What was the first British proof?

[Hussulo 6]

Just out of interest what was the first British proof to be produced?

[Rob 2,998]

Just out of interest what was the first British proof to be produced?

Just a guess, but probably the fine work pieces of James 1st should be considered proofs as some of these and the subsequent Charles 1st fine work pieces have highly reflective fields and are struck on as round a flan as could be expected from hammered issues. Similarly for the patterns of this era which are struck on obviously specially prepared flans. It is possible that there were a few made to similar standards in Elizabeth 1st 's reign too. In terms of milled, the 1662 crown (ESC 16) is a good contender.

[Hussulo 6]

Just out of interest what was the first British proof to be produced?

Just a guess, but probably the fine work pieces of James 1st should be considered proofs as some of these and the subsequent Charles 1st fine work pieces have highly reflective fields and are struck on as round a flan as could be expected from hammered issues. Similarly for the patterns of this era which are struck on obviously specially prepared flans. It is possible that there were a few made to similar standards in Elizabeth 1st 's reign too. In terms of milled, the 1662 crown (ESC 16) is a good contender.

Thats great thanks for the info Rob.

You wouldn't happen to know when the first mirrored field/ polished die proofs where produced would you?

[Sergy 0]

Just out of interest what was the first British proof to be produced?

Just a guess, but probably the fine work pieces of James 1st should be considered proofs as some of these and the subsequent Charles 1st fine work pieces have highly reflective fields and are struck on as round a flan as could be expected from hammered issues. Similarly for the patterns of this era which are struck on obviously specially prepared flans. It is possible that there were a few made to similar standards in Elizabeth 1st 's reign too. In terms of milled, the 1662 crown (ESC 16) is a good contender.

The 1662 Crown. Is it double strike or it's just the special dies?

[TomGoodheart 373]

I think it depends on your definition of 'Proof'. My copy of Dowle & Finn's 'Coins for pleasure and investment' suggests it is a coin especially struck for presentation purposes. By this definition, the 'Fine Work' pieces Rob mentions, or Thomas Simon's 'Petition' Crown would count as 'Proofs' although clearly these do not have the mirrored surfaces we now recognise.

I think the first actual listing of a proof in Spink's Coins of England in my copy is the 1664 Crown (S3355).

[Farthing 0]

Hi

NGC graded this coin PROOF-64. I with it agree. But split of a stamp on Cromwell's neck raises the doubts.

[Rob 2,998]

Hi

NGC graded this coin PROOF-64. I with it agree. But split of a stamp on Cromwell's neck raises the doubts.

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage.

I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Rob

[Hussulo 6]

Hi

NGC graded this coin PROOF-64. I with it agree. But split of a stamp on Cromwell's neck raises the doubts.

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage.

I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong.

It seems NGC have graded some Cromwell half crowns as business strike ie MS**. Link to NGC census

Rob I'm sure I have read somewhere that there is on going debate into whether or not the Cromwell coins are patterns or just rare. I remember reading that a contemporary account of the day said that there where quite a few Cromwell coins circulating but that they were quite worn. Is it possible that these coins were at some point melted to be used in other monarch's reigns, thus making the remaining Cromwell pieces rare?

Edited to add:

Having never had the chance or privilege to examine one in hand, I cannot pass judgment. In your experience does the strike and legend etc. make the balance sway for these coins being patterns?

Edited September 22, 2007 by Hussulo

[Rob 2,998]

Hi

NGC graded this coin PROOF-64. I with it agree. But split of a stamp on Cromwell's neck raises the doubts.

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage.

I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong.

It seems NGC have graded some Cromwell half crowns as business strike ie MS**. Link to NGC census

Rob I'm sure I have read somewhere that there is on going debate into whether or not the Cromwell coins are patterns or just rare. I remember reading that a contemporary account of the day said that there where quite a few Cromwell coins circulating but that they were quite worn. Is it possible that these coins were at some point melted to be used in other monarch's reigns, thus making the remaining Cromwell pieces rare?

Edited to add:

Having never had the chance or privilege to examine one in hand, I cannot pass judgment. In your experience does the strike and legend etc. make the balance sway for these coins being patterns?

They were never proclaimed legal tender by Parliament as Cromwell died before production got into full swing, so technically must be considered patterns. I'm sure some limited numbers will have circulated unofficially because you come across pieces that are really worn from time to time and there is nothing to suggest that people had any more scruples then than now. The short time between production and the accession of Charles II would mean only limited opportunity to circulate these and certainly would have been frowned on post-1660.

Most Cromwell pieces are not particularly rare.

[Hussulo 6]

Hi

NGC graded this coin PROOF-64. I with it agree. But split of a stamp on Cromwell's neck raises the doubts.

All 1658/7 Cromwell crowns show this flaw at some stage of development so this shouldn't be a worry. The flaw on this coin is at a relatively early stage. If you look in Spink 2007 it shows the flaw in a later stage.

I'd worry about the MS64 grade though. It looks as if there is obverse wear at the eyebrow, to the hair in front of the ear and lower down. The laurel leaf edges look a bit devoid of toning as well which would indicate light wear. The reverse has light wear to the lion and at the top right of the shield. There is also a possible rim mark at B& in the obverse legend. I'd give it good EF at best (which in US grading company parlance means MS62-64 bearing in mind that MS60 is typically no better than EF). In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong.

It seems NGC have graded some Cromwell half crowns as business strike ie MS**. Link to NGC census

Rob I'm sure I have read somewhere that there is on going debate into whether or not the Cromwell coins are patterns or just rare. I remember reading that a contemporary account of the day said that there where quite a few Cromwell coins circulating but that they were quite worn. Is it possible that these coins were at some point melted to be used in other monarch's reigns, thus making the remaining Cromwell pieces rare?

Edited to add:

Having never had the chance or privilege to examine one in hand, I cannot pass judgment. In your experience does the strike and legend etc. make the balance sway for these coins being patterns?

They were never proclaimed legal tender by Parliament as Cromwell died before production got into full swing, so technically must be considered patterns. I'm sure some limited numbers will have circulated unofficially because you come across pieces that are really worn from time to time and there is nothing to suggest that people had any more scruples then than now. The short time between production and the accession of Charles II would mean only limited opportunity to circulate these and certainly would have been frowned on post-1660.

Most Cromwell pieces are not particularly rare.

Thanks for clarifying that for me Rob. Indeed you make a valid point "the accession of Charles II would mean only limited opportunity to circulate these and certainly would have been frowned on post-1660". As far as I can gather the public were behind Charles II and 59 signed the Death Warrant to execute his farther Charles I. Oliver Cromwell was the third.

[Farthing 0]

In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong.

This means crown there is the first British Proof.

[Rob 2,998]

In NGC's favour, at least they gave it the PF prefix applicable to patterns and proofs which is technically correct as they were never circulated and so remain patterns. Sometimes these Cromwell patterns are given MS prefixes which is wrong.

This means crown there is the first British Proof.

What I am saying is that in the interests of consistency the slabbing companies should stick to one thing or the other and not mix and match as per their daily whim. They use a Proof prefix for both patterns and proofs. This I don't have a problem with as both are usually struck to much higher standards than currency examples and so acts as a means of differentiation. However, I have yet to see PF applied to anything below 60 grade irrrespective of condition. If a proof is impaired it simply has to have a lower number -eg PF15 if necessary. They seem to have a mental block about calling a proof or pattern anything other than mint state grade however. They also don't appear to have the knowledge of what is a proof or pattern. If a coin has never been approved by parliament for circulation it is not a currency piece and remains a pattern. Therefore, given they were never passed by act of Parliament to be legally circulated, the Cromwell pieces should always be given a PF grade in recognition that they are patterns.

I just wish the slabbing companies would employ people who know how to i)identify correctly and ii) have sufficient knowledge to grade British coins accurately. To be virtually assured of getting a genuinely unc piece it is necessary to start at MS65 and even then it's not guaranteed - but hey - all those happy punters getting a statistically better collection are pleased, even if half their coins have been cleaned/dipped/artificially toned etc and a significant percentage aren't even what they think they are.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Rob