Coin values in general

[Kronos 0]

I’m still trying to get to grips with coin values. Please see the two examples below for instance.

1953 florin with a mintage of 11,958,710 = Unc £2.00 / BU £4.00

1954 florin with a mintage of 13,085,422 = Unc £25.00 / BU £35.00

I thought the value would have been the other way round due to the mintage.

1917 Half crown with a mintage of 11,172,052 = Unc £45.00 / BU £70.00

1915 Half crown with a mintage of 32,433,066 = Unc £50.00 / BU £70.00

I would have thought the value would have been a lot greater for the 1917 coin due to approximately 21 million more 1915 coins being produced.

Please help a puzzled man.

Thanks

(Information from Collectors Coins GB 2008)

[scottishmoney 34]

The price differences are usually based on availability for collectors and demand. For instance with the florin, the 1953 was the first coin issued in Elizabeth's reign, and lots of people saved them then for souvenirs. The 1954 even with a larger mintage was just viewed as a coin to use and not save. So not many saved them, so they are accordingly higher priced.

Similarly the 1953 pennies were largely saved, and from circulation coins, I have only ever found one in an accumulation of pennies.

[Red Riley 2]

I think it is worth noting that many 1953 coins were issued in little platic folders; in fact I believe 1953 pennies were only issued this way, ergo they virtually all still survive. As far as the 1954 florin is concerned, 13 million is a very small mintage by modern standards, and few were being hoarded by any other than genuine collectors.

Regarding the 1915 halfcrown, it is quite possible that many of the coins issued in 1915 were actually dated 1914 (as the official mintage just shows how many coins of a particular denomination left the mint's gates in that year, not what the coins themselves were dated. This changed at some point but I'm not sure exactly when). This accounts for such comparative rarities as the 1869 penny where the official mintage of 2,580,480 is reckoned to exaggerate by a factor of five, the number of coins bearing that date.

The final point is that in certain years, the whole production was sent to a far flung part of the empire where collectors were few and hence the coin itself may not be that rare but almost none are in decent condition (e.g. 1927 penny). This can however work the other way as in the case of the 1951 penny where virtually every coin was sent to the West Indies. This was established early, and once the word got around, the coins were speedily removed from circulation.

I have only mentioned pennies, as that is my area of 'expertise' but am sure similar reasons can be used to explain price variations in other denominations.

Having said al that of course, there is a rump of coins where the price pattern defies all logic.

[RLC35 288]

Red, You are right. especially about the 1869 penny. Michael Gouby, in his book estimates the actual number of pennies baring the 1869 date at only 430,000!

Bob C.

[Chris Perkins 228]

As many as that! I would of thought it could be a lot lower. Mind you, worn ones are often seen.

[RLC35 288]

The Gouby estimate is only that, an estimate, with no way to authenicate it.

The 1869 in VF or better really gets hard to find. Most of the 1869's offered are dinged, gouged, worn smooth, partial date, etc.

I am lucky enough to have an EF in my set.

Bob C.

[Kronos 0]

Thanks everyone.

It's somewhat clearer now.

Mark

[Red Riley 2]

Red, You are right. especially about the 1869 penny. Michael Gouby, in his book estimates the actual number of pennies baring the 1869 date at only 430,000!

Bob C.

I know that at one point he was looking into the theory that a whole lot of 1869 pennies were in the process of being transported to the colonies when the ship sank. I don't know whether this got beyond the hypothesis stage, but it would go some way to explaining the shortage of these coins.