CROWNS

[Gary D 76]

Azda - Their are two types of error edge, the proof, and the currency type. I have the only one of either types that appear on CGS listings, i have the proof version which is listed in esc as R5 (5-10) its the currency type which is listed as R6 (3-4).

The whole point of my previous thread was to see if more than 10 people owned up to owning the proof variety, this would indicate to me that i shouldnt be believing all that is written.

Anyone wanna sell me a currency version?

Unless the source of the information was the original manufacturer of the item in question, I would treat any rarity value with a pinch of salt. That applies in both directions, but doesn't mean that you average them out to believe the info is on balance correct.

In the case of the proof edge error, with a total mintage of 2500 I assume only one set of dies would be needed and just a single run. I wonder if the machine was set up wrong to start with and they ran a few before noticing the mistake. So I guess the question is; did they run a few saw the mistake and rectified it or ran a load which they then thought they had scrapped the lot.

With the currency piece they were running 3/4 of a million and the error was simply the coin jumping in the rolling machine that put the edge lettering on, post minting I assume due to the fluttering you can often see around the rims. I wonder if any skipped the process altogether.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Gary D

[divemaster 11]

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of the 1902 crown variant which was sold in London Auctions no 136, lot 1780. This was a new one to me and described as "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" I viewed it at the auction but was not sure enough of it to bid above the £480 that it went for. Any knowledge about this variant out there?

[Gary D 76]

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of the 1902 crown variant which was sold in London Auctions no 136, lot 1780. This was a new one to me and described as "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" I viewed it at the auction but was not sure enough of it to bid above the £480 that it went for. Any knowledge about this variant out there?

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.

[Coinery 1,147]

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of the 1902 crown variant which was sold in London Auctions no 136, lot 1780. This was a new one to me and described as "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" I viewed it at the auction but was not sure enough of it to bid above the £480 that it went for. Any knowledge about this variant out there?

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!

[Peckris 579]

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of the 1902 crown variant which was sold in London Auctions no 136, lot 1780. This was a new one to me and described as "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" I viewed it at the auction but was not sure enough of it to bid above the £480 that it went for. Any knowledge about this variant out there?

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.

[Sword 1,456]

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of the 1902 crown variant which was sold in London Auctions no 136, lot 1780. This was a new one to me and described as "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" I viewed it at the auction but was not sure enough of it to bid above the £480 that it went for. Any knowledge about this variant out there?

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?

[Sword 1,456]

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of the 1902 crown variant which was sold in London Auctions no 136, lot 1780. This was a new one to me and described as "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" I viewed it at the auction but was not sure enough of it to bid above the £480 that it went for. Any knowledge about this variant out there?

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.

[Gary D 76]

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of the 1902 crown variant which was sold in London Auctions no 136, lot 1780. This was a new one to me and described as "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" I viewed it at the auction but was not sure enough of it to bid above the £480 that it went for. Any knowledge about this variant out there?

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.

[Gary D 76]

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of the 1902 crown variant which was sold in London Auctions no 136, lot 1780. This was a new one to me and described as "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" I viewed it at the auction but was not sure enough of it to bid above the £480 that it went for. Any knowledge about this variant out there?

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!

Having just looked at my matt proof the edge is bright with the lettering matt/frosted.

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.

[Peckris 579]

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of the 1902 crown variant which was sold in London Auctions no 136, lot 1780. This was a new one to me and described as "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" I viewed it at the auction but was not sure enough of it to bid above the £480 that it went for. Any knowledge about this variant out there?

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?

Edited December 2, 2012 by Peckris

[Rob 3,152]

The crown is really quite a large denomination for 100 years ago and few everyday transactions for ordinary folk could have required them. Bread was a few pence a loaf, cigarettes a penny each at best, similarly a penny or two for a pint of beer. The last point also brings into question the double florin. Allegedly dropped on account of the difficulty barmaids had in discriminating between these and crowns, the average person spending a double florin on beer was probably incapable of recognising one either. Crowns probably only had limited circulation as it was just as easy to use two halfcrowns which were far more abundant. A bit like the £50 note today - legal tender, but quite esoteric for everyday transactions when everybody has £10s and £20s.

[Peckris 579]

The crown is really quite a large denomination for 100 years ago and few everyday transactions for ordinary folk could have required them. Bread was a few pence a loaf, cigarettes a penny each at best, similarly a penny or two for a pint of beer. The last point also brings into question the double florin. Allegedly dropped on account of the difficulty barmaids had in discriminating between these and crowns, the average person spending a double florin on beer was probably incapable of recognising one either. Crowns probably only had limited circulation as it was just as easy to use two halfcrowns which were far more abundant. A bit like the £50 note today - legal tender, but quite esoteric for everyday transactions when everybody has £10s and £20s.

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

[Gary D 76]

Has anyone here ever seen or heard of the 1902 crown variant which was sold in London Auctions no 136, lot 1780. This was a new one to me and described as "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" I viewed it at the auction but was not sure enough of it to bid above the £480 that it went for. Any knowledge about this variant out there?

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!

Having just looked at my matt proof the edge is bright with the lettering matt/frosted.

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 must remember to make sure I'm at the bottom of the page when I answer rather than loose it in the middle of the previous quotes.

Having just looked at my matt proof the edge is bright with the lettering matt/frosted.

[Gary D 76]

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?

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.

[Peckris 579]

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?

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.

[Sword 1,456]

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?

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.

Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into:

1) coins intended for circulation

2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event)

3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1)

Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not .

The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins

[Peckris 579]

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?

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.

Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into:

1) coins intended for circulation

2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event)

3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1)

Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not .

The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins

Yes, I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for that, Sword. (I'd disagree with you only about commems being usually for collectors? After all, the Churchill Crown, and every "anniversary of.." 50p and £2 and £5 have been regular circulation currency strikes, but only for a single year.)

Edited - no, not the £5 coins - they ARE mainly for collectors!

Edited December 3, 2012 by Peckris

[Sword 1,456]

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?

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.

Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into:

1) coins intended for circulation

2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event)

3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1)

Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not .

The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins

Yes, I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for that, Sword. (I'd disagree with you only about commems being usually for collectors? After all, the Churchill Crown, and every "anniversary of.." 50p and £2 and £5 have been regular circulation currency strikes, but only for a single year.)

Edited - no, not the £5 coins - they ARE mainly for collectors!

You are absolutely right Peckris. I forgot about the commenorative circulating coins in the decimal era and in our pockets!

[Peckris 579]

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?

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.

Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into:

1) coins intended for circulation

2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event)

3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1)

Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not .

The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins

Yes, I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for that, Sword. (I'd disagree with you only about commems being usually for collectors? After all, the Churchill Crown, and every "anniversary of.." 50p and £2 and £5 have been regular circulation currency strikes, but only for a single year.)

Edited - no, not the £5 coins - they ARE mainly for collectors!

You are absolutely right Peckris. I forgot about the commenorative circulating coins in the decimal era and in our pockets!

LOL. If it wasn't for them, there would be precious few commems!

[ski 1]

You are absolutely right Peckris. I forgot about the commenorative circulating coins in the decimal era and in our pockets!

LOL. If it wasn't for them, there would be precious few commems!

and not so often seen in our pockets , but sold as extremely rare on ebay

[Peckris 579]

You are absolutely right Peckris. I forgot about the commenorative circulating coins in the decimal era and in our pockets!

LOL. If it wasn't for them, there would be precious few commems!

and not so often seen in our pockets , but sold as extremely rare on ebay

[Sword 1,456]

You are absolutely right Peckris. I forgot about the commenorative circulating coins in the decimal era and in our pockets!

LOL. If it wasn't for them, there would be precious few commems!

and not so often seen in our pockets , but sold as extremely rare on ebay

I have got almost no interest in modern commens (and hence have even forgotten about their existence earlier). I used the word "almost" as VIP proofs can be quite interesting but cost more than I would ever be prepared to pay. Why would anyone want to collect "coins" that are usually produced in huge numbers, often uninspiring in design and are always abundantly availabe in untouched condidtion? One of the first things I learnt as a kid was to never buy any Isle of man coins as they commenorated anything and everything.

[ski 1]

i confess....i do have a RM folder of olympic 50p's...

ski

[Peter 615]

Me too

Could not resist.

[Sword 1,456]

That's understandable. The olympics is indeed one of the things worth commenorating!