ozjohn

Crowns were issued in Australia for the years 1937 and 1938. Although many were saved at the time a significant amount show signs of been circulated. Having said that they were not very popular as they made holes in pockets due to their size. Earlier British issues circulated during their time as would the double florins.

Recently I visited the Royal Australian Mint (RAM)in Canberra where you could observe the coin minting process from public viewing galleries which also house the RAM's museum. Given the treatment of the coins during the minting process ( dropping large amounts blanks and coins from a height, falling onto conveyer belts etc.) it is no supprise coins leave the mint in less than perfect condition, scratches, surface marks and minting errors. It seems to me if the criteria for uncirculated is how the coin left the mint then uncirculated is a very wide spectrum. The coin illustrated was sold as UNC on Ebay to me for GBP 10.00 and probably is if the above definition is accepted. However it would be nice to be able to obtain an example of this coin with out the surface marks these are indeed very rare and hard to come by.

An early 1940s florin I noticed graded by CGS and given 78 UIN 0024675 which shows wear in the center of the rose. I think the 1940 florin which is the subject of this thread has significantly less wear in the center of the rose. Seems to me once a coin has been third party graded nobody looks at the coin anymore and the grading is taken as gospel. img.php-u=0024674&f=r&s=f.url

I think a lot of patience is required as the only fully struck center I have ever seen on a George VI is on the 1937 proof florin otherwise they mostly seem a little weak in the center of the rose. The later issues, 1944 to 1946, seem to be better struck. As for the CuNi issues I don't know as I do not collect them.

I do not know what peace of mind you get with a 3rd rate company like CGS. Trust your instincts when buying and if it has been graded by a TPG buy the coin not the assigned grade. For grading yourself use the Rotographics book. The whole world has been bamboozled by micro grading telling the difference between MS62 and MS 63 is very much in the subjective area

Never had any issues. Bucks' Coins always seem to offer high quality merchandize.

Thanks.I also have a matte proof florin and crown which I have already posted.

Thanks Paulus your coin ain't too bad either. The picture I posted was scanned using an Epson photo scanner. I found that they looked better when in a capsule because when the coin was scanned when placed directly on the glass plate the highest points appeared more flattened than they were.

My 1902 matte proof halfcrown.

The original coin in question which started this thread was a modified effigy florin that does not have the minting problems that make the grading associated with the earlier George V issues difficult. So lets compare apples with apples before going into raptures defending CGS and admit they are a crap TPG.

Nice coins. My grades with reference to Rotographic Grading British Coins; 1817 EF/aEF weak reverse shield 1911 aUNC 1912 EF 1913 EF/aUNC 1916 UNC weak reverse shield 1918 GEF+ 1919 UNC

Seems to describe CGS's MO with George V coins.

Good luck with the grading results. I think you have more confidence in CGS than I have.

That's your opinion pwa 1967 however the strand is TPG Discussions. A fitting place for comments such as mine on the subject of CGS grading as they are a TPG. Which is the whole point of a forum such as this. If you do not agree with my comments then perhaps you could point out the finer points of grading that make the subject coin comply with its stated grade rather than trying to be insulting.

Very interesting especially the collar which should help to distinguish fakes as this is the hardest part to reproduce correctly. One website whose name escapes me shows pictures of the edge of gothic crowns some with weak poorly located lettering also a wide vertical bar where the two halves of the collar meet which could not occur with this collar die. I also think if there were poor strikes in this department they would have been rejected as these coins were proofs.

Sorry I should have made it clearer the two images are of the same coin. I simply ran foul of the max upload of the forum.

Probably the best I have reverse.

Probably the best I have obverse.

Then the RM changed the alloy and the strike quality went from bad to worse until the introduction of the modified effigy coins of 1926. Grading George V silver has always been difficult. I have several halfcrowns I have collected along the way that appear "flat" on the ear, beard, eyebrow etc. and the top of the shield on the reverse and graded accordingly but until you examine the milling which can be pristine you realize you have been mistaken and you realize you have under graded the coin. If you are going for a type collection probably better to buy a 1911 proof.

What you see is normal for KGV halfcrowns of this period. With the example shown I'm not too keen on the scratches between the beard and end of the truncated neck or the small edge knocks at 6 o' clock and 7 o' clock to attract such a high grading.. As to wear if you look on the rim of the coin from about 12 o' clock to 2 o' clock you will see a raised portion of thin metal following the rim of the coin. If there had been any wear I think this portion would have worn quicker than the top of the ear indicating that the flatness on the top of the ear is probably due to the striking rather than wear. As an aside I think the milling of the coin is not given the attention it deserves when grading coins.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1929-HALFCROWN-NGC-MS64-PLUS-HIGHEST-GRADE-POP-1-0-GREAT-BRITAIN-/182008992738?hash=item2a6094d3e2:g:70UAAOSwa-dWoSSM How does a coin like this be graded at MS64 ? The reverse is not bad as far as you can see from the out of focus photograph but the obverse leaves a lot to be desired. Some wear on the earlobe several digs all over the sovereign's effigy especially on the beard, nose, neck and forehead also general scuffs in the field. The price of GBP 100 is also on the heavy side for an UNC 1929 halfcrown. Just goes to show buy the coin not the NGC etc. grading.

The plural form is used for math unless describing a particular matrix. However still doesn't excuse the mess made by the mint in turning these images into coins.

Matrices ? The only one I have heard of are the mathematical type used for solving simultaneous equations. However the pictures show a very detailed portrait of which little survives the minting process especially with George V silver coins. One other issue other than the 1911 proof set that shows much of this detail is the WW1 silver medal.

Very interesting photos of George V dies. It's a pity the finished product bears little resemblance to the original product. The only exception being the 1911 proof set.

My 1902 crown.