennies and farthings are often underweight, as you'd expect, but not infrequently actually contain more metal than the real thing.

just an idea - the obverse (Britannia) is identical to George III pennies, the reverse - to Irish pennies (as you rightly pointed out). could it be that this is still a mule, when using two different dies in the same mint (apropos, were the Irish pennies minted in the same mint as the British ones)? if so, what is your opinion - it was by mistake or on purpose, and if so, why?

The 1806 issue was minted at Soho (Boulton & Watt, who also made the Cartwheels). I had always presumed the 1822 Irish series was minted at the Royal Mint, but I can't find anything that definitively shows this. If they are from different mints it makes an unintentional mule virtually impossible, I'd have thought. Also remember that the obverse is definitely not from the official Irish die - the latter doesn't have a date on it. I suspect both sides are copies of the relevant coins, not struck from the official dies.

My conclusion: This is not an official coin of the realm and is most likely not made with official dies. Quite what its purpose is is open to speculation, but my money is on a contemporary forgery intended to deceive the public but also possibly give the perpetrator a get-out if caught. The forger has gone to more than the usual amount of trouble, though, and as you point out has used the correct weight when he could have squeezed out another penny or two per shilling if he'd wanted. So I wouldn't discount it being primarily a work of art or skill, a "just because I can" thing. There's no doubt that it has circulated, though.

and the last question - how would you appraise this coin? what would be it's collectors value?

Very difficult to say, and as someone who has only the sketchiest hold on what my own coins are worth, never mind anyone else's, I can't give a sensible answer other than "whatever someone is willing to pay for it". If you bought it on eBay or similar, it's probably worth what you paid for it.