This article looks at the shilling coins issued by the East African Currency Board struck at various mints between 1921 and 1952, and especially the scarce 1943 pieces struck at the Bombay mint. The existence of contemporary counterfeits of the 1943I shillings confirms that the pieces circulated and also highlights the poor state of the circulating medium at the time.
An attribution is always sought for coins created to meet the needs of local circumstances when officially minted coins are not available. Official documentation or contemporary accounts are often non-existent for the cut and countermarked coinage of the colonial West Indies. In the absence of proper coinage from the home countries crude measures had to be employed to allow for day to day business transactions and for the local marketplace to function. In many cases an attribution can be made from the countermark; for other more investigative work is needed. The attribution of the cut countermarked coin examined in the following paper has been previously assigned to two different islands and in this case contemporary documentation has actually resulted in a misleading direction. While the attribution now proposed cannot be taken as an absolute it has been arrived at on the basis of a detailed review of the published facts and a ‘reasonable scenario’ based on these facts.
In West Africa around 1920 the silver coinage was replaced by a tin-brass alloy. The contract for 4,000,000 shillings was given to J.R. Gaunt and Son Ltd. of Birmingham, however the company was unable to complete the work and only produced just 16,000 pieces. Surviving pieces are quite rare, and this brief article makes a few observations on some known examples. Click here to read the article
In the 18th century most European colonies were chronically short of circulating coins which led to many of them countermarking and/or mutilating specific quantities of any available coin, mostly Spanish American silver. These would then be issued and accepted by the authorities at an enhanced rate which, together with any mutilation, would deter their export. Most official (and some unofficial) cuts and countermarks have been positively identified but the simple countermark published here has not. A possible reason for it is suggested and reports of any similar marks, particularly on coins with a provenance, would be interesting. Click here to access the article