Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook


The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.


Unidentified Variety
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by coinkat

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. sleepy... my mistake as the third one is a Type I
  8. @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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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..
  11. 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.
  12. When the opportunity presents itself
  13. Do all the known varieties exist in proof?
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. BTW, congrats... terrific looking coin
  17. 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.
  18. Just curious about the mintage and surviving population for this coin... I have not been able to locate separate mintage figures for the Laureate Head 6d. So my question is more about the surviving population, interest, rarity and valuation for this coin. Please share your thoughts
  19. AU is not without controversy - I see your point.
  20. https:///coinimages/2026/04100933/05728398_large.1698.jpg?v=1549156610276
  21. https:///TrueView/28436102_800x600.jpg And this is my 1701-
  22. I just posted my 1689 half crown- it is a 53 graded by PCGS
  23. I consider the 1698 to be the most available date of the series. Your example looks well struck. My concern is over the quality of the fields and that could be just in the image and not the coin. I would not be in the MS camp- the thread captures the problems of trying to grade from an image