Peckris

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'm not sure a limited mintage defines a commemorative, Gary? Surely a commem is struck (sometimes in vast numbers - viz. the Churchill Crown) to 'commemorate' a special occasion, e.g. a Royal wedding or anniversary, death of someone special, anniversary of something like all those commem 50p issues, etc. You could argue that the first year of a new monarch is something to commemorate, except that the 'proof' of the new coinage wasn't traditionally issued for that reason? The even more limited VIP proofs were certainly handed out to dignitaries, but didn't commemorate anything. I'd separate - at least in my own mind - a proof from a commemorative; the latter being a modern phenomenon and not known before the 1935 Crown? Before that, it seemed that the medallion was used for this purpose, with no legal tender. Whereas proofs have been known for most of the milled era. As for the non-proof 1902s, I was only thinking aloud when I wondered if it was simultaneously a business strike and commemorative - as commems were unknown at the time, I guess it must have been only for circulation, as you say. But I can't think of a single other denomination that was discontinued in a particular form after the first year of a reign, especially when you think of all the work and expense involved in producing new designs, dies etc.

Where exactly is Ponterfract?

My point exactly, Rob. So I did a quick and dirty count of Vic OH halfcrowns versus crowns - 20m against little over 2m.

and a Mint-sealed bag of 1933 pennies Or 1954 Or 1952, or 1953 toothed Aren't these fantasies wonderful?

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. Thanks for your input Sword. Gary, I'm not sure what your conclusion is? Certainly the Matt proofs weren't intended for circulation (no proofs are!) but proofs aren't usually regarded as commemoratives either. Are you saying you think the non-proof 1902s were intended for circulation? I do think it could be thought of a normal business issue, but then the question arises, why only 1902? ESC is silent on this subject and my Coincraft is not immediately to hand so for now I can't look up what they said about it (if anything). Davies says the Mint sustained its first ever loss in 1904 due to a lack of demand for coins. CCGB says 1902 was the final business strike of Crowns (what was your source for that, Chris?). Perhaps the Mint had decided to discontinue crowns but thought that people would like to see one for the new monarch, especially as they included it in the proof sets? In which case, perhaps the 1902 non-proofs could be regarded simultaneously as both a business issue and a commemorative? One would have to presume that sovs and half sovs were used for higher end transactions, and that halfcrowns on down were adequate for everyday ones. The issue of bank notes obviously had no bearing on this as the first Treasury notes (10/- and £1) didn't appear until 1914 though higher denominations had been around for a long time. I would think that the poorer classes paid cash for everything, and used nothing larger than a halfcrown (would weekly rents have come under this too?); the better-off classes would have settled their bills with tradesmen and shops with notes or gold. So during the Edwardian era, maybe the way people spent their money meant the crown wasn't much in demand?

and a Mint-sealed bag of 1933 pennies

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.

That's an interesting theory. The possible problem with it is there wasn't a great inflation between 1893 and 1910, compared to 1914 - 1919? And if all those halfcrowns were pressed into service during WW1, why do the Vic Jubilee and OH issues survive much better than Ed VII? My own belief is that the design plays a major part.

Just out of interest, I compared the mintages of Vic OH halfcrowns with Ed VII : near 20m versus 16.5m, so not a massive difference to account for the relative scarcity of Ed VII (Vic OH not nearly so scarce in high grades). So what other reasons could there be? First, the Vic mintages are more even - not one under 1.5m compared to 3 Ed VII rarities. Also, people would have put aside the 1902s then immediately run into problems for the next three years; the next two dates for 'keeping' would have been 1906 and 1907, both of which were high mintages and exist in high grades more than any others except 1902. Then, there's the difference in design. The Vic halfcrown is strong and bold with good rims, and would have taken time to wear. By comparison, the Ed VII has a very shallow portrait that wore quickly, and the rims are tiny. Fast forward to the George V and you have a much stronger portrait and better rims. This reason alone is probably why Ed VII are so scarce in the top two grades. Then, there's the massive inflation of WW1 - this would have seen Vicky and Ed halfcrowns given a lot of circulation, likewise George V though his would have had more limited use as the silver ones were hoarded in and after 1920, and exist in an average of GVF grade. Any other reasons that Ed VII might be so scarce in high grades?

When I look at the picture of the 1903 open 3 on Michael's website the 3 always looks incuse to me. Yep, it does, as can be seen here Compare and contrast that with the other coin in the picture, which appaers as raised. Don't know why it is. Bit of a mystery. Maybe it's to do with the shading. Ditto. I think this is one everyone can see the effect on.

Here's my 1908, which confirms what you say scott But I think you'll agree that my 1909 is as red as the KNs? (next post)

I did that, and for a split second I saw the incuse effect. Unfortunately, having seen the image first in the correct way, my brain quickly adjusted and the incuse effect vanished again. I usually need to see this effect right at the start, before I've seen it the correct way.

I think it's something to do with work being done at the mint that year. I'm sure I read that somewhere. I might be completely wrong though. Yet strangely that didn't interfere with the bronze issues, nor the threepences and sixpences. In 1925 - a comparable year - it was due to the collapse of prices and wages following the massive inflation in WW1. A big drop in the money supply would naturally affect the large silver more than the small, or bronze.

Maybe it's a trick the brain plays, like on this Quite Interesting clip? I do like Stephen Fry! Talking of optical illusions, that clip was just a blank space in my browser, it would not load. So I replied to ask for the URL so I could watch it, and in the quoted post, there was the URL. So I copied and pasted to another tab and watched it quite happily. When I returned to this thread, the bloody clip was there!! Now it's gone again! Oh shoot, now it's back again! Just like that Einstein mask. Pffft.

and then it all goes streaky 1927-1931 - do you think that's production, or ore? I find ALL 1926s are dark, to be honest. As for streaky, I have pennies from 1921 to 1926 with very streaky lustre. But if you're talking about pennies without lustre, the worst offenders are some of the 1920s and 1921s - they have lots of brass coloured flecks in, which I'm told is due to the use of leftover gun shells in the mix, but some are just plain streaky. I'd not noticed it on the final issue George V though, do you have pictures? Streaky E7's too! Yes, that's true. Especially the middle years.

What do you do here, is there a link, or could you explain? What happens when salt is involved? Danger of disolving the coin! Isn't olive oil and patience the "OK" way to handle verdigris? Yes. But if you haven't patience and the coin isn't too valuable, then a soak in good quality vinegar overnight, followed by a really good rinse, removes the green (turns it permanently into a stable and non-corrosive dark patch). Trouble is, the rest of the coin goes much paler, so don't use it on your very best!

and then it all goes streaky 1927-1931 - do you think that's production, or ore? I find ALL 1926s are dark, to be honest. As for streaky, I have pennies from 1921 to 1926 with very streaky lustre. But if you're talking about pennies without lustre, the worst offenders are some of the 1920s and 1921s - they have lots of brass coloured flecks in, which I'm told is due to the use of leftover gun shells in the mix, but some are just plain streaky. I'd not noticed it on the final issue George V though, do you have pictures?

There's also a vertical gouge in the English arms. Nice G over A in MAG though. The vertical GOUGE looks more like excess material as it's raised running into the arms and is'nt light, there seems to be a small nick at the top of the shield though which is lighter than the GOUGE. The G/A was'nt noted, which was a bonus My apologies AZDA. Sometimes what is in relief looks to be incuse to my eyes. It happens to me too sometimes, and there is no way I can make it look as it should!

Welcome to the forums I'm guessing these are silver proofs, right? Are the capsules the screw-down type, or are they sealed like the proof sets? 1977 silver proof crowns (for example) were sold in unsealed capsules, so storage was very important. Even the early proof sets can tone quite badly and untoned examples command a premium. What kind of box do you store them in? And what kind of environment do you live in - is there a lot of moisture or salt sea air where you are? The spots sound like tarnish - if they were regular silver coins that were BU with the odd tarnish spot, I would recommend dipping for a few seconds to remove the spots, but I'd never suggest that for proofs as you would damage the mirrored fields irreparably. You could certainly try and contact the Mint, telling them you never opened a capsule, and maybe send them a couple of photos of the worst examples? But I wouldn't hold out too much hope they will exchange them, though it's worth checking any guarantee they may or may not have issued.

Very handy for the Vietnamese guy who goes into the local brothel - "I've got a lot of dong here..." A bit tough on the guys with no money though. The Madame will tell them "No dong? Then no dong." :D

Not quite a fair comparison Dave - the penny is a tiny coin and as we all know, tiny coins suffer from a lack of detail; the 4d will show much more, so I wouldn't say those grades were out by very much.

You may or may not be aware that there are 2 varieties of 1915 Frathing: 1, Freeman 593A, Dies 1+A - a very scarce variety, having the 'TT' in 'Britt' closer together 2, Freeman 594, Dies 2+A (gap between TT of BRITT is wider (previously they almost touched) I am sure the slabbed Frathing you saw was Freeman 593A as Freeman 594 is valued by CGS in VF50 grade at 6,- pounds (= almost worthless as cost of slabbing is 12,- pounds). For your information I found one example of Freeman 593A sold by LCA as a raw coin in Auction 124, March 2009, lot 1374 – in VF grade it sold for 20,- pounds + buyers premium. Considering the cost of slabbing, 35,- pounds seems reasonable (not mentioning the fact that CGS grade VF 55 coin would be considered by many dealers as EF coin ...) I think Peter knows the two varieties of 1915 farthings - but you might like to look at this : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1915-GEORGE-V-FARTHING-CGS-VF45-/190755678959?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item2c69ecaaef A CGS slabbed 1915 farthing in VF for £19 - the normal kind. Believe me, a VF Freeman 593A would fetch a lot more than £20, or even £35. Even years ago, before ChrisP took over, a VF example was listed at £60 in CCGB. The coin on Ebay is valued by CGS at 6,- pounds (as anybody can check on their website). It is not their fault that this seller is asking ridiculous price... ebay is full of overpriced raw coins as well. I wasn't criticising CGS here - as you say, it's not their fault that an eBay ripoffer has inflated that by 3x.

Phew, thank God. He's only willing to mail it within the US. That's as good as a minor lottery win for the UK. "You can watch them tone and reage in your collection" - what, you mean, if you haven't got any paint drying?

You may or may not be aware that there are 2 varieties of 1915 Frathing: 1, Freeman 593A, Dies 1+A - a very scarce variety, having the 'TT' in 'Britt' closer together 2, Freeman 594, Dies 2+A (gap between TT of BRITT is wider (previously they almost touched) I am sure the slabbed Frathing you saw was Freeman 593A as Freeman 594 is valued by CGS in VF50 grade at 6,- pounds (= almost worthless as cost of slabbing is 12,- pounds). For your information I found one example of Freeman 593A sold by LCA as a raw coin in Auction 124, March 2009, lot 1374 – in VF grade it sold for 20,- pounds + buyers premium. Considering the cost of slabbing, 35,- pounds seems reasonable (not mentioning the fact that CGS grade VF 55 coin would be considered by many dealers as EF coin ...) I think Peter knows the two varieties of 1915 farthings - but you might like to look at this : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1915-GEORGE-V-FARTHING-CGS-VF45-/190755678959?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item2c69ecaaef A CGS slabbed 1915 farthing in VF for £19 - the normal kind. Believe me, a VF Freeman 593A would fetch a lot more than £20, or even £35. Even years ago, before ChrisP took over, a VF example was listed at £60 in CCGB.