Gary D

Merry Christmas everyone, and may your silver stay bright and you bronze not go green.

Wrong thead

Wrong c word. Conserving.

Perhaps the the Royal Mint has been outsourcing to here.

link

Here you go, all 270 pages of them link How about these from $0.60 each link

Spinks only attribute the FDC grade to proofs, everything else UNC

I have always been of the opinion that the FDC grade was only applicable to proof coins with the top grade for currency being UNC

That will be interesting for Rob (unless he is involved) And when they split the hammered away we will be getting somewhere.

Crikey! There's hope for us micro-collectors yet. Still well below estimate though You'll be pleased to know that the new Spink 2013 catalogue now recognises this variety of 1953 proof halfcrown - £2500 in FDC. Look as though I'll have to add mine to my insurance, I wonder if the unrecorded Scottish shilling is worth anything.

At last we get to see what Peter looks like!!!!! Tell you what - that guy makes Norm Peterson look like Brad Pitt! He looks like a cross between Russell Grant and Jocky Wilson Looks like a shot from the film Bambi what with her big doe eyes and his rabbit in the headlights stare.

That was the one I was interested in. Got one bid in at £2400 which was still about what I had set as a limit. Bit of an odd one that. Not really a satin proof, actually one of the original trial pieces.

The edge lettering seems to wonder around a bit. link

Thank acc. and coppers, all sorted! As also being a new bidder you had me worried there. Now I'm worried about the amount of interest

Crikey! There's hope for us micro-collectors yet. Still well below estimate though

Being that there was an unbroken run of crowns minted from 1887 to 1900 I think it would be safe to assume missing 1 year to 1902 that the 1902 crown with a mintage similar the the Victorian years could be assumed to be minted for currency use. And as proof crown only enjoyed a limited mintage and were in general passed out to dignitaries and the aristocracy could they not be considered commemorative.

I wasn't sure what they meant by "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" and assumed it wasn't something to get excited about so gave it a miss. Now if it had been an edge error or upside down I would have sat up and took notice. Yes, it would be interesting! What exactly DOES lettered edge mean? They're ALL lettered! Poor bit of promotion on the auction's part, if it didn't properly distinguish a significant difference! Having just looked at my matt proof the edge is bright with the lettering matt/frosted. The actual description is "unusual in having the lettered edge with a bright Proof-like finish" (no comma). This must mean that only the edge has a bright proof finish, because the rest of the coin is a matt proof as can be seen from the pictures. What's ridiculous is that their pictures don't show the one feature that marks the coin apart. My question about 1902 crowns is this : was it the last regular crown issue, or commemorative-only? The mintage is in line with the Vic OH issues, but only a third of the 1935 commem. I must remember to make sure I'm at the bottom of the page when I answer rather than loose it in the middle of the previous quotes. Having just looked at my matt proof the edge is bright with the lettering matt/frosted.

I wasn't sure what they meant by "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" and assumed it wasn't something to get excited about so gave it a miss. Now if it had been an edge error or upside down I would have sat up and took notice. Yes, it would be interesting! What exactly DOES lettered edge mean? They're ALL lettered! Poor bit of promotion on the auction's part, if it didn't properly distinguish a significant difference! Having just looked at my matt proof the edge is bright with the lettering matt/frosted. The actual description is "unusual in having the lettered edge with a bright Proof-like finish" (no comma). This must mean that only the edge has a bright proof finish, because the rest of the coin is a matt proof as can be seen from the pictures. What's ridiculous is that their pictures don't show the one feature that marks the coin apart. My question about 1902 crowns is this : was it the last regular crown issue, or commemorative-only? The mintage is in line with the Vic OH issues, but only a third of the 1935 commem.

I wasn't sure what they meant by "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" and assumed it wasn't something to get excited about so gave it a miss. Now if it had been an edge error or upside down I would have sat up and took notice. Yes, it would be interesting! What exactly DOES lettered edge mean? They're ALL lettered! Poor bit of promotion on the auction's part, if it didn't properly distinguish a significant difference! The actual description is "unusual in having the lettered edge with a bright Proof-like finish" (no comma). This must mean that only the edge has a bright proof finish, because the rest of the coin is a matt proof as can be seen from the pictures. What's ridiculous is that their pictures don't show the one feature that marks the coin apart. My question about 1902 crowns is this : was it the last regular crown issue, or commemorative-only? The mintage is in line with the Vic OH issues, but only a third of the 1935 commem. I remember seeing that 1902 crown in the auction catalouge but did not bid for it. A thought crossed my mind then. If someone brought that crown and had it slabbed by CGS, then the holder would make it very difficult to see the only interesting feature of it! (But the NGC type would allow the edge to be seen. Just a passing mention;I certainly don't to get that topic started again :) ) I think opinion is split whether the 1902 is a commenorative or not. Everyone would agree that all old head crowns are circulating issues and the last was 1900 LXIII. Victoria died in Jan 1901. The 1902 was Edward VII's coronation crown and so there is no real break in the series. As Peckris pointed out, the mintage was similar to the previous years. We have all seen lots of worn 1902s and those have definately been circulated for long periods. A true gem unc circulating type is rare. Hence I would consider it to be the last of the ciculating crowns.If people were told that it was commemorative and no more ciculating crowns will be minted, then might be many more in top condition? Also, George V did not have a coronation crown. This could suggest that the idea of commenorative crowns wasn't popular at the beginning of the 20 century. As we are talking Matt Proof I would suggest in this case a commemorative. And as with the George V crowns only 1935 was aimed at the general public so I would say the 1902 business strike was the last of the circulated crowns.

I wasn't sure what they meant by "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" and assumed it wasn't something to get excited about so gave it a miss. Now if it had been an edge error or upside down I would have sat up and took notice.

When I look at the picture of the 1903 open 3 on Michael's website the 3 always looks incuse to me.

Unless the source of the information was the original manufacturer of the item in question, I would treat any rarity value with a pinch of salt. That applies in both directions, but doesn't mean that you average them out to believe the info is on balance correct. In the case of the proof edge error, with a total mintage of 2500 I assume only one set of dies would be needed and just a single run. I wonder if the machine was set up wrong to start with and they ran a few before noticing the mistake. So I guess the question is; did they run a few saw the mistake and rectified it or ran a load which they then thought they had scrapped the lot. With the currency piece they were running 3/4 of a million and the error was simply the coin jumping in the rolling machine that put the edge lettering on, post minting I assume due to the fluttering you can often see around the rims. I wonder if any skipped the process altogether.

Why has the numpty dipped it? He has spoilt a nice key date coin. because dipping on ebay can double your money

Many years ago we had a couple of cats, at the time they were young cats and one Christmas one of them apparently tried a bit of the tinsel from the tree. Anyway next day this cat was seen walking around with about 2 inches of the tinsel hanging out of its arse. I didn't dare pull it in case there was still a foot of it still in there. The funniest thing though was not the cat walking around looking done up for Christmas but the phone conversation with the vets, trying to describe the symptoms with tears running down my face and the roars of laughter from the receptionist on the other end of the phone. :lol:

The lion seems to have had a face job too. Any thoughts on that? But who drills a hole in a 1905 shilling? There's a potentially interesting story to that I imagine. The shilling looks genuine enough - so it's not someone drilling a copy. And the hole is left rough, still even had the burr on it on the obverse side? If it had been drilled to go on a necklace, wouldn't they have cleared the burr off it - through use you might imagine the burr would be smoothed away and the edge of the hole on the reverse side would not be as sharp as it appears in the photo. I have no reason to believe that it's not genuine and from the wear it has seen a reasonable amount of circulation before it was drilled. Of course who ever drilled it did not appreciate that it was a rare coin and probably picked it for its date, likely a birth year. The hole does look very sharp on the photo so it would make you wonder if it was ever put on a chain, perhaps the recipient wasn't too impressed by being given an old shilling to hang around their neck. Anyway I think the nose is still kosher but looks better due to the toning it has received, I'm sure it had been cleaned in the past as it was a bit bright for a 100 year old coin.