Some of my British Coins - new pictures

[marvinfinnley 4]

Here, for those that appreciate great coin photography, are a couple of new pictures that I've had taken of a few of my nicest British coins. Coin photography is tricky, so I had a pro do it.

1818 LXIII Crown - one of the finest preserved of the first steam-driven crown coinage of Great Britain. William Wellesly Pole, the master of the mint, took great care in the production and handling of these coins, and the average condition today is quite high. Of course, after two hundred years, a coin in this state of preservation is very scarce. Most have suffered from owners wanting to keep them "shiny" by polishing them (like silverware) if they toned. A coin without many hairlines and with original toning like my coin is a real treasure.

1850 Victoria YH half crown - superlative example (proof?). The 1850 is one of those early half crowns that are so difficult to find in mint state. It had a smaller mintage and is elusive in any condition. Just search Heritage for the 1850, and the best you'll most likely come across is an MS65 1850 that doesn't hold a candle to this coin. Still unslabbed but, according to David Hall (meet the experts at Long Beach show), probably an MS66-67 (or proof?).

[Paulus 1,942]

Very attractive coins and quality photos Marvin, however, judging by the photos alone, I wouldn't place either coin in the very top grade, there is noticeable wear to the hair in both cases

[marvinfinnley 4]

I'm curious about the "noticeable wear" that you see. In particular, the bright "spot" at the top of St. George's head is caused by the high relief and die insufficiency. The point retains full luster and hence is not wear. In many high relief designs, one can see that striking pressure was not sufficient to cause metal to flow into the highest parts of the design (deepest parts of the die), and as a consequence, the surfaces of the metal at those points do not pick up the frostiness of the die but look bright as molten metal would look that has cooled. This is common on almost every uncirculated George III 1818-1820 crown in existence. The effect is also visible on George IV 1821/22 crowns and on many other high relief designs such as the Three Graces (reverse spots on high points etc.).

As for the YH half crown, this is one of the finest specimens that I have seen, or Bruce Lorich has seen, in 40 years, and I don't see any "wear" on that coin. One has to look at the overall luster of the coin and for any spots that exhibit wear, where the luster is missing. In hand, there are no wear spots, and the coin's fields are very proof like and mark free and the devices are very frosty. Any coin that's been circulated, even to a very small degree, will pick up circulation marks as well as wear. In the absence of marks and in the presence of uniform luster, this coin is absolutely uncirculated. No picture can confirm this as well as seeing the coin in person.

[marvinfinnley 4]

Here's a bigger picture of the 1818. No wear!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88770760/1818%20CrownPRO_obv.JPG

[marvinfinnley 4]

And here is the reverse:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88770760/1818%20CrownPRO_rev.JPG

[marvinfinnley 4]

And here are enlarged pictures of the 1850:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88770760/1850%20HalfcrownPRO_obv.JPG

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88770760/1850%20HalfcrownPRO_rev.JPG

[Chris Perkins 223]

Could I use the half crown in Collectors Coins GB 2015 (and subsequent editions)? I have a later young head image, but not a beautiful earlier one like that.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Nice coins and good photos.

[Rob 3,002]

Nice coins.

It's a real shame about the couple of tiny marks on the crown bust.

[azda 973]

I'm curious about the "noticeable wear" that you see. In particular, the bright "spot" at the top of St. George's head is caused by the high relief and die insufficiency. The point retains full luster and hence is not wear. In many high relief designs, one can see that striking pressure was not sufficient to cause metal to flow into the highest parts of the design (deepest parts of the die), and as a consequence, the surfaces of the metal at those points do not pick up the frostiness of the die but look bright as molten metal would look that has cooled. This is common on almost every uncirculated George III 1818-1820 crown in existence. The effect is also visible on George IV 1821/22 crowns and on many other high relief designs such as the Three Graces (reverse spots on high points etc.).

As for the YH half crown, this is one of the finest specimens that I have seen, or Bruce Lorich has seen, in 40 years, and I don't see any "wear" on that coin. One has to look at the overall luster of the coin and for any spots that exhibit wear, where the luster is missing. In hand, there are no wear spots, and the coin's fields are very proof like and mark free and the devices are very frosty. Any coin that's been circulated, even to a very small degree, will pick up circulation marks as well as wear. In the absence of marks and in the presence of uniform luster, this coin is absolutely uncirculated. No picture can confirm this as well as seeing the coin in person.

Seeing a coin in the hand and a pictured coin would obviously show differences as a pictured coin would show up ANY blemishes. Both coins are nice but we also grade differently in the UK than say NGC or PCGS would, i would say the HALFCROWN would be UNC or Near so with cabinet friction. None the less, nice coins and i'm sure any one of use here would like to own.

Just for your interest, a UNC or NEAR SO example Sold at Londoncoins for £1200 in 2011

[Peter 615]

Wait to see some of Paulus's coins OK they are not copper but rather tempting.

[Peckris 579]

Very attractive coins and quality photos Marvin, however, judging by the photos alone, I wouldn't place either coin in the very top grade, there is noticeable wear to the hair in both cases

Hmm. I can't see that at all. I do see a few very small areas where the toning has ?rubbed? away revealing the silver beneath. But wear? I just can't see it. Remember that Victoria YH hair detail has to be viewed at quite a precise angle to see it fully.

[copper123 1,352]

I am just wondering that when someone does get a "DREAM COIN" like any of the above , do they want to keep hold of it at all costs or does money enter into it , if say someone offers double or even treble what you paid for it.

just a thought

[marvinfinnley 4]

Nice coins.

It's a real shame about the couple of tiny marks on the crown bust.

Hi Rob. No coin is perfect. One has to view a coin with how it compares to others. These two coins are probably close to the finest business strikes you will see, but are they perfect down to 100x or more? Of course not. As I'm sure you know, if one seeks absolute perfection, one will constantly be disappointed, whether in coins or people. Modern proofs might be the exception, but where is the history of that cookie cutter perfection? The knowledge that for these pictured coins to endure in such a well preserved state, there had to have been collectors down through the years that lovingly treasured them, and, for me, this is part of the allure of coins as an inheritor of their trust.

I never meant to imply that these two of my coins were perfect, just that they are glorious examples of the engraver's art and the technology of the Royal mint at the time. And one must remember that, at least for the crown, the dies were cut directly by the engraver into the steel - no reducer used. With the magnified picture (thank you photographer), one can see the painstaking nature of the engraving that went into the hair and fully appreciate the dynamism of the St. George reverse. With the YH half crown, one can appreciate the care that Wyon took with her hair and the girlish nature and openness of her gaze.

The "cabinet friction" that has been mentioned is difficult to separate from die insufficiency. For in the case of the reverse of the YH, if it were cabinet friction, one would expect that each of the highest points of the reverse design (if it were lying on the reverse) would show some rubbing. I have looked carefully at the coin, and it's only some of the highest points of the design that exhibit the reflectivity that some posts interpret as "cabinet friction." Without high magnification to see whether there are abrasive lines in the reflective areas (which would imply friction) or not, it's hard to tell, but the fact that all of the highest points are not affected leads me to believe that we're looking at die insufficiency again. With high relief designs, one sees die insufficiency all the time. One also has to consider die wear which can smooth die surfaces so that the frost is lost (it rhymes) at that point giving the coin a reflective surface rather than a frosty surface.

But in any event, we're "pixel peeping" (to use a term from digital photography whereby pictures are blown up to the point that individual pixels become visible) at the coins. I challenge anyone to show me a (non-proof) 1850 half crown that has more eye-appeal than mine. BTW, do I think mine is a proof? Probably not, but it might be according to one expert I consulted.

Best

[marvinfinnley 4]

Could I use the half crown in Collectors Coins GB 2015 (and subsequent editions)? I have a later young head image, but not a beautiful earlier one like that.

Certainly Chris you can use the pictures. I had them taken so that they might be used in references. I'm told that the YH was in an old time collection, so it was only auctioned once, not sure when, and therefore not really known by the numismatic community. Time to change that. BL told me it was the best one he had ever seen in 40 years of dealing. With the profusion of counterfeits, high resolution pictures of unc specimens are absolutely essential for collectors.

I'd just appreciate a copy of the new edition when it comes out. I can PM you my address if you agree.

Best

[marvinfinnley 4]

I am just wondering that when someone does get a "DREAM COIN" like any of the above , do they want to keep hold of it at all costs or does money enter into it , if say someone offers double or even treble what you paid for it.

just a thought

My own particular philosophy is to buy coins that I love to look at time after time. I don't buy to create a date run or collection of like things necessarily. To me, coins are historical art objects which encapsulate the history of the period, the talents of the designer and engraver, and the technology used to create them. I strive to find the most beautiful I can afford. I buy inexpensive coins if they catch my eye, and, at times, rather expensive coins (for me at least) that I feel have something unique or special about them. Because of the reasons I collect, it is hard to part with them. In comparison to buying, selling is difficult. One wants to have his own evaluation of a coin confirmed by others, so one strives to market high value coins in a way that exposes them to knowledgeable (and wealthy) collectors to the maximum degree.

Of course, it's a matter of degree. My "expensive coin" is cheap compared to some coins in the US market where many sell for more than $100,000. We must all face the prospect of selling at some point or our heirs will do it. With rare coins, it makes sense for the person that knows where and how to market the coin to sell rather than leaving it to an heir who knows nothing or relies on an advisor who may not have the owner's best interest at heart. With low value coins, it probably doesn't matter.

So yes, I would sell if the market for the coin at a particular time (such as the Chinese or Russian booms) made financial sense, but it's always hard to sell coins one loves.

[Chris Perkins 223]

I'd just appreciate a copy of the new edition when it comes out. I can PM you my address if you agree.

Best

Yes, go for it.

[azda 973]

I am just wondering that when someone does get a "DREAM COIN" like any of the above , do they want to keep hold of it at all costs or does money enter into it , if say someone offers double or even treble what you paid for it.

just a thought

First off, you should have the money for said "dream coin" or else There is no point in buying it only to sell it on. I remember maybe around 2 or 3 years ago buying a VERY nice GVF 1905 Halfcrown, not my Dream coin, but i knew i had a bargain with what i bought, i was unemployed or probably at an agency job at the time, but i knew i would have to sell it as soon as i bought it. I made money on it of course, but i f i had bought it now There would be no way i would have sold it on.

I made 1200 on said coin, i was happy, but of course sometimes we eventually can take different courses in our collecting habits but if i had the same chance now as i had back then to buy the same coin then i would'nt have sold it, but each to their own in how you deal with what you have, sometimes circumstances dictate. You should be happy with what you buy and not let it be a financial burden. Collect within your means.

[Peckris 579]

I am just wondering that when someone does get a "DREAM COIN" like any of the above , do they want to keep hold of it at all costs or does money enter into it , if say someone offers double or even treble what you paid for it.

just a thought

Just adding to what Dave said : you bought it in the first place because it was a "dream coin", therefore by definition those are (i) going to be the most desirable coins in your collection, but (ii) the last ones you would actually sell.

[VickySilver 775]

Well, I always like to think that enough money could shake loose a coin but some are rather favoured and we do like to hold on to them.

I can not tell if the 1850 is a proof, but give much credit for a beautiful coin - I need to find my way out with saying it needs to be seen in hand. I have seen a "65" that is as well preserved but does not have the lovely cameo yours does. I would have to say it is the nicest I've seen. Not that you would but I think I know somebody (wink, wink) that would probably be a buyer...

[copper123 1,352]

Ahh yes but also if you get really short of money also the FIRST you might sell as they would be very popular ,

I supose the main thing that would prompt you to sell it would be be being short of cash.

If your not short of cash , selling the coin becomes sort of a No No .........

[Paulus 1,942]

I have sold quite a few over the last year out of financial necessity, for me the ones I sell first are those commanding a current premium (anything with a 1914 date or high-top grade milled), those I hang on to are those with the most eye appeal. There is an occasional conflict!

I will hang on for dear life to my very, very favourite coins, which if push comes to shove number in the 20s

[VickySilver 775]

I looked at your lovely 1850 2/6 again and think it likely a proof with what has sometimes been called "aluminum foil cameo" and note that though dated 1839 that I have seen a Deep Mirror Proof Cameo that was somewhat similar & that even for a proof coin, this in very nice state of presentation and better than most proofs. Can we ask the origin, at least in general terms?

PS - If you look on the PCGS site under population guide, Great Britain and then look up Victoria milled half crowns there are also some very nice bits:

I like the 1839 currency, ex-Gendinning and the 1862 CA proof, ex-Spink that is also very attractive amongst a number of others...

Edited October 23, 2014 by VickySilver

[marvinfinnley 4]

With proof 2/6 coins, some talk about the sharpness of the rim upsets, i.e., the up-turned circle around the coin at the edge; one also must consider the sharpness of the design, and on this coin, the strings in the Irish shield (i.e. harp) might not be as fully sharp as on other recognized proofs I have seen. However, I have never seen a proof 1850. Heritage auctioned a proof 1864 and here is the link: http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/great-britain-victoria-proof-halfcrown-1864-/a/3016-24424.s#73017301175

The reverse of this coin looks very similar to my coin in that the Irish shield is not perfectly sharp, but the overall strike seems to be a bit sharper than mine. So who knows? I may submit it to NGC as a proof and see what they say.

PCGS only shows one uncirculated 1850, graded MS62, meaning there are significant marks/abrasions on the surfaces. And one can see through the colorful toning that indeed the obverse has quite a few marks. However, it's a nice coin, and the reverse strike is pretty similar to mine. However, my coin has a very lovely proof like obverse and hardly any surface disturbances, so it is of a much higher grade. There is one MS65 graded by NGC, and it's from the Goldberg Cheshire collection here http://64.60.141.195/photos/31jpegs/79038.jpg

and here: http://64.60.141.195/photos/31jpegs/79038N2.jpg

but in my opinion, this one is not as nice as mine. That sale also has a proof 1839, so one could look at the characteristics of a proof, however the dies were fresh in 1839 and is it valid to compare a proof of 1839 to a possible one of 1850? Don't know. I just know it's fun to research all this.

[marvinfinnley 4]

I looked at your lovely 1850 2/6 again and think it likely a proof with what has sometimes been called "aluminum foil cameo" and note that though dated 1839 that I have seen a Deep Mirror Proof Cameo that was somewhat similar & that even for a proof coin, this in very nice state of presentation and better than most proofs. Can we ask the origin, at least in general terms?

PS - If you look on the PCGS site under population guide, Great Britain and then look up Victoria milled half crowns there are also some very nice bits:

I like the 1839 currency, ex-Gendinning and the 1862 CA proof, ex-Spink that is also very attractive amongst a number of others...

As for the origin, I don't know. It came to me from a dealer with a reputation for finding the finest coins on his trips to England. He told me the coin was from an old collection, so I don't know if it had ever been auctioned. He told me that it was the finest 1850 he'd ever seen, and that one just could not find nice unc 1850 half crowns. As a date, you know, it's very scarce one.