1826 George IV Shilling, Strike Error ?

Please can you elaborate? Because I've never heard of that happening before and when a die splits a crack will show but it's not going to fall off the face of the die to cause a depressed area like you suggest.

Also if there were such a significant problem with an in-use die then they would change it immediately, and to get to this stage where half of the die has fallen off, it would suggest that they didn't check the die state for weeks and continued to strike coins that look like this, which would never happen. If this was the case you would see plenty of examples of this year like this, and while the quality control of the coins produced in the UK wasn't/isn't as good as it could be, this sort of problem would not have occured on a die itself.

David, no problem! I welcome any feedback, I don't class myself as an expert, I've just been looking at a lot of errors for a while now and feel comfortable enough to be able to give my 2 cents.

To alleviate your concerns regarding the uniformity of a lamination error, I've attached a couple of pictures that show examples of laminations that not only have affected more than half of the coin but they've also delaminated and fallen off, leaving behind a 'depressed' area and the normal unlaminated area.









This also shows, some to more of a degree than others, where the laminations can follow a straight line. The impurity/stress causes the lamination to come off, as opposed to that particular part of the lamination being impure or under stress and therfore coming off in a disorderly fashion. Not to say that laminations always come off uniformly because as you have probably seen they don't.



I know that a split die theory might sound OK but this is not the result of that problem. Split dies cause cracks in the planchet, they don't have lamination on them like coins so the surface wouldn't just 'come off' and leave half of the die depressed. Also lamination errors come in many forms, where some you still have the cracked lamination attached and peeling off and where they have fallen off completely, like in the OP.

You also say none of my lamination errors are straight, but my 2 attached pennies show very linear lamination errors!






I think the biggest problem here is that the original picture has had the lamination error and then has been in circulation for god knows how long. This has caused the usually sharp break where the lamination has come off to go dull and look as if it is just a massive Cud.

I whole-heartedly agree! I guess at the time it would have made for a nice present.

I'm really jealous that you picked that up in change too, I wasn't around until after decimalisation so have never seen aynthing other than the coins we have today in my change. What a find and you're totally right, you really could not have asked for better!

I wasn't around till after decimalisation either UKPH, but the old coins circulated alongside the new ones until they downsized them all in the 90's.

If you were a child of the 90's though there isn't a lot of fun stuff you can pick out of your change.

Side note - I realise now that the date is weak not because it is on the other side of the error but because where they soldered they polished and cleaned up the solder join.

another picture with different lighting



I agree 110% that adding a loop or pin is nothing short of abuse to the coin, oh those Victorian era memento/ keepsake emo's



Another 1826 shilling, this time turned into a brooch

The coin is solid sterling. If it was plated after it left the mint, the plating would never be that thick and would not explain how the details are sharper at the high points where it presumably would have received a thicker cladding. I don't think there's any doubt at this point that the coin exhibits a lamination error.

Yes, laminations are caused by impurities in the metal.

I agree that the wear certainly makes error coins like this more difficult to identify.