CROWNS

[Peckris 579]

The fact that the 'member name' is divemaster is a bit of a giveaway

Only if he uses the same username at CGS as he does here!!

Which he does. I wouldn't have said so, if I didn't know it to be true.

I've signed up and had a look at his wreath crowns. I can now understand why he came here and asked what distinguishing features the proofs might have over the normal strikes. I can see no difference at all between the items labelled "Proof" and those that aren't.

The site below has some interesting information and pictures. In particular, there's a stunning picture of a true proof 1935 crown that is frosted. If that was true for the 1935 proof, wouldn't they have done the same for wreath proofs? I'm still unsure why they would produce proofs of coins that were only issued in limited quantities for collectors, and were struck to a very high standard. Unless, of course, these were VIP proofs, but those are always clearly distinguishable as proofs, e.g. frosting. It is true that Davies lists proofs for each year, but doesn't give any specific characteristics for them. Is there a more definitive source for their existence, e.g. Mint records or a BNJ article?

http://reviews.ebay.com/The-1935-George-V-Crown-types-and-varieties?ugid=10000000009549585

[divemaster 11]

Accumulator, once into the site you can add your UINs and virtually instantly you will then appear in the league tables. When the league tables come up you can then click on anybody elses name and their collection is listed below! I think, that when youve joined the site you can view the league tables without submitting UINs, but not 100% sure on that. Most coins in collections you can then click on the UIN to the coin and the picture etc comes up. Good luck

[divemaster 11]

Nick, well spotted with the divemaster bit!

Do you agree that some of the info is very usefull?

[Accumulator 52]

Accumulator, once into the site you can add your UINs and virtually instantly you will then appear in the league tables. When the league tables come up you can then click on anybody elses name and their collection is listed below! I think, that when youve joined the site you can view the league tables without submitting UINs, but not 100% sure on that. Most coins in collections you can then click on the UIN to the coin and the picture etc comes up. Good luck

Thank you for that info. I've never added any of my coins as none have been slabbed by me. I've just accumulated them over the years and some may even still show up in other people's collections, I have never checked but perhaps should!

Logging in to the CGS site, I can't view your coins though I can see your username in the league tables. As you suggest, it must be necessary for me to list at least one of my own coins first.

[Peckris 579]

Accumulator, once into the site you can add your UINs and virtually instantly you will then appear in the league tables. When the league tables come up you can then click on anybody elses name and their collection is listed below! I think, that when youve joined the site you can view the league tables without submitting UINs, but not 100% sure on that. Most coins in collections you can then click on the UIN to the coin and the picture etc comes up. Good luck

Thank you for that info. I've never added any of my coins as none have been slabbed by me. I've just accumulated them over the years and some may even still show up in other people's collections, I have never checked but perhaps should!

Logging in to the CGS site, I can't view your coins though I can see your username in the league tables. As you suggest, it must be necessary for me to list at least one of my own coins first.

Yes, it's possible. First you have to click on 'Collectors Galleries', then on 'League Tables', then 'British Milled', then enter a denomination and Monarch, then you will find that the name in the Table becomes clickable (my first attempt this morning showed a table with unclickable names). Once you've clicked the name, you sit and twiddle your thumbs wondering why nothing has happened, until you scroll down and find that his collection of individual coins is now showing beneath the actual League Table. Very poor, clunky design really, but you eventually get to it.

[VickySilver 775]

I would really like to see pictures posted here - OK, I am in the Peck ranks and do not want to sort throught the CGS site. I must say that I have been collecting only about 20 years but started with Wreaths and went from there. In point of fact (I hate that expression), the main problems with currency versus proof are these:

currency strikes were limited as all here are likely to know to 932-7300+. These are very limited runs but complicated slightly by the fact that the planchet hardness is generally thought to be greater on an 0.500 alloy versus the usual earlier 0.925. Obverse hair detail is not much help since there is not much to start with. The ear is occasionallysomewhat poor in detail and strike sharpness is sometimes compromised at the corner of the brow and mustache & sometimes beard.

Reverse detail of Wreath is sometimes of use: the cross surmounting the orb loses central deatil and the stamen(s) of the roses can lose detail as major "Look-See" areas.

There is very poor cameo contrast on non-1935 strikes in proof, moreso on the currency. There tends to be a Proof-Like appearance of the whole surface, fields, devices and lettering.

Edge and milling sharpness can generally help a little bit but even currency strikes that I have seen can have sharpness to these and "finning" of the edges.

0.500 alloy is conducive to very ugly brownish (or worse) toning that obscures many of the above listed features.

Allegedly there were 5-10 dedicated proofs struck for each of the non-1927 proof years, but I have NOT been able to find any definitive source that can state with assuredness the exact numbers. Just the major TPGs have certified quite a few, perhaps even more than this 5-10 figure for some of the dates (CGS, PCGS, NGC).

OK, I will have mercy on those of you reading this and give my general opinion:

I think that proofs are NOT readily identifiable, and that even though association and context can be helpful that possibly nobody can state with certainty what is proof and what is not, only that a particular specimen may have more "proof" attributes. There is a spectrum of currency strikes and quality that push many of these into near prooflike status, and many of the proofs of this period (even non-crowns) are very poor in terms of strike and contrast between device and field, and normal edge attributes - knife edge, sharp milling, etc. are rather poor when compare to earlier or later proofs.

I do not claim to be an end-all authority but have studied these for many years, and believe I have seen proofs of all dates including the matte 1927, and even specimen 1927s with bevelled edge from the Pretoria hord. I have also seen very proof-like currency strikes that were very near, but not quite reaching proof status. I have seen complete proof sets that have been together since minting both farthing through crown, and also threepence through crown as well.

I think it is easier to exclude coins as proofs than to include with these Wreaths. I am inclined to reject most, even certified examples, as proofs.

More later if anybody is interested.

[Coppers 57]

I do not claim to be an end-all authority...

After reading what you have written on the subject of currency vs proof wreath crowns, I think you are probably being too modest,

[declanwmagee 122]

...and I think we can safely say that we jolly well are interested, even those of us who can only aspire to those levels...

[Peckris 579]

I would really like to see pictures posted here - OK, I am in the Peck ranks and do not want to sort throught the CGS site. I must say that I have been collecting only about 20 years but started with Wreaths and went from there. In point of fact (I hate that expression), the main problems with currency versus proof are these:

currency strikes were limited as all here are likely to know to 932-7300+. These are very limited runs but complicated slightly by the fact that the planchet hardness is generally thought to be greater on an 0.500 alloy versus the usual earlier 0.925. Obverse hair detail is not much help since there is not much to start with. The ear is occasionallysomewhat poor in detail and strike sharpness is sometimes compromised at the corner of the brow and mustache & sometimes beard.

Reverse detail of Wreath is sometimes of use: the cross surmounting the orb loses central deatil and the stamen(s) of the roses can lose detail as major "Look-See" areas.

There is very poor cameo contrast on non-1935 strikes in proof, moreso on the currency. There tends to be a Proof-Like appearance of the whole surface, fields, devices and lettering.

Edge and milling sharpness can generally help a little bit but even currency strikes that I have seen can have sharpness to these and "finning" of the edges.

0.500 alloy is conducive to very ugly brownish (or worse) toning that obscures many of the above listed features.

Allegedly there were 5-10 dedicated proofs struck for each of the non-1927 proof years, but I have NOT been able to find any definitive source that can state with assuredness the exact numbers. Just the major TPGs have certified quite a few, perhaps even more than this 5-10 figure for some of the dates (CGS, PCGS, NGC).

OK, I will have mercy on those of you reading this and give my general opinion:

I think that proofs are NOT readily identifiable, and that even though association and context can be helpful that possibly nobody can state with certainty what is proof and what is not, only that a particular specimen may have more "proof" attributes. There is a spectrum of currency strikes and quality that push many of these into near prooflike status, and many of the proofs of this period (even non-crowns) are very poor in terms of strike and contrast between device and field, and normal edge attributes - knife edge, sharp milling, etc. are rather poor when compare to earlier or later proofs.

I do not claim to be an end-all authority but have studied these for many years, and believe I have seen proofs of all dates including the matte 1927, and even specimen 1927s with bevelled edge from the Pretoria hord. I have also seen very proof-like currency strikes that were very near, but not quite reaching proof status. I have seen complete proof sets that have been together since minting both farthing through crown, and also threepence through crown as well.

I think it is easier to exclude coins as proofs than to include with these Wreaths. I am inclined to reject most, even certified examples, as proofs.

More later if anybody is interested.

I think that's a very good summary of the situation - yes, I'd be very interested to read more, and thank you for this. Great job.

[Accumulator 52]

To someone like me who's only recently started looking at crowns, a very useful summary!

[divemaster 11]

No, please keep going, all that you say is very interesting and summarises my struggle to identify proofs.Thank you very much.

[VickySilver 775]

I will try to put together some research as well as give some date by date observations but you will have to give me a bit of time. I have the LA Lawrence catalogue around somewhere and the Norweb sales had some commentary. Norweb was pretty much a vacuum cleaner when it came to many of the 20th C. proofs and rarities among other things but I am not even convinced that all of hers were proof, even those that had been set aside in set form with the minor coins in proof.

As an aside, see the forward of the Norweb Canadian sale for a detailed and circuitous discussion of proof vs. specimen vs. currency, and also the Spencer articles around 1982 or so in (?) The Numismatist...Promise more to come....

[divemaster 11]

As mentioned earlier ive just managed to get a 1935 error edge proof crown, they say that only 5-10 of them were struck making it R5 on ESC calculations, does anyone know any more about this please?

[VickySilver 775]

OK, I must confess that I have not located my sources yet as I have a three year old to contend with, who regularly emulates Attila the Hun by tearing up my office...

Error edge? I assume you mean the jumbled edge. I have two of these and have seen any number for sale on fixed lists and at auction sales. My estimate is more like 30, but can not offer proof other than my experience.

[Gary D 76]

Error edge? I assume you mean the jumbled edge. I have two of these and have seen any number for sale on fixed lists and at auction sales. My estimate is more like 30, but can not offer proof other than my experience.

I have one also and have seen another so 30 is probably close to the mark. I also have a currency edge error which I believe is rarer.

[divemaster 11]

I believe the currency error edge is rarer, its given at R6. What do you think is a fair price for the two types.

Where are you seeing them all for sale? I must being looking in the wrong places?

[VickySilver 775]

They have been at Spink many times with the odd one in a DNW or Baldwin Sale. Many do have homes, and I suspect there are some still sitting in their red boxes as yet undiscovered.

Price: the proofs I have seen in the 1800 to 2.5k pounds range. The currency with partial edge lettering 400-600 - although I do not recall seeing above EF on this one. Rare, yes. Unloved yes. Maybe/ probably some still undiscovered as well, so maybe not as rare as many think. How many ALWAYS check their edges?

[VickySilver 775]

PS - In trying to find some info, I saw that the Capt. HEG Paget Sale and Glendinings, 1946, had an error edge proof for sale...Also, arguably the Incuse edge proof 1935 Crown is more important and these are out there is [possibly 0.500 and 0.925] form, as this would be the virtual "have to have " coin in a run of George V VIP Record proofs.

I have reviewed in this last week a collection complete IMO of both first quality currency PL strikes, and of probably Record proofs. In the run of the latter the 1936 is a bit more "proofy" in that it has more of the device contrast as well as being slightly better struck up. The 1934s, two currency, and one proof are VERY similar but slightly better mirror in the field and possibly slightly more detail in the mustache, beard, ear, stamens, and cross (or "T") within the orb - as opposed to the cross above the orb - and the edge. I might add the latter was purchased from Spink some 15 or more years ago, as was the 1932 proof. The 1936 came from a Noble Australia Sale not long after was recounted to me.

I saw the other PCGS 1934 graded proof 1934 and doubt it as a proof.

As footnotes, I think they (PCGS) are quite patchy in their grading. Not trying to be overly critical, but I do have some differences with their grading. I will not single them out as I have seen severe errors with NGC and CGS as well, but although I can not prove it and am not privy to their grading room, have the distinct impression of favoritism extended to major dealers/sellers/etc. and have seen easily 2 or 3 points difference between theirs and my assessments. I can think of the Millennium Sale as an example...

The Spencer article is : December 1983 of the Numismatist entitled: Proof-Record Coins Struck by the Royal Mint 1922-64. He interestingly feels that the 1927 proof is a specimen...

Spink Norweb sales of the mid-80s do not have much information with relatively poor pictures.

Well, I will keep my eyes open for more...

[divemaster 11]

Superb - i find your research really usefull,please keep up the good work and post any further news. Do you specialise in crowns? is it your main field of collecting.

[Gary D 76]

I collect 1900 to 1967 but do have a soft spot for the 1935 crown, even to the extent of collecting both the currency and specimen with the lettering both ways up. I also have the raised edge proof and as I mentioned earlier both edge errors. I also have the 0.500 proof. Just need the 0.925 proof and gold proof to make the set, well that's just not going to happen is it, 0.925 if I'm really lucky but the gold proof I'm just not in that league. I paid £760 for the currency error about 5-6 years ago and £1000 for the proof last year, both from ebay.

[divemaster 11]

Gary, what condition are they in? If there in real good nick it sounds like you got a real bargain. So, as for the gold proof, ah well we can all dream, i have never even heard of one, let alone seen one for sale!

[VickySilver 775]

Yes, love these crowns but as they are not a lot of them, branched out to other silver and copper 19th and 20th C.

Gary did indeed get pretty good prices IMO. \\\

The gold is coming up in the DNW sale if you have a spare 30k lying around!!!

Check auctions part of www.dnw.co.uk

I still have not found the LA Lawrence catalogue.

[Accumulator 52]

Yes, love these crowns but as they are not a lot of them, branched out to other silver and copper 19th and 20th C.

Gary did indeed get pretty good prices IMO. \\\

The gold is coming up in the DNW sale if you have a spare 30k lying around!!!

Check auctions part of www.dnw.co.uk

I still have not found the LA Lawrence catalogue.

Very nice indeed, but for 30k I'd want something a bit more special.

[VickySilver 775]

You know a price I have been trying to calculate would be that of the 1922 rev. 1927 specimen of which there are only two supposedly known?

I agree 30k is huge, it may only go 25! LOL....

[Accumulator 52]

You know a price I have been trying to calculate would be that of the 1922 rev. 1927 specimen of which there are only two supposedly known?

I agree 30k is huge, it may only go 25! LOL....

Interesting thought on a 1922 rev. 1927 specimen, which I imagine being perhaps £15-20k in the current market. In many ways I prefer the circulation examples though. The thought that someone at the mint threw a handful in with the millions of 'normal' coins and that fewer still would eventually be spotted by collectors. Mine came from circulation but it's condition suggests that it spent much if it's life out of circulation. Fascinating story.