VickySilver

Amen. One can fluff on the ownership of an ESC R5 but a grain of salt best be swallowed. An example of this type of thing in the opposite : rarity of the 1862 & 1864 2/6s are much scarcer with relatively fewer in private hands.

IMO, this coin is GEF and the softness at the front paw, nose, and G5's hair is strike softness. Technically probably mint state and been in a bag for a while.

Cataloguers are not as zealous as we can be. I (re)discovered the 1937 Norweb matte proof crown that was a part of their set about two years ago....By "A Tokyo Collection" standard that is maybe now a 20-30 coin based on what they have been asking for their other matte proofs!

I agree, very hard to introduce the type of objectivity that we would like into it; for me at least, I would like to know more of this type of thing rather than if there is a varietal micro-shift in date position. I generally have an idea of scarcity of most 1838-1952 pieces in copper and silver (brings to mind the crazy prices fetched for gold 2 & 5 pound 1887 & 1893 currency and proof - these things are out there!). The problem with adding PCGS, CGS, and NGC populations is that on the scarcer bits many have been resubmitted for either a possible higher grade or uniformity of slabbing in a collection. USA collectors, at least some talk about "top pop" coins - those that have the highest certified number grade - and I notice that London Coins does this with CGS in their auctions as well. There also is a competition (not sure of the prize awarded if there is one) for the highest registered set for particular series. Coincraft have an anecdotal note on finding an error edge specimen of 1935 crown in a noted dealer's trays....

Yes, Gary, Good job on the currency especially. I can not get myself to go for a VF - I want Unc/mint but such is not available in my experience....

You know a price I have been trying to calculate would be that of the 1922 rev. 1927 specimen of which there are only two supposedly known? I agree 30k is huge, it may only go 25! LOL....

Please do report. I bid "live" and got beaten down on 7 coins. Might have been the reserves buying back. I did manage to get some of the ex=Pretoria mint pieces there some years ago - not cheaply.

Yes, love these crowns but as they are not a lot of them, branched out to other silver and copper 19th and 20th C. Gary did indeed get pretty good prices IMO. \\\ The gold is coming up in the DNW sale if you have a spare 30k lying around!!! Check auctions part of www.dnw.co.uk I still have not found the LA Lawrence catalogue.

PS - In trying to find some info, I saw that the Capt. HEG Paget Sale and Glendinings, 1946, had an error edge proof for sale...Also, arguably the Incuse edge proof 1935 Crown is more important and these are out there is [possibly 0.500 and 0.925] form, as this would be the virtual "have to have " coin in a run of George V VIP Record proofs. I have reviewed in this last week a collection complete IMO of both first quality currency PL strikes, and of probably Record proofs. In the run of the latter the 1936 is a bit more "proofy" in that it has more of the device contrast as well as being slightly better struck up. The 1934s, two currency, and one proof are VERY similar but slightly better mirror in the field and possibly slightly more detail in the mustache, beard, ear, stamens, and cross (or "T") within the orb - as opposed to the cross above the orb - and the edge. I might add the latter was purchased from Spink some 15 or more years ago, as was the 1932 proof. The 1936 came from a Noble Australia Sale not long after was recounted to me. I saw the other PCGS 1934 graded proof 1934 and doubt it as a proof. As footnotes, I think they (PCGS) are quite patchy in their grading. Not trying to be overly critical, but I do have some differences with their grading. I will not single them out as I have seen severe errors with NGC and CGS as well, but although I can not prove it and am not privy to their grading room, have the distinct impression of favoritism extended to major dealers/sellers/etc. and have seen easily 2 or 3 points difference between theirs and my assessments. I can think of the Millennium Sale as an example... The Spencer article is : December 1983 of the Numismatist entitled: Proof-Record Coins Struck by the Royal Mint 1922-64. He interestingly feels that the 1927 proof is a specimen... Spink Norweb sales of the mid-80s do not have much information with relatively poor pictures. Well, I will keep my eyes open for more...

More power to those pursuing such! I lump them in with the "narrow date" buns. Nice if people are interested, significant? Not in my opinion and just goes to show how absolutely looney those hypervarietal collectors are when here is a legitimate (also IMO) variety that gets no notoriety, or prices.... Ooops, let out my pet peeve on those buns.

I essentially agree with Peck about this coin price wise and most of his commentary, but would suggest a milder treatment should you purchase it such as trying acetone first. IMO, this is also not an investment grade, but think that the higher grade E7 pieces may have some room for upward growth ('03-'05 2/6, '08 2/6, '03-'05 2/-, '05 1/-).

They have been at Spink many times with the odd one in a DNW or Baldwin Sale. Many do have homes, and I suspect there are some still sitting in their red boxes as yet undiscovered. Price: the proofs I have seen in the 1800 to 2.5k pounds range. The currency with partial edge lettering 400-600 - although I do not recall seeing above EF on this one. Rare, yes. Unloved yes. Maybe/ probably some still undiscovered as well, so maybe not as rare as many think. How many ALWAYS check their edges?

OK, I must confess that I have not located my sources yet as I have a three year old to contend with, who regularly emulates Attila the Hun by tearing up my office... Error edge? I assume you mean the jumbled edge. I have two of these and have seen any number for sale on fixed lists and at auction sales. My estimate is more like 30, but can not offer proof other than my experience.

OK, I confess to looking back at this post. What craziness! This would be poor quality even for the Chinese of some years ago... Well, a bit of fun on a Sunday is always good. Manganese is a metal that to my knowledge is essentially NEVER found alloyed with silver. Also, this coin at 28.2 +/- gms is an avoirdupois ounce of 50%. This looks like a transfer die made from the possible Aussie obv. and GB rev. Letters typically become sloppy and detail mushes just as is seen on this piece. 17.3 gms makes it possibly white metal or??

=BAD Counterfeit to my eyes, and poorly done with mushiness to devices and lettering, edges, denticles, etc.

Rims look good, mild chatter about the cheek and brow. American standards MS62, GEF on the RIght side of the Pond. Probably mainly bag marks. I have found the rims very good to look at, esp. the outside edge for any contact and how smooth is it for marks across it. The vulnerable areas were described. As per usual the reverse is relatively proof-like with field mirroring and a bit of detail contrast.

I will try to put together some research as well as give some date by date observations but you will have to give me a bit of time. I have the LA Lawrence catalogue around somewhere and the Norweb sales had some commentary. Norweb was pretty much a vacuum cleaner when it came to many of the 20th C. proofs and rarities among other things but I am not even convinced that all of hers were proof, even those that had been set aside in set form with the minor coins in proof. As an aside, see the forward of the Norweb Canadian sale for a detailed and circuitous discussion of proof vs. specimen vs. currency, and also the Spencer articles around 1982 or so in (?) The Numismatist...Promise more to come....

I would really like to see pictures posted here - OK, I am in the Peck ranks and do not want to sort throught the CGS site. I must say that I have been collecting only about 20 years but started with Wreaths and went from there. In point of fact (I hate that expression), the main problems with currency versus proof are these: currency strikes were limited as all here are likely to know to 932-7300+. These are very limited runs but complicated slightly by the fact that the planchet hardness is generally thought to be greater on an 0.500 alloy versus the usual earlier 0.925. Obverse hair detail is not much help since there is not much to start with. The ear is occasionallysomewhat poor in detail and strike sharpness is sometimes compromised at the corner of the brow and mustache & sometimes beard. Reverse detail of Wreath is sometimes of use: the cross surmounting the orb loses central deatil and the stamen(s) of the roses can lose detail as major "Look-See" areas. There is very poor cameo contrast on non-1935 strikes in proof, moreso on the currency. There tends to be a Proof-Like appearance of the whole surface, fields, devices and lettering. Edge and milling sharpness can generally help a little bit but even currency strikes that I have seen can have sharpness to these and "finning" of the edges. 0.500 alloy is conducive to very ugly brownish (or worse) toning that obscures many of the above listed features. Allegedly there were 5-10 dedicated proofs struck for each of the non-1927 proof years, but I have NOT been able to find any definitive source that can state with assuredness the exact numbers. Just the major TPGs have certified quite a few, perhaps even more than this 5-10 figure for some of the dates (CGS, PCGS, NGC). OK, I will have mercy on those of you reading this and give my general opinion: I think that proofs are NOT readily identifiable, and that even though association and context can be helpful that possibly nobody can state with certainty what is proof and what is not, only that a particular specimen may have more "proof" attributes. There is a spectrum of currency strikes and quality that push many of these into near prooflike status, and many of the proofs of this period (even non-crowns) are very poor in terms of strike and contrast between device and field, and normal edge attributes - knife edge, sharp milling, etc. are rather poor when compare to earlier or later proofs. I do not claim to be an end-all authority but have studied these for many years, and believe I have seen proofs of all dates including the matte 1927, and even specimen 1927s with bevelled edge from the Pretoria hord. I have also seen very proof-like currency strikes that were very near, but not quite reaching proof status. I have seen complete proof sets that have been together since minting both farthing through crown, and also threepence through crown as well. I think it is easier to exclude coins as proofs than to include with these Wreaths. I am inclined to reject most, even certified examples, as proofs. More later if anybody is interested.

As much as I like pennies, I have to confess I have not even checked this type on my '41s....Will look and see. Congratulations on a nice coin!

Not to divert but I was thrilled to pick up a fully struck 1917 6d, a coin not generally appreciated in that state. Also a bit off but finding 1919H pennies with fully struck up obv hair quite a treat. Also the 1918H.

I believe the lion's nose can show up weak from a weak strike and will have to reference this if I can shortly (OK, by Tuesday then LOL).

Can you show a picture of the possible coin in question? I agree with Peck that other than the 1927 dated proof, you are fairly safe in assuming currency strike. I would be glad to give an opinion as I have seen all dates in proof; these are not like modern proofs as Peck has said, and many if not most of the currency pieces have a proof like appearance due to the low mintage and short die life. I have seen "proofs" certified by major TPG (third party graders) that are almost certainly NOT. There are many interesting sub-points to this discussion, and I for one would be glad to help - these are the coins that got me started collecting British, after all.

Yes, the estimates are "out the window" with some very high as well; so they have no value. My problem is as per just posted is that the grade estimates of better preserved recent milled are not on. I have bought from them in the past, obviously without seeing the lots. This tempered my bid amounts and on receipt of winnings proved to be largely correct. My general surmise is "Caveat emptor" so just be careful. Not much in this sale for me but there did appear to be a very nice 1871 halfpenny with admittedly poor photo details.

The vast majority of extant pieces are in the fair to VF range and get considerably more expensive above that as was stated. I'm going to hold on the figure I quoted, obviously it's appearance "in hand" is tantamount.

I have seen aVF sell for about 600 pounds in the USA and bought one some cpl years ago at that price myself.