CROWNS

[Gary D 76]

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!

The proof I've got as near FDC, a few light scratches. And the currency I have as VF although I might be being a bit over critical.

[VickySilver 775]

Yes, Gary, Good job on the currency especially. I can not get myself to go for a VF - I want Unc/mint but such is not available in my experience....

[divemaster 11]

It makes me wonder that if the word was put out to all collectors to let us know if they had an "error edge" if we could find out how many there were out there. Because from one simple post we have instantly found out about 3 of the so called 10 of the 1935 proof ones. Damn, praps we could sort out the populations right here. Im not saying it would be perfect but it may be more accurate than some estimates!

[ski 1]

It makes me wonder that if the word was put out to all collectors to let us know if they had an "error edge" if we could find out how many there were out there. Because from one simple post we have instantly found out about 3 of the so called 10 of the 1935 proof ones. Damn, praps we could sort out the populations right here. Im not saying it would be perfect but it may be more accurate than some estimates!

contact all collectors.......thats easy!!!........and how do you go about contacting non collectors who has inherited grandads collection and dont know of its significance yet???

i think an educated estimate from those who know about these crowns and their history, is probably as good as its going to get.

ski

[Peckris 579]

It makes me wonder that if the word was put out to all collectors to let us know if they had an "error edge" if we could find out how many there were out there. Because from one simple post we have instantly found out about 3 of the so called 10 of the 1935 proof ones. Damn, praps we could sort out the populations right here. Im not saying it would be perfect but it may be more accurate than some estimates!

I've long thought this ought to be done for all post-1887 coins. There are so many modern myths that date from the late 60s "fever" (concerning the comparative rarity of modern coins especially in top grade), I just don't think many of them apply any more. 1958 brass 3ds, 1952 sixpences in less than EF, 1946 BU halfpennies, and many more. On the other hand there are genuine scarcities that aren't reflected in price guides - how many of us have an 1894 halfcrown in EF or better?

A survey is really impossible, but I wish it could be done. Maybe a large enough sample of collectors and dealers, done as a 'census' on one particular date, could at least give a statistically valid result?

[VickySilver 775]

I agree, very hard to introduce the type of objectivity that we would like into it; for me at least, I would like to know more of this type of thing rather than if there is a varietal micro-shift in date position. I generally have an idea of scarcity of most 1838-1952 pieces in copper and silver (brings to mind the crazy prices fetched for gold 2 & 5 pound 1887 & 1893 currency and proof - these things are out there!).

The problem with adding PCGS, CGS, and NGC populations is that on the scarcer bits many have been resubmitted for either a possible higher grade or uniformity of slabbing in a collection. USA collectors, at least some talk about "top pop" coins - those that have the highest certified number grade - and I notice that London Coins does this with CGS in their auctions as well. There also is a competition (not sure of the prize awarded if there is one) for the highest registered set for particular series.

Coincraft have an anecdotal note on finding an error edge specimen of 1935 crown in a noted dealer's trays....

[divemaster 11]

I agree with all you say, for me i think i have been taking some coin books as bibles, and for instance on the 1935 error proof, if lets say 30 people did say they had one (taking their word) it would blow the R5 rating by ESC and open my eyes!

[Accumulator 52]

I agree, very hard to introduce the type of objectivity that we would like into it; for me at least, I would like to know more of this type of thing rather than if there is a varietal micro-shift in date position. I generally have an idea of scarcity of most 1838-1952 pieces in copper and silver (brings to mind the crazy prices fetched for gold 2 & 5 pound 1887 & 1893 currency and proof - these things are out there!).

The problem with adding PCGS, CGS, and NGC populations is that on the scarcer bits many have been resubmitted for either a possible higher grade or uniformity of slabbing in a collection. USA collectors, at least some talk about "top pop" coins - those that have the highest certified number grade - and I notice that London Coins does this with CGS in their auctions as well. There also is a competition (not sure of the prize awarded if there is one) for the highest registered set for particular series.

Coincraft have an anecdotal note on finding an error edge specimen of 1935 crown in a noted dealer's trays....

As well as the re-submission factor, there can be no doubt the population of slabbed coins is skewed towards the rarer varieties. Who is going to pay for slabbing a coin where the slab costs more than the coin is worth? I know there are exceptions, but generally the occurrence of better grades and rarer varieties amongst slabbed examples is out of all proportion to their relative scarcity.

As an example, I just checked the CGS population report for 1919 pennies. The numbers are 1919 - 18; 1919H - 3, 1919KN - 8. Not exactly representative of the known population of these coins!

Edited September 13, 2012 by Accumulator

[divemaster 11]

Of course its not worth slabbing some coins, and no, the CGS count oh 1919 pennies (and many others) are not indicative of the mintage. My Point was that it would only give an indication of mintage figures in limited areas on coins such as the 1935 varieties.

[Accumulator 52]

Of course its not worth slabbing some coins, and no, the CGS count oh 1919 pennies (and many others) are not indicative of the mintage. My Point was that it would only give an indication of mintage figures in limited areas on coins such as the 1935 varieties.

I know what you mean but am still not sure it will show anything other than the existence of the said coin. My rare (I've never come across another) 1935 proof penny is slabbed by NGC. What would this tell someone searching slabbed 1935 coins, beyond the fact that they do exist? It certainly wouldn't indicate rarity. I'm not trying to be awkward, just pointing out the hurdles to interpreting these figures in any meaningful way.

[Rob 3,002]

Of course its not worth slabbing some coins, and no, the CGS count oh 1919 pennies (and many others) are not indicative of the mintage. My Point was that it would only give an indication of mintage figures in limited areas on coins such as the 1935 varieties.

I know what you mean but am still not sure it will show anything other than the existence of the said coin. My rare (I've never come across another) 1935 proof penny is slabbed by NGC. What would this tell someone searching slabbed 1935 coins, beyond the fact that they do exist? It certainly wouldn't indicate rarity. I'm not trying to be awkward, just pointing out the hurdles to interpreting these figures in any meaningful way.

Slabbed statistics are worse than useless. Different grades for the same coin counts as two coins if resubmitted; some slabbed coins don't exist because the variety is wrong (though there might actually be a genuine example in a different slab; many coins are removed from slabs and so may be double counted if slabbed and unslabbed populations are combined; NGC used to have several designations for the same generic piece (1797 pennies spring to mind) based on whether someone remembered to put a space in the label detail; slabs get crossed over from one TPG to another because their registry sets are only allowed to be in the host's slabs, so get double counted. All in all the statistics are highly unreliable and best ignored. All it says is that there is likely (but not guaranteed) to be a certain number of an item around. Something we already knew because the reference books included the item in the first place.

[Gary D 76]

Of course its not worth slabbing some coins, and no, the CGS count oh 1919 pennies (and many others) are not indicative of the mintage. My Point was that it would only give an indication of mintage figures in limited areas on coins such as the 1935 varieties.

I know what you mean but am still not sure it will show anything other than the existence of the said coin. My rare (I've never come across another) 1935 proof penny is slabbed by NGC. What would this tell someone searching slabbed 1935 coins, beyond the fact that they do exist? It certainly wouldn't indicate rarity. I'm not trying to be awkward, just pointing out the hurdles to interpreting these figures in any meaningful way.

Slabbed statistics are worse than useless. Different grades for the same coin counts as two coins if resubmitted; some slabbed coins don't exist because the variety is wrong (though there might actually be a genuine example in a different slab; many coins are removed from slabs and so may be double counted if slabbed and unslabbed populations are combined; NGC used to have several designations for the same generic piece (1797 pennies spring to mind) based on whether someone remembered to put a space in the label detail; slabs get crossed over from one TPG to another because their registry sets are only allowed to be in the host's slabs, so get double counted. All in all the statistics are highly unreliable and best ignored. All it says is that there is likely (but not guaranteed) to be a certain number of an item around. Something we already knew because the reference books included the item in the first place.

Surely post decimalisation for UK coins mintage figures are no longer valid. What we should be consentrating on is survival figures, which will skew heavily in favour of rarer coins.

[Peckris 579]

Of course its not worth slabbing some coins, and no, the CGS count oh 1919 pennies (and many others) are not indicative of the mintage. My Point was that it would only give an indication of mintage figures in limited areas on coins such as the 1935 varieties.

I know what you mean but am still not sure it will show anything other than the existence of the said coin. My rare (I've never come across another) 1935 proof penny is slabbed by NGC. What would this tell someone searching slabbed 1935 coins, beyond the fact that they do exist? It certainly wouldn't indicate rarity. I'm not trying to be awkward, just pointing out the hurdles to interpreting these figures in any meaningful way.

Slabbed statistics are worse than useless. Different grades for the same coin counts as two coins if resubmitted; some slabbed coins don't exist because the variety is wrong (though there might actually be a genuine example in a different slab; many coins are removed from slabs and so may be double counted if slabbed and unslabbed populations are combined; NGC used to have several designations for the same generic piece (1797 pennies spring to mind) based on whether someone remembered to put a space in the label detail; slabs get crossed over from one TPG to another because their registry sets are only allowed to be in the host's slabs, so get double counted. All in all the statistics are highly unreliable and best ignored. All it says is that there is likely (but not guaranteed) to be a certain number of an item around. Something we already knew because the reference books included the item in the first place.

Surely post decimalisation for UK coins mintage figures are no longer valid. What we should be consentrating on is survival figures, which will skew heavily in favour of rarer coins.

That's what I meant when I spoke about a survey - nothing to do with slabbing. What we can safely assume is that vast quantities of low grade, common coins got melted down; and as you say, the rarer items got pulled out of circulation, especially in lower grades, and will survive in higher quantities in proportion to the commoner items, than before decimalisation. And we can also assume that people who kept some predecimal coins for sentimental reasons, will have mostly low grade common items (especially judging by the kind of lots that find their way to provincial auction houses). Finally, we can assume that most low grade coins with silver in, have been withdrawn and melted down for bullion value.

The distorting factor is high grade items (AUNC+ from 1937, or EF+ before than). With the exception of mid-60s stuff onwards, plus a few anomalous dates like 1959 sixpences, 1957E and 1959E shillings, 1953 stuff, perhaps also 1936 and 1937, the rest of it is subject to the following factors :

1) they didn't turn up during late 60s collecting fever (in change) unless you were very lucky

2) they will always be more in demand which will push prices up even if they are proportionately less rare than they once were

What we really need to know, in my opinion, is the true scarcity of high grade, non-rare dates. Some have survived in large quantities due to bullion reasons - silver from 1914-1919, and silver from 1942-1946, but what is the true comparative scarcity of everything else, especially in relation to known scarcities and rarities?

[declanwmagee 122]

I think it would be a fascinating study, Peck, but I think you'd probably struggle to find a better sampling ground than eBay. It would have to be a snapshot in time, to eliminate relisted coins, and although including grade in the survey would add another huge dimension to the data collection and number-crunching, I think that the effort would be worthwhile for what it could tell you.

It might be a better way of assessing raw availability than polling ourselves here, as we will have selected the best we could find over many years, and what was easy once, is not necessarily easy now.

Let's do it!

[Peckris 579]

I think it would be a fascinating study, Peck, but I think you'd probably struggle to find a better sampling ground than eBay. It would have to be a snapshot in time, to eliminate relisted coins, and although including grade in the survey would add another huge dimension to the data collection and number-crunching, I think that the effort would be worthwhile for what it could tell you.

It might be a better way of assessing raw availability than polling ourselves here, as we will have selected the best we could find over many years, and what was easy once, is not necessarily easy now.

Let's do it!

A census of eBay? Why do I suddenly feel tired!!

[Accumulator 52]

Of course its not worth slabbing some coins, and no, the CGS count oh 1919 pennies (and many others) are not indicative of the mintage. My Point was that it would only give an indication of mintage figures in limited areas on coins such as the 1935 varieties.

I know what you mean but am still not sure it will show anything other than the existence of the said coin. My rare (I've never come across another) 1935 proof penny is slabbed by NGC. What would this tell someone searching slabbed 1935 coins, beyond the fact that they do exist? It certainly wouldn't indicate rarity. I'm not trying to be awkward, just pointing out the hurdles to interpreting these figures in any meaningful way.

Slabbed statistics are worse than useless. Different grades for the same coin counts as two coins if resubmitted; some slabbed coins don't exist because the variety is wrong (though there might actually be a genuine example in a different slab; many coins are removed from slabs and so may be double counted if slabbed and unslabbed populations are combined; NGC used to have several designations for the same generic piece (1797 pennies spring to mind) based on whether someone remembered to put a space in the label detail; slabs get crossed over from one TPG to another because their registry sets are only allowed to be in the host's slabs, so get double counted. All in all the statistics are highly unreliable and best ignored. All it says is that there is likely (but not guaranteed) to be a certain number of an item around. Something we already knew because the reference books included the item in the first place.

Surely post decimalisation for UK coins mintage figures are no longer valid. What we should be consentrating on is survival figures, which will skew heavily in favour of rarer coins.

That's what I meant when I spoke about a survey - nothing to do with slabbing. What we can safely assume is that vast quantities of low grade, common coins got melted down; and as you say, the rarer items got pulled out of circulation, especially in lower grades, and will survive in higher quantities in proportion to the commoner items, than before decimalisation. And we can also assume that people who kept some predecimal coins for sentimental reasons, will have mostly low grade common items (especially judging by the kind of lots that find their way to provincial auction houses). Finally, we can assume that most low grade coins with silver in, have been withdrawn and melted down for bullion value.

The distorting factor is high grade items (AUNC+ from 1937, or EF+ before than). With the exception of mid-60s stuff onwards, plus a few anomalous dates like 1959 sixpences, 1957E and 1959E shillings, 1953 stuff, perhaps also 1936 and 1937, the rest of it is subject to the following factors :

1) they didn't turn up during late 60s collecting fever (in change) unless you were very lucky

2) they will always be more in demand which will push prices up even if they are proportionately less rare than they once were

What we really need to know, in my opinion, is the true scarcity of high grade, non-rare dates. Some have survived in large quantities due to bullion reasons - silver from 1914-1919, and silver from 1942-1946, but what is the true comparative scarcity of everything else, especially in relation to known scarcities and rarities?

This would indeed be very interesting. To get a full picture, though, would require not just 'relative scarcity', but scarcity relative to the number of collectors. If there are 1,000 active penny collectors, whether there are 50,000 or 500,000 1967 surviving top grade pennies you won't be able to give them away. If there were 60,000 collectors, then the effect of that difference would be enormous. Perhaps it is this scarcity, relative to a reducing number of collectors, that has caused some of the 20th century 'rarities' you mention to actually seem quite abundent.

[divemaster 11]

Why is everyone getting focused on slabbed or graded coins, forget about them!

A very simple poll, for this and any other forum, that we all frequent, could tell us some simple population facts.

I`not saying the results would be perfect, but on some coins the results may help us not believe bulls**t that is proclaimed to be true by the high and mighties of this world. LIKE

1/ I have a 1935 proof error edge (Only 9 left to own up to)

[Rob 3,002]

I think it would be a fascinating study, Peck, but I think you'd probably struggle to find a better sampling ground than eBay. It would have to be a snapshot in time, to eliminate relisted coins, and although including grade in the survey would add another huge dimension to the data collection and number-crunching, I think that the effort would be worthwhile for what it could tell you.

It might be a better way of assessing raw availability than polling ourselves here, as we will have selected the best we could find over many years, and what was easy once, is not necessarily easy now.

Let's do it!

A census of eBay? Why do I suddenly feel tired!!

Sick note from me too. I've got a terrible pain in my arms and hands. Operating a mouse and keyboard is impossible.

[Rob 3,002]

Why is everyone getting focused on slabbed or graded coins, forget about them!

A very simple poll, for this and any other forum, that we all frequent, could tell us some simple population facts.

I`not saying the results would be perfect, but on some coins the results may help us not believe bulls**t that is proclaimed to be true by the high and mighties of this world. LIKE

1/ I have a 1935 proof error edge (Only 9 left to own up to)

When you are talking about coins that are supposed to only exist in single numbers or low double digits you have to include slabbed coins because so many examples are in them. To exclude a slabbed example of 1 in a supposed population of 10 is a 10% error. Include 2, one of which has been resubmitted and it is 10% in the other direction. The potential errors are huge in percentage terms.

[divemaster 11]

But Rob if 20 people have this coin (without slabbing) it tells me instantly that all the numbers ive been believing for so long are wrong, and it would make me seriously re-think my investments for the future.

[Accumulator 52]

But Rob if 20 people have this coin (without slabbing) it tells me instantly that all the numbers ive been believing for so long are wrong, and it would make me seriously re-think my investments for the future.

Investments? ....wash your mouth out with soap. Surely you mean 'caretaking history for the benefit of future generations'?

[divemaster 11]

Sorry, yes thats exactly what i meant

[ski 1]

Why is everyone getting focused on slabbed or graded coins, forget about them!

you cant.....hows your number crunching programme going to work.....lets assume there is only 10 then......yours and nine others.....and those other nine are slabbed?.........so forget those 9, so now youve the only one.......what have you learnt?.......nothing nil zip.......

1/ I have a 1935 proof error edge (Only 9 left to own up to)

okay ive got 15 of them then......now, you happy?

[divemaster 11]

Your not listening, if 10 people have one (without graded or slabbed coins) it then shows many people that the estimate of R5 is not accurate by a long way!

[Rob 3,002]

But Rob if 20 people have this coin (without slabbing) it tells me instantly that all the numbers ive been believing for so long are wrong, and it would make me seriously re-think my investments for the future.

The only numbers you can have any faith in are the mint's own. All the estimated rarities given in the various references are just that (estimates) and have been proven to be wrong time and time again, in both directions. There are unique coins which are approaching double figures, or perhaps have reached this number by now. References tend to feed off each other, and those collectors who can't be bothered to compile their own data and cross check the published figures take things mostly as gospel. You need to gather all the info you can and start off with a sceptical viewpoint on any published data.