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  
Weaver

1679 Crown - Is this 3rd or 4th bust?

Recommended Posts

Hello my friends,

So, I have been on a journey of numismatic endeavour to try and finally find my niche, and it's early milled Charles II silver, specifically Crowns and Halfcrowns.

Anyway, I need your help please...

Is the attached an example of a 3rd or 4th bust of King Charles II ??

And can any of you clever people point me towards a simple guide to distinguishing between them.

Your help would be much appreciated.

All the best,

Weaver

King Charles II silver crown 1679 VF.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi Weaver,

Third bust.

One thing: on downloading your photo I noticed part of the jpeg title says 1679 VF. This coin isn't VF.

 

Crown-01.jpg

Edited by Michael-Roo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Michael-Roo said:

Hi Weaver,

Third bust.

One thing: on downloading your photo I noticed part of the jpeg title says 1679 VF. This coin isn't VF.

 

Crown-01.jpg

Thank you Michael-Roo

What grade would you give it?

All the best,

Weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're very welcome Weaver. I'd grade Fine. Maybe one or two other members here may like to offer their assessment?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Michael-Roo,

I'm still learning to grade accurately, and in the case of this Crown, I was thinking About VF, but I appreciate your assessment.

Many thanks!

Weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good choice of series! Charles II is a fascinating period in history. Type III has short hair ties and Type IV has longer ties. 

Type IV:

773655636_img-Copy.jpg.c6384bd3105a4bfce27639776ddc4bfa.jpg

 

This is explained in the ESC (English silver coinage since 1649)

512800395_1-Copy-Copy.jpg.f41d898c7dc14ccb7ee880b514484b74.jpg

Yours is a good looking example too.

I would grade it as a bold fine (but I am not experienced with this series)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Good choice of series! Charles II is a fascinating period in history. Type III has short hair ties and Type IV has longer ties. 

Type IV:

773655636_img-Copy.jpg.c6384bd3105a4bfce27639776ddc4bfa.jpg

 

This is explained in the ESC (English silver coinage since 1649)

512800395_1-Copy-Copy.jpg.f41d898c7dc14ccb7ee880b514484b74.jpg

Yours is a good looking example too.

I would grade it as a bold fine (but I am not experienced with this series)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many thanks Sword !

I have always been fascinated with this turbulent period in British history, so finding my niche has come quite naturally.

Thank you for the guide.

JLS on here suggested I buy a copy of Bull's book which I have duly done and await it's arrival.

Guess I should wait for book to arrive, but are there many varieties in this series?

All the best,

Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to totally verify Sword, are you agreeing with Michael that my crown is 3rd bust?

Cheers,

Weaver (Wayne)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are many varieties in the series. You will enjoy seeing them once you have received your copy of ESC. I also agree it is the 3rd bust.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Weaver said:

Thank you Michael-Roo,

I'm still learning to grade accurately, and in the case of this Crown, I was thinking About VF, but I appreciate your assessment.

Many thanks!

Weaver

Different monarch but still early milled - this is VF:

1149214229_1696crownobv.jpg.3165b1fd63219f4206573e3542287690.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice coin Chris. Is it yours?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For comparison here are two 1679 3rd bust crowns sold by LCA.

The first they graded Fine, the second Very Fine.

 

img.jpg

img-1.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Different monarch but still early milled - this is VF:

1149214229_1696crownobv.jpg.3165b1fd63219f4206573e3542287690.jpg

Thank you for the lesson Chris! 😊

All the best,

Wayne

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I graded the subject coin about VF too - Wayne bought it via me, although it was being sold by someone else - who graded it as VF ! The reverse is sharper than the obverse to be fair, maybe the portrait is only a Fine+ or a "bold Fine". Of course, under the old strict British grading, this coin is only Fine - and if you went back far enough, it would be Fair to Fine, or just Fair to the Victorians. 

But modern grade-to-market is a lot more generous. Here is a coin DNW graded aVF a couple of years back.  It seems similar or worse to Wayne's coin. 

Also worth noting the obverse die on Wayne's coin is very worn - look at the die break from the portrait to the rim, the extensive signs of die-clashing. Even if the coin was FDC you wouldn't get full portrait detail with these sorts of die states. Having seen the coin in hand, it looks better from the surfaces etc. than it does for surviving detail. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2022 at 10:27 PM, Sword said:

Nice coin Chris. Is it yours?

Yes - it was in a Warwick lot along with a Charles II and an Anne crown (both F or F+).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, JLS said:

But modern grade-to-market is a lot more generous. Here is a coin DNW graded aVF a couple of years back.  It seems similar or worse to Wayne's coin.

I think that was just sloppiness on DNW's part - note that it sold for much less than estimate.

Also, I think the grades listed in the Spink Standard Catalogue are 'old school', especially when you compare the values listed with average sale prices or with other price guides.

Edited by Peckris 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

I think that was just sloppiness on DNW's part - note that it sold for much less than estimate.

Also, I think the grades listed in the Spink Standard Catalogue are 'old school', especially when you compare the values listed with average sale prices or with other price guides.

I don't know, have a look through their lot archives of 1679 crowns. They sell a lot, and the grading is punchy. As is that of a lot of dealers online ! 

Agreed re. Spink prices. Generally I am happy to buy coins of popular series before Anne @ Spink cat. if they really are in the "old school" grade. In particular, £150-200 is not much for a Charles II crown or half-crown with bold, clear legends and the basic portrait details. You would be able to make a healthy profit just by consigning to auction in bulk. Try buying these coins in today's market...even at twice that price level you get few of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JLS said:

I don't know, have a look through their lot archives of 1679 crowns. They sell a lot, and the grading is punchy. As is that of a lot of dealers online ! 

Agreed re. Spink prices. Generally I am happy to buy coins of popular series before Anne @ Spink cat. if they really are in the "old school" grade. In particular, £150-200 is not much for a Charles II crown or half-crown with bold, clear legends and the basic portrait details. You would be able to make a healthy profit just by consigning to auction in bulk. Try buying these coins in today's market...even at twice that price level you get few of them. 

This one is at least (genuine) VF:

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?lot_uid=366284

and it sold for £400, which seems right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

This one is at least (genuine) VF:

https://www.dnw.co.uk/auction-archive/lot-archive/lot.php?lot_uid=366284

and it sold for £400, which seems right!

VF for portrait details, fair enough - but look at the reverse ! I also don't like the bright metal (dipped?) or the way there are so many little scratches at the bottom of the reverse. Hard to say even from the blow-up photos but I think it might have been tooled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the reverse is much less appealing. The weak striking (esp the date, top shield and centre) has really reduced the eye appeal for me, and has no doubt affected the hammered price. (The technical grade of the reverse is still rather high as reflected by details such as the interlocking Cs). Having said that, the obverse always has significantly more weight than the reverse for early millled coins.

I do like the coin in the OP. Well balanced coins without weak patches appeal to me. At the end of the day, the grade assigned by a dealer or auction house is not the main issue. It is whether the coin has good eye appeal to the individual and is at the right price. This is rephrasing Rob's opinion that there are often only two grades: acceptable and non acceptable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest, here is the reverse of my Crown.118267538_1679KingCharlesIIsilvercrownAboutVF(2).jpg.ba7a8e9b8d1a9bace9b76f86f0e263b5.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reverse is much better - definitely not far off VF

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sword said:

I agree that the reverse is much less appealing. The weak striking (esp the date, top shield and centre) has really reduced the eye appeal for me, and has no doubt affected the hammered price. (The technical grade of the reverse is still rather high as reflected by details such as the interlocking Cs). Having said that, the obverse always has significantly more weight than the reverse for early millled coins.

I do like the coin in the OP. Well balanced coins without weak patches appeal to me. At the end of the day, the grade assigned by a dealer or auction house is not the main issue. It is whether the coin has good eye appeal to the individual and is at the right price. This is rephrasing Rob's opinion that there are often only two grades: acceptable and non acceptable. 

I agree, and what JLS has taught me is the value of a problem-free coin over a higher grade with issues piece.

I would be prepared to pay a little more than book price for a lower grade yet problem-free coin with eye candy appeal, and I'm hoping that my future customers would feel the same way.

All the best,

Weaver (Wayne)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Weaver said:

I agree, and what JLS has taught me is the value of a problem-free coin over a higher grade with issues piece.

I would be prepared to pay a little more than book price for a lower grade yet problem-free coin with eye candy appeal, and I'm hoping that my future customers would feel the same way.

Agreed. It's only the grade assigned to the obverse I have issues with. But it is problem-free and if you like it that's the main thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coins of this era are seldom found better tha Good fine - its a challenge putting a nice collection together

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  

×