Sword

I don't collect bronze, but I think in general, the rule is that the coin is not an error or variety unless there is convincing evidence supporting the claim. Otherwise, the number of imaginary errors / varieties would be huge. So if the letter is supposed to be a V, then it is just a V. The illusion of a crossbar (which is faint and unconvincing) can be caused by say a die crack for instance. If the letter is supposed to be an A, then it is just an A and the faint cross bar could be due to a partial die fill for instance. However, if the variety is documented for that specific coin type, then it is worth investigating more closely. But convincing evidence is still needed. It's like asking a doctor if a new rash is cancerous. They would say don't be silly as it can be caused by a variety of common things. But if someone has already been diagnosed with cancer and gets a bad rash, then the doctor would work on the assumption that it is related to the cancer if a rash is a possible symptom.

Ooh, flagship phone 😀 I have only upgraded mine from budget to mid tier and the causal photos are already much better

Why don't you do that and find out as it is a cheap option? The cameras of the new phones are constantly getting better and you could very well be happy with the results.

Mintmark is triangle in circle I think, and it is 1641-3, Tower Mint under the King. (1639-40 is just triangle without the circle) Charles I shillings are common in low grade but scarce in high. Yours is quite well struck for the reverse and the flan is round. It's a bit unfortunate there are some fresh scratches and rubbing.

Have you emailed them directly? They might not be prepared to search old records but you never know.

For this series, I wouldn't personally consider different privy marks to be different design "types". But other collectors might think differently.

It is a very nice design 😊. Consider being a type collector and then you won't need to have more than one example. (Obviously, gifts from family are supernumerary.)

It's not a common flaw and I am not certain if I have seen it before. In this grade, the flaw wouldn't make a difference. Both the obverse and reverse designs are really nice.

I don't think 1927 proof coins are unloved, I just think that a mintage of 15k for a proof coin is not low, and comfortably satisfies the demand of people who wants one. In addition the series also has a large number of circulating coins at UNC giving anyone an opportunity to get a type example. The 1887 proof crown on the other hand has a mintage of only about 1k (and there are far fewer circulating UNC examples).

I agree with Peckris that the loss of details is virtually all due to weak striking. Otherwise, wear would be very obvious in other areas like the garter letterings. And with these 0.50 silver points, areas of wear would show discolouration. If there is still lustre on the top of the shield area, then it's another indication that it is weak striking. You can still try to upgrade to specimens that are fully struck!

Congrats, Eric for getting the PL descriptor! Looking forward to seeing it. Obviously, the reflective fields would be obvious to someone seeing the coin in real life, but it is really nice to have it as part of the grade as a photo might not capture it so well. I agree that calling a prooflike coin a "variety" is just wrong. But I think NGC is using the term proof like simply to describe a circulating coin with unusually reflective fields and it is just a description of the appearance. The amount of "reflectivity" needed for the PL destination is of course subjective and depends on the opinion of the grader but then all grading by a TGP is subjective. Descriptors like PL also indicates that coins of the same "grade" can differ significantly in value and desirability despite the impression often given by TGPs to the contrary. From NGC website: "Most circulation issue coins have minimally reflective fields, even in Mint State (MS) grades. When a circulation issue coin’s fields exhibit a higher-than-normal degree of reflectivity, the coin is said to be “Prooflike” (or “PL”) because it is reminiscent of a Proof coin. If the fields are deeply mirrored, the coin is said to be “Deep Prooflike” (or “DPL”). NGC uses the PL or DPL modifiers after an MS coin’s numeric grade, when applicable. These designations indicate only the degree of reflectivity evident in a coin’s fields and make no implication as to other qualities associated with Proof coins, such as frosted devices and superior sharpness."

Although the mintage of Maundy coins is not high, they do mostly survive in good condition as they are not circulating coins. In addition, Maundy coins are minted every year. I don't think Maundy "odds" (i.e. not in complete sets) are considered to be rare.

I think these photos were taken after the coin has been slabbed and not before. Otherwise, the resolution wouldn't be so poor. But some of the earlier slabbed CGS coins don't have CGS photos. Photos was optional in the early days and the fee was halved (if I remember correctly) not to have a photo taken.

That's a fairly long die crack. I imagine the obverse die would be used for multiple years until it's too damaged. But the reverse die has the date and so needs to be replaced each year.

It's amazing how the letters are so neatly and completely removed! (Almost looks like it was intentionally done.) Since the missing letters are unfortunately "REX" and "FID D", it might eventually be given the nickname "abdication 5p" if more examples are known. Long live our King, and long may he reign!