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

   Rotographic    

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.

Sign in to follow this  
Lee_GVI

Recently acquired 1937 Crown.

Recommended Posts

Sensible debate is fine and tend to agree with Peck that 20C Crowns were not intended for circulation.

Time to draw a line under this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Peter said:

Sensible debate is fine and tend to agree with Peck that 20C Crowns were not intended for circulation.

Time to draw a line under this ?

It's really up to Chris and Eric to discuss further if they wish. Not anybody else's call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, thanks. Well, perhaps I do get a bit technical but will stand on my point. It changes not one whit by what ended up happening with coins that were struck as currency, and were NOT of specimen or proof status, not having been prepped or struck to that standard. They were intended as being struck for circulation and were struck and handled to that standard. To diverge slightly, then such a coin as the CURRENCY 1952 half crown is exactly that - it was prepared and struck as a circulating coin even if it really never did, except for possibly a couple of exchanges of the only specimen known. But back to the crowns: I have no doubt that most of the coins struck as currency type and NOT designated as commemoratives (but struck for the reasons already cited) were saved as momentos and so may have psychologically been kept as commemoratives of the event.

So, to rephrase my carefully constructed discussion:  the coins I cited WERE struck for circulation and were "currency" pieces. Whether or not they were actually spent or circulated is another point, and I NEVER suggested that they widely circulated. I do recall a Churchill commem or two being spent, and even in the case of the Wreath crowns with rather limited mintages we see any number of extant specimens that have wear that is not consistent with "pocket pieces" (although I have seen some of those as well). 

To repeat also, the coins cited were not commemoratives by strict definition and so please reread what I have said.

 

So certainly not a huge issue, but in my opinion we might as well be correct in what we say or how we refer to these coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing this discussion highlights is that the predecimal crowns are more tasteful than the modern offerings. They at least don't need legends telling people "why" the coins were minted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sword said:

One thing this discussion highlights is that the predecimal crowns are more tasteful than the modern offerings. They at least don't need legends telling people "why" the coins were minted.

The one pictured in your profile is the best of the lot IMO. The Rocking Horse Crown isn't bad either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Looked this up, as I thought the same as you Chris. I've certainly never seen one in circulation (as a 25p piece, as it were). Also called my parents who confirmed they never had - period. Halfcrowns, yes, abundantly, but not crowns.

In any case, surely if they'd been intended for circulation, more would have been minted, and in many more years than was actually the case.   

Although whilst looking this up, it did surprise me that banks are no longer accepting them at face value - link to story

That's outrageous. Even though I say they were NOT for circulation, they are legal tender, so it's possibly unlawful for banks and the RM not to change them for other currency.

6 hours ago, VickySilver said:

Ah, thanks. Well, perhaps I do get a bit technical but will stand on my point. It changes not one whit by what ended up happening with coins that were struck as currency, and were NOT of specimen or proof status, not having been prepped or struck to that standard. They were intended as being struck for circulation and were struck and handled to that standard. To diverge slightly, then such a coin as the CURRENCY 1952 half crown is exactly that - it was prepared and struck as a circulating coin even if it really never did, except for possibly a couple of exchanges of the only specimen known. But back to the crowns: I have no doubt that most of the coins struck as currency type and NOT designated as commemoratives (but struck for the reasons already cited) were saved as momentos and so may have psychologically been kept as commemoratives of the event.

So, to rephrase my carefully constructed discussion:  the coins I cited WERE struck for circulation and were "currency" pieces. Whether or not they were actually spent or circulated is another point, and I NEVER suggested that they widely circulated. I do recall a Churchill commem or two being spent, and even in the case of the Wreath crowns with rather limited mintages we see any number of extant specimens that have wear that is not consistent with "pocket pieces" (although I have seen some of those as well). 

To repeat also, the coins cited were not commemoratives by strict definition and so please reread what I have said.

 

So certainly not a huge issue, but in my opinion we might as well be correct in what we say or how we refer to these coins.

I think we may be using the words 'circulation' and 'currency' in different ways? It seems possible to me that you mean a coin that's neither a proof, specimen, or pattern would come under those headings? Whereas I mean that a coin that was not struck / issued to be spent by Joe Public in shops or other transactions (i.e. not part of the money supply), is neither 'for circulation' or 'currency'. By my usage, Wreath crowns (for example) were not under any circumstances struck for circulation or the mintages would have been significant, and we have it on record (somewhere) both that the Treasury abandoned crowns as an everyday denomination in the early century, and that wreath crowns were only issued in very small quantities to collectors and their ilk.

The 1952 halfcorwn is a very interesting case. It is EITHER a pattern (only one ever having been struck) OR is the sole survivor from the beginning of a currency strike of 1952 halfcrowns, the rest of which were melted down when the King died. In which case - and given that the unique specimen DID circulate - it could be regarded as a circulation coin. It's certainly true that if the King hadn't died, 1952 halfcrowns would have been issued. In any case, it's not a crown!!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'strict definition'? I'd still claim that a 'first year of reign' is a commemoration. What else would you call it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that is true. I doubt that the RM ever was of the opinion that Wreath crowns would circulate, as an example since as has been pointed out, there really was no demand for them as commercial articles. However, they were struck to a circulating (or "currency") standard and this is quite clear. They were not struck as proofs or specimens as you say.

However, striking a coin at accession does not at all necessarily mean that it is technically a commemorative in the usual or certainly in the modern festooned sense at all, but rather as I had written earlier struck as a physical demonstration the right of coinage and declaration of the sovereign status of the issuer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 1952 halfcrown is identical to prior years in all but the date, then I can't see how it be considered a pattern. It would have to sit alongside other rarities such as the 1945 threepence, virtually all of which were melted down.

I would hazard a guess and say that yearly dies were cut in advance for all denominations in all bar a few instances in anticipation of future requirements. 1952 would be a year where halfcrowns were expected to be struck, as doubtless there was still a high number of 500 silver coins theoretically in circulation, even if many were hoarded.

The unexpected event of the year was George VI dying

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

That's outrageous. Even though I say they were NOT for circulation, they are legal tender, so it's possibly unlawful for banks and the RM not to change them for other currency.

<snipped>

Take a look at this letter issued to a bank by the Royal Mint in January 2016. It seems you can exchange them at the Royal Mint in their original packaging and with proof of purchase - so if it's an old Crown, you're most likely going to be completely snookered. I'm surprised the Royal Mint hold the kind of executive power to be able to issue such decrees, without referral to parliament. On this occasion it seems to compromise the test of reasonableness.

 

    

Royal mint article.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that circulated 1927 florins and halfcrowns  turn up on Ebay it is not beyond the possibility that crowns went the same way. After all they were legal tender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there was some circulation of Wreath crowns. Hard to believe that all the VFish examples were pocket pieces. In the end the idea was to give them as Christmas gifts, and they had a fair bit of spending power. Same with the 1935 Rocking Horse crowns, which turn up pretty low grade occasionally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JLS said:

I think there was some circulation of Wreath crowns. Hard to believe that all the VFish examples were pocket pieces. In the end the idea was to give them as Christmas gifts, and they had a fair bit of spending power.

Indeed - have a look at this wreath of mine which would grade only fair. That suggests actually an awful lot of circulation? Maybe right through the 30's and even into WW2 era?

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Martinminerva said:

Indeed - have a look at this wreath of mine which would grade only fair. That suggests actually an awful lot of circulation? Maybe right through the 30's and even into WW2 era?

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Interesting ! I've never seen one quite that worn. Suspect it probably did circulate throughout the 30s although the 0.500 silver always seemed to have worn quite badly. 

It's possible that in some areas of the country these crowns were readily accepted as currency because there was a fair bit of 0.925 silver going around, including Victorian crowns. It's hard to believe that the really basal state old head crowns got that much wear in before 1920.

I imagine the sterling disappeared from circulation faster some places than others. Reminded of the story of English and Italian travelers in rural 1830s Spain - they received 16th century and even the odd Islamic or Roman copper coin instead of contemporary 1 maravedi pieces in change; there was a tacit assumption that any old copper coin was roughly worth a maravedi !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1 June 2019 at 1:24 PM, JLS said:

I think there was some circulation of Wreath crowns. Hard to believe that all the VFish examples were pocket pieces. In the end the idea was to give them as Christmas gifts, and they had a fair bit of spending power. Same with the 1935 Rocking Horse crowns, which turn up pretty low grade occasionally. 

"Circulation" includes being kept in the compartment of a purse, wallet, or even clothing. If owned by a non-regular collector it could have worn by frequent taking out, showing off, or even rubbing. The gradual wear might have taken a long time to be noticed by such a neophyte. It's telling that such worn specimens are pretty rare, so their being accepted by traders rather comes into question, especially if only a few score "circulated" in the normal way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×