Three dots, three Kings 1936 - Part 3

For years I have read the following tidbit of information in the Haxby and Willey catalogue; “one of the dot cents was found in the Pyx box, a container where coins taken at random from production runs are reserved for assay”.


Perhaps the reason this tidbit has managed to secure a place in my thoughts over the years, is that the statement has always appeared to myself as being so matter-of-fact in its delivery or maybe it was due to a simple gut-feeling that something about it just didn’t ring true.

For those in the hobby who are unfamiliar as to the exact purpose of the “Pyx”, I will share with you some official information on the subject, which is certain to expand your understanding, as it did mine.

The 1st piece of information to be shared is from page 16 of the 1939 Royal Canadian Mint Report.

I have chosen to share the entire entry under the heading of “General” for the visual confirmation it will serve to establish, that the Royal Canadian Mint Reports do have entries of information that are very concise, encompassing and diverse in subject.

Starting with the word “Section” and ending with the word “fineness”, the second paragraph provides all the information one requires in order to have an informed understanding as to the intended design and working function of the “Pyx”, in other words; its exact purpose.

As a point of interest, the paragraph of our attention states very clearly that only “silver” coins were reserved for the “Trial of the Pyx”.

To further assist in our understanding of the coinage actually reserved for the “Trial of the Pyx”, I will share the same entry from the 1936 Royal Canadian Mint Report, found on page 10.

And as well, the same entry from the 1937 Royal Canadian Mint Report, found on page 11.

As we can plainly see from the information provided in the official Mint Reports, “bronze and nickel coins” were not reserved for the “Trial of the Pyx”, therefore we are only able to arrive at the following conclusion; one of the dot cents was not and could not have been found in the Pyx.

To be continued…

To add a comment, click the light grey "Comments" tag after the timestamp below.

Three dots, Three Kings, 1936-Part 2

On the outside chance that the “Recoinage Statement” is not conclusive enough for some within the hobby, I will share with you one more piece of related documentation, which shows that a crisis situation did not exist in the context we have been led to believe these many years.

The official document to be shared is from Page-6 of the “Canada Department of Finance, Royal Canadian Mint Report, For the Calendar Year 1936” … dated 24th April, 1937.

The first section of page 6 is included for the purpose of background information and the second part, beginning with the word “Meantime”, tells us what actually transpired during the time frame in question. I don’t know about you, but I can see with my own eyes that in spite of the events that transpired with Their Majesties, all was well in hand with our coinage.


There does exist the written fact that authority was given to continue using King George V dies, but there does not exist anywhere in the 1936 or 1937 Mint Reports any mention that this authority was exercised.


Which brings us to the next portion of the story behind the 1936 dot coins; Mintage figures and where they came from?


The oldest recorded reference that I have come across that shows mintage figures for the 1936 dot coins is an original copy of the “1958 Standard Catalogue of Canadian & Newfoundland Coins, Tokens and Fractional Currency 6th Edition, By J. E. Charlton”, which also includes as reference, pictures of the Pittman type 1¢ and 10¢ dot coins (page 19).


In the section of “Mint Reports”, under the heading of “Small Cents” on page 33, there is the following entry; 1936 DOT … (*) 678,823.


In the section of “Mint Reports”, under the heading of “10 Cents Silver, Dominion of Canada” on page 34, there is the following entry; 1936 DOT … (*) 192,194.


In the section of “Mint Reports”, under the heading of “25 Cents Silver, Dominion of Canada” on page 34, there is the following entry; 1936 DOT … 153,685.


Also shown on page 34 in the “Mint Reports” section, is the following footnote;


(*) Only 8 known.


Oddly enough, “Appendix B” from the 1936 Royal Canadian Mint Report does not reflect any reference that would lend credibility to the dot mintage figures reported in the 1958 Charlton catalogue.

Nor does the “Appendix B” from the 1937 Royal Canadian Mint Report reflect any reference that would lend credibility to the dot mintage figures reported in the 1958 Charlton catalogue.

As a point of interest; on page 1 of the 1958 Charlton Catalogue under the heading of “Introduction” the name J. J. Pittman appears in the fourth paragraph along with other names, where the editor expresses his appreciation for their suggestions and co-operation.


So where did the dot mintage figures come from? … Certainly not from the official 1936 or 1937
Royal Canadian Mint Reports.


I welcome anyone within the hobby who does have any official Government documentation that would lend support to the professed “dot mintage figures”, to come forward and share such with the hobby.


While we wait, I’ll continue with another aspect to the “dot story”, one that has stuck in my thoughts like a popcorn-husk gets stuck in your teeth, something that is seemingly so insignificant in its importance, yet its very presence commands your attention.






To be continued…
To add a comment, click the light grey "Comments" tag after the timestamp below.

Three dots, Three Kings, 1936

Three dots, Three Kings, 1936

It has to be said…

I suspect there are some in the hobby today that will not be able to readily accept the truth about the 1936 dot coins, as one cannot deny that 50 to 60 years of untruths will certainly have had its marked effect.

As a result of the long-term deception, some hobbyists will be inclined to continue believing what they have been “led” to believe these many years, no matter what new information comes to light.

There once was a time when a group of people were “led” to believe that a mere mortal man was their true salvation; imagine if you will, all the effort that it took to show these people the truth about Adolf Hitler, even today some will deny what they have been shown.

If the “Pittman dot story” that the hobby has been “led” to believe were a “cup”, you would die of thirst trying to drink from it.

Do I have proof or evidence other than the obviously tangible and therefore visual proof that the very coins themselves do represent … that the 1¢ where the placement of the dot is on the King and the 10¢ where the placement of the dot is in the lower left hand leaves … are indeed the “genuine” Mint issued dot coins?

As I have already come to my own answer to that question, I will elect to simply share what I know to be on the subject and leave each individual to decide the answer for themselves.

The hobby cannot deny that very little has been written on the 1936 dot coins, nor is the hobby able to dispute that what has been written, is more directed towards the 1¢ with a dot under the date and the 10¢ with a large dot below the bow opening, than it is towards the 25¢ with a dot at the bow opening.

One of the main components to the dot story and certainly one that can easily be recognized as being the very “foundation” or “corner stone” of the story … is the “unsupported claim” that in the early part of 1937, there was a shortage of coins and therefore an “emergency issue” of 1¢, 10¢ and 25¢ pieces occurred.

My reference to the “emergency issue” as being an “unsupported claim” is based on the undisputable fact that there has never been any “official” Government documentation shared with the hobby that would support such a claim to be true.

I certainly welcome anyone within the hobby who does have any official Government documentation that would lend support to the long professed claim of an emergency issue, to come forward and share such with the hobby.

While we are waiting for someone to come forward with official proof to there having actually been an emergency issue of certain denominations in the early part of 1937 … I will share with the hobby an “official” Government document which will easily show that a shortage of coins did not exist in the early part of 1937.

The official document to be shared is the “Recoinage Statement” from the CANADA PUBLIC ACCOUNTS for the FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1937 report … which was respectfully submitted by Chas. A. Dunning, Minister of Finance Ottawa, January 24, 1938.

Recoinage Chart Page 103.jpg" type="#_x0000_t75">

It is plain to see that under the heading of “Silver Coin” in the far left column, the second entry down has the dates of “April 1, 1936 to March 31, 1937” and if we look to the immediate right, the figure of 401,860.35 is entered under the heading of “Amount Withdrawn for Recoinage, face value”.

If we look further down to the heading of “Bronze Coins, the second entry down also has the dates of “April 1, 1936 to March 31, 1937” and if we look to the immediate right, the figure of 1,397.21is entered under the heading of “Amount Withdrawn for Recoinage, face value”.

When I performed the calculations to convert the Silver coin “face value figure” to “pieces figures” I divided the 401,860.35 entry by three denominations, 10¢, 25¢ and 50¢ respectively and each received an equal share figure of 133,953.45.

The equal share figure divided by 10¢ equals 1,339,534.5 pieces withdrawn for recoinage; the equal share figure divided by 25¢ equals 535,813.8 pieces withdrawn for recoinage and the actual “face value figure” for the Bronze Coins divided by 1¢ equals 139,721 pieces withdrawn for coinage.

As the “Recoinage Statement” chart shown includes the first part of 1937, one can see with their own eyes that coins were being withdrawn from circulation during the time frame where the hobby has been “led” to believe that there was a shortage of coinage and that an emergency issue of certain denominations occurred as a result of said shortage.

To be continued...

To add a comment, click the light grey "Comments" tag after the timestamp below.