Leaderboard

If the 1952 halfcrown is identical to prior years in all but the date, then I can't see how it be considered a pattern. It would have to sit alongside other rarities such as the 1945 threepence, virtually all of which were melted down. I would hazard a guess and say that yearly dies were cut in advance for all denominations in all bar a few instances in anticipation of future requirements. 1952 would be a year where halfcrowns were expected to be struck, as doubtless there was still a high number of 500 silver coins theoretically in circulation, even if many were hoarded. The unexpected event of the year was George VI dying

That's outrageous. Even though I say they were NOT for circulation, they are legal tender, so it's possibly unlawful for banks and the RM not to change them for other currency. I think we may be using the words 'circulation' and 'currency' in different ways? It seems possible to me that you mean a coin that's neither a proof, specimen, or pattern would come under those headings? Whereas I mean that a coin that was not struck / issued to be spent by Joe Public in shops or other transactions (i.e. not part of the money supply), is neither 'for circulation' or 'currency'. By my usage, Wreath crowns (for example) were not under any circumstances struck for circulation or the mintages would have been significant, and we have it on record (somewhere) both that the Treasury abandoned crowns as an everyday denomination in the early century, and that wreath crowns were only issued in very small quantities to collectors and their ilk. The 1952 halfcorwn is a very interesting case. It is EITHER a pattern (only one ever having been struck) OR is the sole survivor from the beginning of a currency strike of 1952 halfcrowns, the rest of which were melted down when the King died. In which case - and given that the unique specimen DID circulate - it could be regarded as a circulation coin. It's certainly true that if the King hadn't died, 1952 halfcrowns would have been issued. In any case, it's not a crown!! I'm not sure what you mean by 'strict definition'? I'd still claim that a 'first year of reign' is a commemoration. What else would you call it?

Why don't ebay just ban her IP address and get the fraud squad on her?

3 of the 4 bidders have only bid with her.She can't be the full shilling.

This is getting into the realm of unwanted argument! I already said the 1902 question is open though it raises the question of why no other Ed7 crowns were issued. Wreaths were clearly NOT issued for circulation, as can be seen from the extremely low mintages; my understanding is they were issued for collectors or those who liked the design, and may have been sold via ballot? (Or perhaps that was just the precious metal proofs). 1951, 1960, and 1965 we agree were commems, though the numbers of 1965 crowns was so high (public demand?) that it could be argued they were also for circulation though I never ever saw one in change, or anyone offering one as payment. 1937 and 1953 were 'first year of reign' which by definition is a commemoration. In all my time as a collector, I have never seen a single crown of any date in circulation as currency. Never.

@Nonmortuus Couple that I have below - a bit of reflection and opening multiple collecting fronts doesn't work for me 😆 but they are just nice things in themselves so never parted. Sourcing them is trickier than it probably should be too I think, I assume in the past a lot of them showed up on eBay UK, so it got to routing through ma-shops and that wasn't the best place in the world to be either.

Thanks for your considered opinion Rob and other information, greatly appreciated. In addition to the wax spot I also see many similarities however, for me, some of the differences seem a tad too extreme to put down to a lifeless image or poor photography though this can only be verified in hand. Just as a footnote to all and to elaborate on my initial post. The coin has changed hands at least twice since 2016 so I’d like to make clear that in no way was I suggesting that the current seller was intending to deceive. I shall be more selective in my wording in future so as not to appear so dogmatic, maybe best I post during the daytime before Mr. Hyde visits🧟‍♂️🙂