1850 /46 Victoria Shilling NGC Encapsulated

[NewShillingCollector 0]

I'm sure it's a back-handed compliment that further confirmation has been sought here, AFTER an in-hand validation by Spink!

A back-handed compliment is a compliment diguised as an insult!!!

Us trying to insult people on the forum???

Absolutely not!!!

It was recommended to us that we post the information and the pictures on this forum. We are not "posters" and did not even know the forum existed until a few days prior to our posting here.

I think Stuart was saying it's kinda flattering to be asked for our views, when you already knew what Spink thought!

Yes, I know that now.....I took it the wrong way, as if it were towards us. My mistake and many apologies to him and the rest of the forum!

At least you know for sure now: this is really our first forum....ever!!!

Everyone have a great week!!

[NewShillingCollector 0]

I'm sure it's a back-handed compliment that further confirmation has been sought here, AFTER an in-hand validation by Spink!

A back-handed compliment is a compliment diguised as an insult!!!

Us trying to insult people on the forum???

Absolutely not!!!

It was recommended to us that we post the information and the pictures on this forum. We are not "posters" and did not even know the forum existed until a few days prior to our posting here.

I think Stuart was saying it's kinda flattering to be asked for our views, when you already knew what Spink thought!

Yes, I know that now.....I took it the wrong way, as if it were towards us. My mistake and many apologies to him and the rest of the forum!

At least you know for sure now: this is really our first forum....ever!!!

Everyone have a great week!!

[TomGoodheart 400]

At least you know for sure now: this is really our first forum....ever!!!

Everyone have a great week!!

I think you could have picked a lot worse places to start so, welcome, and I hope you've found it interesting! We may not always agree here, but you can be sure of some lively discussion and quite a bit of (hopefully useful) information.

I'm sure when you come to sell the shilling there will be plenty of interest.

[NewShillingCollector 0]

To be honest, it sounds as if NGC's views are irrelevant. Certainly here in the UK I imagine few are going to be interested in the slab grade, they will make up their own minds. The same is likely true for CGS's opinion, grade wise at least. Slabbed coins are still a small part of the market here and I believe for most collectors make little difference, .. unless you want to unslab ...

What would be of interest, to me at least, would be the letter from Spink advising you that the coin is 50/49! Their expertise is far more trustworthy than NGCs when it comes to British coins IMHO.

Any major auction house here will have US representation and can advise you of the best way to market such a coin and where to sell it (although with the internet any sale is potentially international).

Personally I'd prefer such a coin unslabbed. The photos you posted of the date earlier show the problems of trying to see fine detail through a sheet of plastic, but I know Americans are keener on the things than we are, so that's up to you I guess. I'd not bother with re-slabbing or chasing a different date label. I'd just pick a UK auction house, give them a copy of Spink's letter and go for it to be honest.

I agree....thank you!

[Coinery 1,152]

Everyone have a great week!!

You too, NewShillingCollector! Keep posting, and welcome aboard!

Best regards,

Stuart

[azda 979]

And let us know if/when and where you sell your coin

[Nick 329]

Examples of an aEF 1850/49 shilling and a gVF 1850 shilling sold today at DNW for £6,200 and £5,800 respectively (+ commission and VAT).

[Rob 3,152]

Examples of an aEF 1850/49 shilling and a gVF 1850 shilling sold today at DNW for £6,200 and £5,800 respectively (+ commission and VAT).

Today was quite interesting with a fair number of passed lots too. Some of those shillings were reasonable, some OTT and some about right. The prices paid for the two 1850s was just a reflection of the absolute rarity of the date.

[VickySilver 830]

Yes, my feeling as well. Perhaps the overdate a bit under graded? Nice date of shilling almost on par with the 1854 florin IMO.

[azda 979]

Examples of an aEF 1850/49 shilling and a gVF 1850 shilling sold today at DNW for £6,200 and £5,800 respectively (+ commission and VAT).

Healthy indeed considering spink has them at about 3,5k in EF. Yet another rarity they don't rate. A mintage of over 600,000 coins, makes you wonder why a 1934 wreath is priced so low in comparisson

Edited September 20, 2012 by azda

[Peckris 579]

Examples of an aEF 1850/49 shilling and a gVF 1850 shilling sold today at DNW for £6,200 and £5,800 respectively (+ commission and VAT).

Healthy indeed considering spink has them at about 3,5k in EF. Yet another rarity they don't rate. A mintage of over 600,000 coins, makes you wonder why a 1934 wreath is priced so low in comparisson

Yeah, but that's only coins actually STRUCK in 1850. Most of those will have been dated 1849, very few 1850, which is why it's so rare. Until our current Liz, Royal Mint records are only for numbers struck during a calendar year, whether they carried that year's date or a previous year's date.

[Rob 3,152]

In the period 1847-50, silver issues were a bit screwed up. This was probably due to contuinuing indecision regarding a change to a decimal currency which had been mooted in the first half of the decade. If you look at halfcrowns for example, there were a good number of unused dies left over 1846 following a large issue in the previous two years. A handful were struck in 1847 and some in 1848. Dies were prepared for 1847, but not apparently used until 1848. No shillings are known for 1847 and only a solitary sixpence. It wasn't until 1849 that a large quantity of silver was struck. The quantity of Godless florins produced probably meant that fewer shillings were struck in 1849 than was originally intended when the anticipated output was decided. The number of dies presumably proved to be too numerous for the achieved output meaning that most shillings in 1850 were using the previous year's date, while a handful were cut to see out the year end. Politics also came into it somewhere with some people favouring decimalisation with others against.

[VickySilver 830]

Well, I wonder how many dies were left over versus how many new 1850 dies were used. I could be wrong but have the impression that each type shows up with about the same frequency (well maybe that's the wrong term!). I wonder this with the half crown 1848 and versus 1848/6 and the erstwhile '48/7....

[Rob 3,152]

Well, I wonder how many dies were left over versus how many new 1850 dies were used. I could be wrong but have the impression that each type shows up with about the same frequency (well maybe that's the wrong term!). I wonder this with the half crown 1848 and versus 1848/6 and the erstwhile '48/7....

According to E C Linton in the BNJ vol.29 p.192, item 6 in the facts known notes that there is a gap in the mint records for 1848-52. The article concerned halfcrowns, but if the same holds for all denominations it seems unlikely that it would be possible to resolve this question conclusively. A query to the RM museum ought to clarify this.

What we do know is that there was an overhang of spare dies for halfcrowns and shillings dated 1846 due to the occurence of the 1848/6 in both cases. The existence of the 1848/7 and 1849/7 halfcrown show that some dies were prepared for use in 1847, but not required unless a straight 1847 turns up.

With no known 1847 shillings and just a solitary sixpence, any output must have been minimal. The existence of the 1848/7 sixpence lends credibility to the sole 1847 example being genuine.

For what it is worth, during 1848 a total of 91,872 halfcrowns were struck and based on the numbers extant, most must have been struck from 1848/6 dated dies. Only 1 or 2 dies at most were 1848/7 which had to be from the 16 obverse dies cut during 1847 but presumably mostly undated. The 1848 without the overdate ought to be from the same batch of 16 cut in 1847. At the beginning of the year, a total of 13 1846 dated dies were available but not all necessarily used. Knowing that 22 dies dated 1846 were consumed in 1847 and that a total of 367,488 halfcrowns were struck in this year, an average of just under 17000 coins per die can be derived. This low figure can be explained by the known fact that the mint was concerned with the sort life of a die at the time. It therefore implies that about half a dozen 2/6d dies were employed in 1848.

I would assume that any data available for the life of penny dies dated 1847 and 1848 could probably be sensibly compared to the halfcrown, as the steel bar used from stock would probably be from the same batch given the similarity of dimensions for the two denominations. Additionally, it may well explain the number of overstruck dates 8/7 and 8/6 which may have been brought into use to counteract the short die lifetimes experienced.

Moving to 1849 and 1850 shillings. If the mint outputs are known for these two years and the relative abundance of 1849 1850/49 and 1850 shillings is documented, by combining those figures with a life expectancy guesstimate for the dies it may be possible to arrive at an approximate figure. Any resolution of the die lifetime problem would reduce the number of dies proportionately and probably in equal measure for the two years as the large output of Godless florins in 1849 suggests that on the whole they had overcome the problems to at least some extent. As to the question of rare dates being held back in greater percentage terms than common dates, I would think it should be possible to use the survival rates of the 1848 halfcrowns from a known quantity struck as a reference because these are also known to be the rarest of the early halfcrowns along with 1841.

Hocking doesn't list anything useful in the RM museum for these dates.

Thoughts anyone?

Edited September 21, 2012 by Rob