Talk:1860s replacement of the British copper coinage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1860s replacement of the British copper coinage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

1860s replacement of the British copper coinage is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2025.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 29, 2024	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Numismatics: British currency Low‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British currency task force.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some thoughts

Not a proper review, but just some of my thoughts after reading this article for the first time:

Lead section is well laid out and summarizes the whole thing, but I would prefer the bronze coins appear as a lead image.

I considered that but it's hard to find space for the worn coppers.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background provides context and some nice images—particularly that of the penny marked with advertising (tho I am somewhat intrigued by this "R. D. Wood," who was he and what was he advertising.)

Good question. No idea. I got the image from Heritage Auctions as I have permission to use some of their photography, but I just looked at the page it came from and it doesn't say. It was sld as one of five coins which were counterstamped.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the usage of {{small}} for the Latin text.
The measurements seem rather precise. Did Freeman measure them himself or is it official data?

Well-known data, at least then. No idea if they measured.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting there are some "reviews" of the new coinage by some papers.

There was considerable public interest in new, neat, lightweight (or so they thought then, see my subsequent article brass threepence to learn they didn't consider them light seventy years later!) Newspapers.com is a blessing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are production and aftermath the same section?

Because it's basically the same story, from 1860 onwards, until they were called in, the last (the penny) a few months after decimalisation).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each charged £4 10s. (decimalised as £4.50 (equivalent to £1,000 in 2023)) per 1 long ton (1.0 t; 1.1 short tons): I would've used an EFN here.

I guess, but the other metric conversion we're not.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the word "coppers," used as a noun to denote the coins.

I'm not British but it seems to be British usage in my reading of nonfiction and fiction. I try to make it sound British, and some people who are British took a look at the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the references section, I must first voice my nitpicky displeasure that the SFNs mostly don't contain the year of publication. It makes them look somewhat barren.

I take the position only use the year to disambiguate.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the sources seem all acceptable and the citations provided are good (the Royal Mint website is very generous for its scans).

In conclusion, the article is well and truly acceptable as Wikipedia's article of the day. I give my praise to the author for educating me on the history of the replacement of British coinage in the 19th century. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 07:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think this article puts together the story and is generally accessible in a way that even the articles that cover aspects of this in greater detail is not.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]