A £600 Churchill Crown

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

Well, other than ever so slightly less finger grease, it looks identical, although struggling to get a shot which shows just how different it is to the others.

 

[craigy 362]

13 hours ago, VickySilver said:

Wow, I like that one. Not a satin IMO, but much above average. You may want to try a dip first in pure acetone and then in 50% ammonia with liberal rinse afterward and tamp dry. Hell, I'd buy that one if you want to sell but more in the 40 quid range. 

left or right one ?

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

left = circulated, midlle is a tidy example, and right is the oddity.

[craigy 362]

1 hour ago, Unwilling Numismatist said:

left = circulated, midlle is a tidy example, and right is the oddity.

is that not a specimen finish ? 

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

No idea caigy, these aren't even close to my faves (George III, IV and viccy silver) so I'm truly out of my depth.

[craigy 362]

3 minutes ago, Unwilling Numismatist said:

No idea caigy, these aren't even close to my faves (George III, IV and viccy silver) so I'm truly out of my depth.

lots of mystery surrounds these cupro nickle issues, proof, vip, specimen, satin etc 

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

Aye, I'm hoping for some form of direction on why it looks quite so different ( and also so nice, considering this has to be the number 1 fugly coin going!)

[1949threepence 3,366]

Slightly off topic I know, but talking about Churchill and the new five pound note, I reckon a better quote than "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat", would be "we shall never surrender".

More inspiring? 

 

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Slightly off topic I know, but talking about Churchill and the new five pound note, I reckon a better quote than "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat", would be "we shall never surrender".

More inspiring? 

 

Perhaps they'll save that for the polymer £50

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

Well, go me.

Just looked through about 200000000000 ebay churchill coins and the one I'm thinking is odd is actually the norm, and the one I refer to as "tidy" is the odd one.

So I guess it's time I got new glasses.

 

I'll get my coat.

[Guest Karen]

Sorry to butt into this conversation.

ive never laughed so much reading your dialogue. I came across this just from researching a coin my father gave me, yes your right, it just happened to be the one worth a pound.

Mind it's worth its weight in gold to me as it has levelled the patio table.

Take care

 

 

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

Given that there are som many available, table levelling is an extraordinarily good use for them!

[Sword 1,330]

Warwick and Warwick has this example for sale in their next auction. Described as "satin finish VIP Specimen, about uncirculated, some scratches to field on obverse." with an estimate of £1800.

Really a VIP satin? It sure looks very ugly! 

[Paddy 1,542]

Good grief! If that is a satin finish, I am a milionaire! I have a box full of them somewhere.

 

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

it very well could be, they're extremely hard to photograph in a manner that can show the difference between a normal and a satin finish.

@VickySilver was most kind in sending me some images of satin ones, but he agreed too that the images didn't do the finish any justice.

I have a couple more of these coming (10million to 1 against) that they aren't satin, but I only bought them to try to get a good overview of the range of finishes these things can display, to try to create a good reference point of what isn't a satin finish. Obviously I'd love to stumble across one for a quid, but as yet I ain't that lucky

I should be able to get a decent set of "not" images up next week.

 

[VickySilver 775]

Excellent! I was that way for a while with the Rocking Horse & have I think 11 or so of those. I actually LIKE the Churchill crown in excellent preservation such as this specimen. Don't shoot me please.

[Sleepy 107]

Whilst we are on the subject Davies mentions that there are 2 different reverses the CH's are thinner, don't suppose anyone can put a photo of the 2 examples up to compare?

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

I've not consciously clocked any so far in my viewings, but I suspect there are at least 2 - I think the rotation of Churchills' bust is very slightly rotated on one, but need to accurately photograph  them to check for sure as its only a degree or so. More to follow if I'm not bonkers, but basically where he appears to be looking is into the Left leg of the R rather than directly up the back or the R in Churchill.

[Sword 1,330]

2 hours ago, VickySilver said:

Excellent! I was that way for a while with the Rocking Horse & have I think 11 or so of those. I actually LIKE the Churchill crown in excellent preservation such as this specimen. Don't shoot me please.

You are kidding about this specimen being in excellent preservation right? If I have to buy a satin Churchill, I won't buy one with so many marks even if it is cheap. 

[Nick 325]

2 hours ago, Sleepy said:

Whilst we are on the subject Davies mentions that there are 2 different reverses the CH's are thinner, don't suppose anyone can put a photo of the 2 examples up to compare?

I've never seen any real differences in the CH.  The only difference I have seen is the R.  One type has a thicker upright and a wider internal loop, the other being the opposite.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

5 hours ago, Unwilling Numismatist said:

it very well could be, they're extremely hard to photograph in a manner that can show the difference between a normal and a satin finish.

@VickySilver was most kind in sending me some images of satin ones, but he agreed too that the images didn't do the finish any justice.

I have a couple more of these coming (10million to 1 against) that they aren't satin, but I only bought them to try to get a good overview of the range of finishes these things can display, to try to create a good reference point of what isn't a satin finish. Obviously I'd love to stumble across one for a quid, but as yet I ain't that lucky

I should be able to get a decent set of "not" images up next week.

 

You can only keep looking Kev cgs have graded four in there opinion satin finish so maybe one day you will get lucky 

[Rob 3,000]

The difference alluded to in Davies goes hand in hand with two types of teeth. One set is notably further from the raised rim, whilst the other is more akin to a series of small pyramids. I'm sure there will be other differences.

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

1 minute ago, Rob said:

The difference alluded to in Davies goes hand in hand with two types of teeth. One set is notably further from the raised rim, whilst the other is more akin to a series of small pyramids. I'm sure there will be other differences.

This is very reassuring, I've noticed the teeth differences and counted slight variations wiith relation to the bust and legend - I only started looking this closely to see if there was an easy way to spot the satin ones, but I feel I may go through many more pairs of glasses looking!

If only the RM would have continued using die numbers, life would be far simpler.

[Rob 3,000]

Apologies for the delay in providing the evidence which was due to me requiring a sample size of 3 coins rather than two and the ensuing wait for the scanner to warm up. The first C of Churchill does look thinner on the left coin.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Rob

[Sleepy 107]

Thanks a lot Rob, as per normal you always come up trumps, the difference is very subtle I think I would need this picture in front of me before making a decision. Gone through mine and they are all the same as the right example, another coin to look out for lol.