A blast from the past

[scott 144]

was mint stuff probably, Edward VII silver is rather scarce, especially larger issues.

[Peckris 579]

was mint stuff probably, Edward VII silver is rather scarce, especially larger issues.

Just out of interest, I compared the mintages of Vic OH halfcrowns with Ed VII : near 20m versus 16.5m, so not a massive difference to account for the relative scarcity of Ed VII (Vic OH not nearly so scarce in high grades).

So what other reasons could there be? First, the Vic mintages are more even - not one under 1.5m compared to 3 Ed VII rarities. Also, people would have put aside the 1902s then immediately run into problems for the next three years; the next two dates for 'keeping' would have been 1906 and 1907, both of which were high mintages and exist in high grades more than any others except 1902.

Then, there's the difference in design. The Vic halfcrown is strong and bold with good rims, and would have taken time to wear. By comparison, the Ed VII has a very shallow portrait that wore quickly, and the rims are tiny. Fast forward to the George V and you have a much stronger portrait and better rims. This reason alone is probably why Ed VII are so scarce in the top two grades.

Then, there's the massive inflation of WW1 - this would have seen Vicky and Ed halfcrowns given a lot of circulation, likewise George V though his would have had more limited use as the silver ones were hoarded in and after 1920, and exist in an average of GVF grade.

Any other reasons that Ed VII might be so scarce in high grades?

[TomGoodheart 400]

I wonder if the scarcity of certain denominations in better grades isn't in part down to relative value?

I imagine that by the early part of the last century half a crown was presumably a useful denomination, whereas fifty years previously it would have been the shilling that would have circulated more. Particularly amongst the .. industrial classes .. as Wikipedia calls them, when it says four and a half million one-shilling tickets were issued for the Great Exhibition of 1851.

[Peckris 579]

I wonder if the scarcity of certain denominations in better grades isn't in part down to relative value?

I imagine that by the early part of the last century half a crown was presumably a useful denomination, whereas fifty years previously it would have been the shilling that would have circulated more. Particularly amongst the .. industrial classes .. as Wikipedia calls them, when it says four and a half million one-shilling tickets were issued for the Great Exhibition of 1851.

That's an interesting theory. The possible problem with it is there wasn't a great inflation between 1893 and 1910, compared to 1914 - 1919? And if all those halfcrowns were pressed into service during WW1, why do the Vic Jubilee and OH issues survive much better than Ed VII? My own belief is that the design plays a major part.

[1949threepence 3,367]

I wonder if the scarcity of certain denominations in better grades isn't in part down to relative value?

I imagine that by the early part of the last century half a crown was presumably a useful denomination, whereas fifty years previously it would have been the shilling that would have circulated more. Particularly amongst the .. industrial classes .. as Wikipedia calls them, when it says four and a half million one-shilling tickets were issued for the Great Exhibition of 1851.

I think that might have a lot to do with it, in the sense that the halfcrown would have seen increased circulation compared to previously, but the shilling's circulation would also probably have increased still further. Hence the extreme difficulty in locating a high grade specimen for the year of lowest mintage, 1905.

Nonetheless, there are still some strange anomalies within the mintage/circulation/rarity/rarity at high grade equation, which cannot be plausibly explained away. That applies to many denomonations.

Edited December 1, 2012 by 1949threepence

[TomGoodheart 400]

Perhaps a Bunker Hunt bought bags of the things and melted them down? Or maybe there's £50,000 of 1905 shillings still sitting in a bank vault somewhere ... next to the remaining £10,000 Dorien Magens issue.

[Peckris 579]

Perhaps a Bunker Hunt bought bags of the things and melted them down? Or maybe there's £50,000 of 1905 shillings still sitting in a bank vault somewhere ... next to the remaining £10,000 Dorien Magens issue.

and a Mint-sealed bag of 1933 pennies

[1949threepence 3,367]

Perhaps a Bunker Hunt bought bags of the things and melted them down? Or maybe there's £50,000 of 1905 shillings still sitting in a bank vault somewhere ... next to the remaining £10,000 Dorien Magens issue.

and a Mint-sealed bag of 1933 pennies

Or 1954

[Peckris 579]

Perhaps a Bunker Hunt bought bags of the things and melted them down? Or maybe there's £50,000 of 1905 shillings still sitting in a bank vault somewhere ... next to the remaining £10,000 Dorien Magens issue.

and a Mint-sealed bag of 1933 pennies

Or 1954

Or 1952, or 1953 toothed

Aren't these fantasies wonderful?

[1949threepence 3,367]

Its interesting thinking about holes in coins. I wonder if it would've devalued / made them invalid at the time. Would for instance a holed two pound coin today be accepted, would the bank still honor its face value and exchange it for another as they do ripped notes? Perhaps we ought to experiment!

Section 12 of the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928 states the following:-

If any person prints or stamps, or by any like means impresses, on any bank note any words, letters or figures, he shall, in respect of each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one pound

I cannot find any legislation relating to the defacement of coins.

[Peckris 579]

Its interesting thinking about holes in coins. I wonder if it would've devalued / made them invalid at the time. Would for instance a holed two pound coin today be accepted, would the bank still honor its face value and exchange it for another as they do ripped notes? Perhaps we ought to experiment!

Section 12 of the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928 states the following:-

If any person prints or stamps, or by any like means impresses, on any bank note any words, letters or figures, he shall, in respect of each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one pound

I cannot find any legislation relating to the defacement of coins.

Ask ski - he can quote chapter and verse on it

[Sword 1,458]

Its interesting thinking about holes in coins. I wonder if it would've devalued / made them invalid at the time. Would for instance a holed two pound coin today be accepted, would the bank still honor its face value and exchange it for another as they do ripped notes? Perhaps we ought to experiment!

Section 12 of the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928 states the following:-

If any person prints or stamps, or by any like means impresses, on any bank note any words, letters or figures, he shall, in respect of each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one pound

I cannot find any legislation relating to the defacement of coins.

Defacement of coins used to be an offence. In the old days people have received the death penalty for clipping silver coins (e.g. Thomas Rogers). The 1936 coinage Offenses act prohibited the defacement of "current" coins. However, the defacement of any coin has been legal since 1981 when a new act came into force (Forgery and Counterfeiting Act). Hence you see notices next to machines which allow you to press pennies into souvenirs saying that the practice is legal.

[Debbie 58]

That's interesting Sword.

So legally you could pay for something with a "deformed" coin then? Not that the seller is likely to accept it mind

[Sword 1,458]

That's interesting Sword.

So legally you could pay for something with a "deformed" coin then? Not that the seller is likely to accept it mind

I am only saying that it is not a crime to deface a coin (e.g. by pressing it into a token). However, it (most likely) won't be legal tender afterwards!

[1949threepence 3,367]

Its interesting thinking about holes in coins. I wonder if it would've devalued / made them invalid at the time. Would for instance a holed two pound coin today be accepted, would the bank still honor its face value and exchange it for another as they do ripped notes? Perhaps we ought to experiment!

Section 12 of the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928 states the following:-

If any person prints or stamps, or by any like means impresses, on any bank note any words, letters or figures, he shall, in respect of each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one pound

I cannot find any legislation relating to the defacement of coins.

Ask ski - he can quote chapter and verse on it

Glad somebody can. Took me ages just to find the bit relating to banknotes

That's always going to be a problem if you don't know quite what to look for, and Google wasn't much help (to me at any rate) on this occasion. Still now that we've got the relevant information, we will never be floored by that pub quiz question, or innocent enquiry, again. It does crop up from time to time, and no-one ever seems to really know. Well now definitive information is to hand on both banknotes and coins

Incidentally the fine for defacing banknotes was increased to £25 in 1977 (Criminal Law Act, s.31) and to £200 in 1982 (Criminal Justice Act, s.46).". Obviously that doesn't apply to bank clerks who regularly write figures on banknotes