coinkat

I have looked carefully at the 1951 Crown. And perhaps this is already common knowledge on the other side of the pond, but there is not much written about this. There looks to be two distinct reverses used for the 1951 crown. The first seems to be the more traditional as used in earlier Victorian crowns and a second that has far more sharper and defined details. Specifically, look at the legs of the horse, the dragon wings and the forearm that holds the sword. Instead of rewriting all that I have written, I invite anyone interested to read the commentary on the PCGS world coin forum under Airplanenut's initial post asking whether his 1951 crown is a Proof or the standard PL. There is an outstanding image of his coin, I have attached an image of a different coin that features what I will call the 1899 reverse predicated on what was written in Coincraft. I would be interested to hear thoughts as I see a distinct difference that I suspect has been noticed by others earlier. Perhaps there may not be an interest in the difference? I would be disappointed if that turns out to be the case.

Good evening... Does anyone have an image to share of the 1874-H penny with the I reverse? I have not seen one and I am curious as to how different the light houses as well as the trident shaft from the H reverse. Any help would be appreciated- Many thanks in advance.

Excellent images-Many thanks-very helpful

I would expect much more out of a pattern in terms of quality. Seems the catalog description would be helpful to establish some basic information. I am curious if the weight was provided in the Auction catalog description. I would rather see it in hand before offering any commentary.

So based on the images and the distinguishing features between what I have described as type I and type II- And seriously these distinctions will likely be further delineated should there be collector interest- your first and fifth coins are Type II; the second and fourth are Type I; the third coin is alittle challenging based on the image as the central details are not quite as well defined. Please do not take that as a criticism of the image. I see that one as a type II. What is truly amazing... at least in my view... is that there has not been a further study of the die varieties associated with this coin that has either been done or found its way to the mainstream for collectors to appreciate.

I would expect more from a grading service... regardless as to which side of the pond they so happen to be located. Look at the details LCGS provided and those images I provided in this thread and how that difference was identified in pictures I provided. And in all fairness, they are not my pictures... but at least I found and provided pictures that clearly illustrate reverse variations that should have been recognized decades ago. But that really seems shallow and short sided as this 1951 Crown has been reduced to the who cares category instead of honoring the interest and tradition in issuing a Crown sized coin not to mention a Monarch that deserves attention and appreciation for the situation he inherited and did not seek or ask for. Sad...

Impossible to make a determination from the image posted. Also, there is a noteworthy difference between cleaned and a coin conserved through a dip. Look for hairlines to establish a prior cleaning. It would help if the NGC grade was revealed

I would more concerned about the quality of the surfaces on several of the coins posted here. The first one posted by Sword is the best of the group posted.

The reverse is different... I would suggest substantially different. There was another thread I started under varieties that address the main difference between what I refer to as the type I Reverse which is the type we see on the pattern and the type II Reverse which is the reverse type on the other that was posted on this thread. There are significant differences in the detail of the horse, the dragon wings, the forearm of holding the sword. What I find puzzling is how this difference could go virtually unnoticed for the better part of 69 years. For these interested, the discussion is more developed on the other thread

This example also features a die break that starts at the rim at the second A in BRITANNIAR and that A is filled above the crossbar. The die break extends through the field to the neckline through the bust and ends at the end of the drape from Britannia's arm. While what I have described may not sound that unusual, the D over D is quite striking and there is space within the D and below the D. I suspect there are others and someone here has likely owns one or knows of someone that does. Not sure of the rarity/surviving population

I don't know what I was thinking... George IIII Mrbadexample posted a notsobadexample. Seriously... it is quite nice and clearly better than mine... especially the reverse. I don't see the die break and the second A in BRITANNIAR is not filled.

Thanks for posting an image... your example is very close to what I have. The main difference may be the die break that is featured in my example. Yours does capture the bold separation in the D. My example has a relatively reasonable to above average portrait of William IIII and I think should easily grade in the VF realm. The reverse is just not as well struck and that likely is attributable the the die break.

I don' do twitter... I have not posted a picture of the farthing because I do not have a picture to post. My sincere apologies.

I have located 6 and I know that I have others. What is interesting to note is I have three that came from boxes- one maroon and two green- And those were all type I reverses. The other three are type II reverses. There are differences in the horse's head as both of you have noted. What is even more interesting is even within the type II reverses I have inspected, there is a significant difference in the dragon wings. One has the outer wing webbing missing in part which I suspect is either die polish or die wear. However, the other has a very well defined outer webbing that sets this one apart from the others. It has the look that the die on that well defined example came from either a reworked/reengraved die.

sleepy... my mistake as the third one is a Type I

@sleepy The first is a type I and the second is a type II and the third also looks to be a type II @Rob While I considered die polishing, I tend to doubt that given the variation in the wings between the two issues. If one compares the 1951 type I reverse to an 1899 reverse, one will see a greater commonality in the features of the horse and dragon. And your third possibility as to one being made at the festival and the other at the Royal Mint is spot on and cannot be ruled out until further research is completed... that is if there are any records that still exist that may shed light on this. Thank you all for looking.

This is where more research will be needed. I have not rounded up all of the 1951 crowns I own yet. I have one Type I- (the 1899 reverse) and the others are the modified design which I am calling Type II. The coin I posted here is from the PCGS pop report and graded as a PR66- note it was graded as a proof- and not a PL. I am not sure yet if the differences in the type I or II are a sure determining factor as to distinguishing between a Proof and a PL. My gut says both reverse types were used to strike proofs and the dies saw continued use for PL examples. One of the other interesting questions is whether just one reverse type was used for the Festival crown production and if there are records that track that mintage. My initial gut reaction to all of this is that the Type I reverse was used first and it was replaced by the type II. How long the Type I reverse was in production may never be known. I do hope that those collectors that so happen to own a 1951 crown will look at the reverse to see which type they have.

The one that I just posted would be the Type I reverse... please look at the legs of the horse, the forearm that holds the sword and the difference in the dragon wings and arms. This clearly has the look of the reverse of an 1899 Crown which is what was written in Coincraft. The difference is quite clear and I have seen the difference in hand by actually looking at a coin that has the type I and type II reverse..

I did not include attachments or a link to the other thread. The image you have posted is what I would call the Type II reverse.

When the opportunity presents itself

Do all the known varieties exist in proof?

I currently own three 1799 1/2. Two were bought raw over 20-25 yrs ago and graded MS65 by NGC. I do not recall which variety they are and I do not believe they were attributed by NGC at the time I submitted them. As I remember, they are attractive for the grade or at least they were then. The one that created the question was purchased within the past year. I bought it because of the strike and reflectivity. And while I was not completely convinced it is a proof, it really had what I would call a special look separating it from others I have seen. And I just don't have all the answers for this date and all the varieties. So the time finally has come to ask and collect some thoughts and contemplate whether it is submission worthy. Again... Thanks for sharing you thoughts Rob

Thank you for your reply. I should have more specific. Your answer is addressing the actual variety thar I have questioned... The 5 gunports. The example that I have is sharp with reflective fields and is more of a chocolate brown with some traces of red within protected areas. It is a fairly attractive but falls short of 65 for those that apply the Sheldon scale in grading. It clearly is PL.... The question is whether it is a copper proof. I just have not seen enough of the proofs in hand to really appreciate the difference

BTW, congrats... terrific looking coin

I would leave it as it is. However, If the build up on the reverse around ONE FLORIN is that disturbing to you, consider taking razor blade, shave off the point of a tooth pick to reduce the size of the point and gently go into the letters to remove the black build up without effecting the surfaces. That might be the least intrusive way to improve the coin. Just be very careful... You can use a loupe to help identify the spots and the magnification will help determine if the tooth pick treatment is working and if you made progress in removing what might just be gunk. If you try this, consider posting a picture to illustrate whether the treatment produced an improvement. Good luck with whatever you choose to do.