Click Here for the CCRS Dealer Directory!



Back   Next

Re: 1936 question?

Here is what I think may have happened to the dot coinage of 1936. I have no proof for this, but the explanation is attractive, I think, because it is simple, and conforms to a certain amount of practicality.

George V died on January 20, 1936. The Mint in Ottawa already has dies supplied from London available to strike 1936 coinage, and so continues to do this. The thought is that dies for Edward VIII are being prepared in London, and will be available for 1937 production by late in the year/early in 1937. But Edward abdicates in December of 1936, making the Edward dies for 1937 useless.

So starting in January, 1937, the Mint has nothing to produce, because they have no dies to work with. Yet, there is expectation of demand for some denominations to be put into circulation. So someone comes up with the idea of striking 1936 coins that can be distinguished from the original strikings (by putting a dot below the date). I think ALL of the dot coins that appear in the Mint report were actually struck, and were sitting around waiting for demand from the banks for their release. The demand arrived for the quarters, and they were released into circulation. But there hadn't been any demand for the pennies and dimes by the time the George VI dies arrived in Ottawa later in 1937, when production using these dies could begin. At this point, All of the stuck up for circulation pennies and dimes are melted, but no-one thinks to record this in the Mint records for 1937 (records are to show PRODUCTION, not destruction).

Now I also speculate that during early 1937, there is finally some demand for 1936 specimen coins, possibly because of the death of the monarch. So a very few specimen sets are struck up, and of course the die that is then in use is the dot dies for the penny, dime and quarter. These escaqpe melting with the circulation coinage, because they were struck for a separate purpose.

If all of this is true, the dots on the 1936 coins would be the same place as on the specimens, and in the same place as on all of the quarters. The reason why we don't see them in that form is simply because All but the specimen pennies and dimes were destroyed.

Or that's the way I see it as most likely to have occurred, and corresponds with the mint letter that Jerry refers to.

AussieBob, 6/25/2012
CCRS member since: 4/30/2003
Posts: 453

Report Post

Back   Next

Reply to this message

To post a reply to the above message, please sign in, or, if you are not a registered user of the Discussion, register first.

Back to discussions

Postings in this thread

1936 question? (cbu, 6/18/2012)
 Re: 1936 question? (AussieBob, 6/18/2012)
  Re: 1936 question? (cbu, 6/18/2012)
   Re: 1936 question? (AussieBob, 6/18/2012)
    Re: 1936 question? (cbu, 6/18/2012)
     Re: 1936 question? (AussieBob, 6/19/2012)
      Re: 1936 question? (cbu, 6/20/2012)
      Re: 1936 question? (Jerry, 6/23/2012)
      Re: 1936 question? (cbu, 6/24/2012)
      Re: 1936 question? (AussieBob, 6/25/2012)
      Re: 1936 question? (cbu, 6/25/2012)
      Re: 1936 question? (biggrassboy, 6/25/2012)
      Re: 1936 question? (cbu, 6/25/2012)
      Re: 1936 question? (biggrassboy, 6/26/2012)

Back to discussions

top of the page

Copyright © 1997-2021  Torex® Coin Show & Auctions.

| Home | Coin Clubs | Coin Shows | Dictionary | Links | Resources |
| Gallery | | Discussion |
Marketplace | Video | Dealers | SearchFAQ |

| User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer |