top of page
The 1899 Paul Kruger Gold Pond

Pierre H. Nortje (January 2025)

Introduction

The coinage of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek was much in the news lately due to the sale of the so-called “single 9” overstamp pond of 1898 in January 2025.

 

After the Anglo-Boer War broke out on 11 October 1899, the Pretoria Mint decided to continue the issuing of gold coins, but no 1899 dies were available and subsequently, a number of 1898 ponde were overstamped with the figure “99” on the obverse.

The “single 9” shown on the left and the “double 9” on the right. Source: Heritage Auctions

The “single 9” is considered to be a pattern for these overstamped coins, as the figure 9 was found to be too large, and a smaller punch was used to strike the “double 9” issues.

Early Articles and Records

The 1899 pond was mentioned in at least three publications during the Boer War: In 1900, the Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Numismatic Society, 3rd series volume 20 (pages 252-263) published an anonymous article (the author was later identified as Sir Augustus Prevost) entitled The Coinage of the South African Republic.

Prevost wrote “… in 1899 there was no coinage but a few specimens of the pound of the previous year (only 102 in all) were impressed with the figures “99.”

 

A picture of the coin is shown in plate XII.8 and is most probably the first known picture of the coin that we know of.

The 12th report of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines for the Years 1900 and 1901 contains a reconsolidation of the gold that passed through the Mint during the war (the period covered is October 1899 to June 1900). The report mentions that 799 grams of gold was used for the “99” overstruck ponde indicating that exactly 100 were struck.

On 30 November 1901, the Sphere Magazine (UK) published an article entitled The Coins and Medals of Krugerdom. The author describes how he met a coin collector by the name of C. Allon in Krugersdorp who showed him his ZAR collection. Included was an 1899 pond of which the author says only a “dozen or so” were struck.

 

On New Year’s Day 1903, a British Officer who served in the Boer War, Colonel Eldon Serjeant, wrote a letter entitled, “The Collection of Transvaal Coins and Medals”. (See https://www.wcnumsoc.com).

 

He relates how he decided to form a collection of ZAR coins and medals at the end of the war and was forwarded a copy of the Sphere Magazine article (mentioned above) by its author, Mr. A.L Snell of Krugersdorp.

 

Serjeant writes “The 1898/99 sovereign is a great curiosity. There is a mystery connected with this coin that has yet to be fathomed. It is rumoured in Pretoria that the 1899 dies miscarried, but when, how, or by what means, I have been unable to ascertain though I have written many letters of enquiry on the subject”.

 

It would appear from these early reports that there seemed to be much confusion regarding the coin.

 

Another example: - on the 7th of October 1906 at a meeting of the British Numismatic Society, several of the members exhibited some of their coins. In the collection of Mr A.H. Baldwin was an 1899 pond described as a “Transvaal pond of 1898 countermarked "99" below the bust, by the British at Pretoria to stamp it as current equally with the British sovereign. It is said that only 116 were so countermarked”.

 

Baldwin (founder of the firm A. H. Baldwin & Sons) was a very well-known numismatist of the period, and it seems surprising that he thought the coin was countermarked by the British after they entered Pretoria during the War. 

 

Later Articles and Records

 

A write-up of the 1899 pond was done by J.T. Becklake, the last Deputy Mint Master of the Royal Mint in Pretoria, and included in his booklet Notes on the Coinage of the South African Republic (published in 1934).

 

The following section is quoted verbatim from Becklake’s booklet, after which we will leave some comments, as we question some of the information given by him.

 

Certain of the old Mint documents state that the Mint Master in 1899 ordered that 102 of the “ponde” then being minted with 1898 dies (which were the only dies available) be overstruck with “99” in small figures below the head on the obverse. One hundred were to be Mint coins specially reserved for the purpose and two were to be “ordinary coins passed into circulation”. These were entrusted to the staff (the foreman) for the purpose of stamping, but that official stamped more than directed – the number in excess being 28. The Mint Master stated that verbal authority for his action had been received from the Secretary of State.

 

It may be noted, however, in this connection that the usual custom and practically general rule in all Mints is that the date stamped on the coin is that of the actual year of production. In this case, however, the 1899 dies never reached Pretoria, as they were seized at Delagoa Bay. All ponde struck in 1899 were with 1898 dies, therefore and this overstamping of a small of pieces was doubtless carried out in order to mark the wartime reopening of the Mint for gold coinage. I have been reliably informed that several well-known persons were present on this historic occasion. 

 

The Deputy-Master of the Mint (Becklake is referring to the Royal Mint in Pretoria) in the course of inquiries in this regard to the above matters, received a communication from a collector, who stated: “I have now purchased the 1898 pond with “99” under the head and with it I have a copy of a certificate written in German, of which the following is a translation:

 

Pretoria, 28th Nov. 1901

 

I hereby declare that the gold pond piece of the S.A.R. of 1898 with a small “99” under the head of the President submitted to me to-day by Mr. Biermann, Consul, for examination is genuine, i.e. that it is one of those which I as foreman struck personally on the order of the Mint Master.

 

(Signed) A. Hermanes

 

I hereby confirm the signature of Mr. A Hermanes, who is known to me personally.

Pretoria, the 28th November, 1901.

 

The Imperial Consul.

(stamp)

Biermann

 

It would appear, therefore, that 130 of these pieces were overstamped. Specimens are very scarce and have realized very high prices.

 

Our comments

 

It is unfortunate that Becklake names none of his sources in the first part of his article and would say for example things like “Certain of the old Mint documents state …” and “I have been reliably informed …” When he again refers to the 1899 pond in his From Real to Rand, published in the mid-1960s, he provides only two sources, and both are himself (his 1934 publication).

 

Both Becklake and Sir Augustus Prevost (he was Governor of the Bank of England from 1901 to 1903), agree that at least 102 “99” ponde were struck. According to the 12th report of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines for the Years 1900 and 1901, only 100 of these ponde were struck. If more were indeed issued, the gold used was probably included in the “Sov(ereigns) Coined” in the report – see picture above. A further 28 were apparently overstruck, but the source for this information is not provided. What we do know is that after Becklake’s booklet was published, “everyone” accepted that the number is 130 and in South Africa’s first coin catalogue by Alec Kaplan, published in 1950, this is the number given.

Even as early as 1934, a South African newspaper report stated that 130 of these ponde were struck; the information was most probably obtained from Becklake, whose booklet was based on his article of the previous year (1933) that was published in the Numismatic Chronicle, 5th series, volume XIV.

 

The newspaper cutting on the right was found in the Roos depository kept by the University of Pretoria. Jacob de Villiers Roos held some important state positions during his lifetime including the Secretary of Justice for the Transvaal and was also the Auditor-General of the Union of South Africa. His handwriting can be seen on the cutting dated 4/3/34.

Roos (1869-1940) was one of the earlier South African coin collectors and the pictures below of a genuine (left) and fake (right) 1899 pond, were also found in his repository.

Becklake also wrote that it is “…the usual custom and practically general rule in all Mints is that the date stamped on the coin is that of the actual year of production.” Actually, we know that this is not true, as a large number of ZAR coins that carry the date of a certain year, were actually minted in the preceding and succeeding years – see this article published on the WCNS website in December 2023. https://www.wcnumsoc.com/the-zar-coinage-of-1892-part-1

 

This brings us to the questions of when the “99” issues were struck and when were they countermarked.

 

We know the answer to the first question due to a document (memorandum) that accompanied the “single 9". It was hand-written in Dutch on an official letterhead and dated 9 December 1899. The document was written by the Mint Master of the Z.A.R., J. Perrin and addressed to the State Secretary of the Z.A.R., F.W. Reitz.

 

It reads … “I have the honour to hand over to you an envelope (holding) a one-pound coin. And I certify herewith that this is the first gold coin which was struck during the war with England. It was struck on 2 November 1899 at 10.30 hours from dies made in and showing the year 1898 and shows a small figure 9 under the head of the President”.

We know that the Pretoria Mint was actually closed from 1 January 1898 to 30 September 1899 due to a lack of profitability. In his book Kruger’s Gold (2019:58) Francois Malan says that according to statements of the Manager of the National Bank in 1910, the Mint already succeeded in doing “Half work” during October 1899 and by November 1900 they achieved ”Full work”.

 

The question follows that if the first gold ponde in 1899 were only struck from 2 November onwards, what was struck during October when the Mint was operating, albeit at half their capacity? We believe but have no proof of this, that this could only have been copper pennies dated 1898.

 

Returning to the issue of when the 1898 ponde was countermarked “99”, we are not sure, but the date on the memorandum (pictured above) might provide a clue as it is dated 9 December 1899.

 

Becklake, as we have indicated, said that he had been reliably informed that when the coins were overstruck, several well-known persons were present at the historic occasion to mark the wartime reopening of the mint for gold coinage. 

 

If one looks at Mint Master Perrin’s statement that the single nine was the first coin struck on 2 November 1899 from 1898 dies, one will notice that the time and day refer to the striking of the coins themselves and not when the “9” was actually punched. When the single figure 9 was added and deemed to be insufficient, the punch for the double 9 was most probably not immediately available. So, the ceremony for the punching of the rest of the coins with the double 9, probably occurred at a later date.

 

If the single 9 was counter-stamped relatively close to the date it was given to State Secretary Reitz, the “99” issues must have been countermarked sometime in December. In any case, the Mint was re-opened on 2 October 1899 and at the opening ceremony (if it was held in that month), overstamped ponde could not have been presented to “well-known” persons, as the first gold ponde were only struck from November onwards.

Regarding the single 9, we know that Perrin’s memorandum was written on 9 December 1899 which fell on a Saturday, so the coin was probably handed over to the State Secretary the following week who then presented it to the American Consul, Charles Macrum. According to The Newark American-Tribune of 16 February 1900, Macrum resigned his consular-ship and left Pretoria on the night of 16 December 1899. 

Finally, regarding Becklake’s article, he wrote that the reason that the 1899 were overstruck, was because “… the 1899 dies never reached Pretoria, as they were seized at Delagoa Bay”. This we know is not true as no dies for any ZAR denomination were made in 1899. In 1905, Dr. Hugo Hammerich of the Berlin Mint wrote Die Deutchen Reichsmunzen. On page 83, he provides the dates for which the Berlin Mint manufactured coin dies for the ZAR. It is interesting to note that dies were made for all the denominations for 1898 except the 5-Shillings. No dies are recorded for the year 1899.

Die_deutschen_Reichsmünzen_ein_Handbuch_

Source; Die Deutschen Reichsmünzen; ein Handbuch aller von 1871-1904 stattgehabten Ausprägungen (Berlin: R. Kube, 1905).

Fakes of the 1899 Pond

In his book The Coinage and Counterfeits of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek Elias Levine (1974:99) tells us that “…it is literally the easiest coin in the world to forge”.

 

For this reason, he says, he has given a comprehensive description of the original issues augmented by close-up pictures in chapter 8 of his book. Our readers are encouraged to consult this book for further reading.

Scarcity

 

In 2020, the author made a study of the scarcity of the coins of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek. He consulted the so-called population reports of the world’s foremost two coin grading companies, NGC (Numismatic Guarantee Corporation) and PCGS (Professional Coin Grading Service) to determine how many of each ZAR coin were graded and what the grades were (i.e. how many were graded in mint state condition).  

 

The statistics showed that the overstamped 1899 pond is the rarest ZAR issue (proof coins and patterns were excluded from the study) with only 25 coins graded at that stage by the two said companies. As a matter of interest, the 2nd scarcest is the course beard Burgerspond of 1874 with 27 coins graded. However, neither of the two is the scarcest coin in mint state. Both the shilling and half pond of 1893, as an example, are much scarcer in uncirculated condition with only 4 each graded as such compared to the 13 of the 1899 pond and 15 of the coarse beard Burgerspond.

 

Conclusion

 

With being such an iconic coin, and one easily faked, one would expect that most, if not all, collectors will have their coins graded to guarantee genuineness. It follows that very few “new” specimens are still to be discovered and sent for grading. There are of course exceptions to the rule, as included in the so-called “lost hoard” of Kruger ponde and half ponde discovered in a Swiss bank vault a few years ago was an 1899 overstamped pond.

 

The question follows what happened to the other 75+ ponde that were struck by Hermanes? We know that even during and just after the war, collectors like Colonel Serjeant and Mr C. Allon were already aware of their scarceness and high prices were being paid for it.

 

The author’s theory is that many of the coins were presented as gifts to high-ranking officials and foreign diplomats like Charles Macrum. After their stint in South Africa, they returned to their respective countries with their gifts. A few, if any of them were probably coin collectors and passed the coins on to their families after their death. Knowing even less these families at some stage probably sold the coins, not actually sure what they were and how valuable they were. Even scrap gold dealers would not have known the relevance and importance of the coins with the strange “99” figures on them, and many probably ended up in the melting pot.

Source: Southern Cape Coins

bottom of page