crowns after 1900

[Mr T 169]

So my understanding is that crowns stopped being minted for circulation in 1900, but circulation strikes were also produced in 1902, 1935 and 1937 (and 1953 and 1965 and so on). How were the circulation strikes in these years distributed if the crown wasn't strictly something that circulated any more?

[Peckris 579]

1935 crowns would have been widely available via banks and post offices as part of the Jubilee celebrations, ditto 1951, ditto 1953, ditto 1965. I'm not sure how 1902 crowns were distributed, I imagine it was probably due to something like 'public subscription'?

Strictly speaking, none of these should be described as 'circulation strikes' because, though they were legal tender and no doubt a proportion were spent, that was not the intention behind their production but to mark some (usually) royal occasion; in other words, they were commemoration pieces.

[ozjohn 552]

Crowns were struck for 1937 and 1928 in Australia but proved to be unpopular because of their size. I assume earlier British issues circulated in Australia before our own coins were produced.

Edited October 6, 2014 by ozjohn

[ozjohn 552]

1928 should read 1938.

[CartwheelTwopence 2]

Many crowns were still in circulation in the early 20th century; although 1902 crowns were commemorative, they were still used by many - since crowns were not phased out, as Victorian crowns ad been produced in masses right up to 1901. I would have thought that circulation stopped in around 1915 - 1920? Silver was getting expensive then - and these were big coins with very high .925 contents.

[copper123 1,352]

Cartwheels seems to be on the right track , though i would doubt most crowns circulated much after 1914 , i suspect the silver would have been put towards the war effort.

Remember though as they became more scarce more would be taken out of circulation so this would just feed on itself till they all disappeared very quick

[Peckris 579]

Yes, I think that's a good thesis. But...

To say that currency crowns were issued "in masses" until 1901, is misleading : the average mintage was a tenth of the average halfcrown mintage; then the halfcrown average mintage itself went up almost tenfold from 1914. You'd have to compare nearly 20 million halfcrowns issued in 1914, with the quarter-million annual crown mintage of 1901 and before. So you have to conclude that crowns weren't really very popular.

[copper123 1,352]

yes very true they must have worn out pockets really fast and as we have no coin of that size now i am sure they were not popular with the public.

I do guess that as they were the only thing to use between the gold and the florin or halfcrown they were grudgingly accepted by the public who would at least not have been worried that they had lost a high value coin if they had a couple of crowns instead of a gold half sov.

[Michael-Roo 777]

Imagine what it must've been like having a couple of bob's worth cartwheels in your pocket. Braces must've been very sturdy things back then…..

[Peckris 579]

Imagine what it must've been like having a couple of bob's worth cartwheels in your pocket. Braces must've been very sturdy things back then…..

Another unpopular coin ... until collectors for them turned up.

[CartwheelTwopence 2]

Yes - I would agree that big coins (over 30mm or so) have never really been right for people. Just look at all of the big coins that tried... and failed: copper pennies, crowns, cartwheel pennies and twopences, etc.