Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Paulus

Let's See Your Toned English Milled Silver!

Recommended Posts

This is my 1911 CGS 75 halfcrown. Again a difficult year as a proof is much easier to find although only 6000 were minted as against nearly 3 million for the circulation  issue if my figures are correct. In any case the proof issue number  was small compared with the circulation issue number.

Clipboard 2.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think coins in the first year of a design tend to be better struck than later years. The reverse of all four 1911 halfcrowns above do not show weakness at the top of the shield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sword said:

I think coins in the first year of a design tend to be better struck than later years. The reverse of all four 1911 halfcrowns above do not show weakness at the top of the shield.

You may be right. The 1912 & 1913 are not too bad either. The rot set in with WW1 and did not really improve until the modified effigy. Part of this was probably due to debasing the alloy to 50% Ag in 1920.

Nonmortuus ,

Like youI have managed to obtain 4 1911 halfcrowns over the years in my case 2 proofs and 2 circulation issues. By the way your 1911 halfcrowns are very nice examples.

ozjohn

Edited by ozjohn
More info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have a proof example yet unfortunately.  I will one day though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ozjohn said:

You may be right. The 1912 & 1913 are not too bad either. The rot set in with WW1 and did not really improve until the modified effigy. Part of this was probably due to debasing the alloy to 50% Ag in 1920.

I wasn't just thinking about George V. I think 1887 and 1902 are also generally very well struck. First year of design use new dies. The mint would probably have shown more care.

11 minutes ago, Nonmortuus said:

I dont have a proof example yet unfortunately.  I will one day though!

Neither do I. Will hopefully get one at some point. I love the first George V portrait and none of my current currency specimens has a fully struck observe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sword said:

I wasn't just thinking about George V. I think 1887 and 1902 are also generally very well struck. First year of design use new dies. The mint would probably have shown more care.

Neither do I. Will hopefully get one at some point. I love the first George V portrait and none of my current currency specimens has a fully struck observe. 

I've always thought the WW1 silver medal had a well struck obverse portrait of the king. I realize it's not a coin but it gives an idea on how a well struck coin should look like. Interestingly several million of these medals were issued and I haven't seen a bad one yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sword said:

I wasn't just thinking about George V. I think 1887 and 1902 are also generally very well struck. First year of design use new dies. The mint would probably have shown more care.

Neither do I. Will hopefully get one at some point. I love the first George V portrait and none of my current currency specimens has a fully struck observe. 

The 1911 proofs are often very nicely toned, due, it is thought by many, to the materials in the box the set came in.

Discussed and shown before, but here's mine - I think it's truly beautiful

1911_hc_pf_04_ref_01947_pcgs_pf65_02_pcgs_pics_2400.jpg

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Paulus said:

The 1911 proofs are often very nicely toned, due, it is thought by many, to the materials in the box the set came in.

Discussed and shown before, but here's mine - I think it's truly beautiful

1911_hc_pf_04_ref_01947_pcgs_pf65_02_pcgs_pics_2400.jpg

 

Impressive coin very nice.

Here ismy proof 1911 halfcrown from  my 1911 short set that I have had for a ling time. It has not toned very much and still retains much of its original mint surface. This is not reproduced in the scan I made..

Clipboard 3.jpg

Edited by ozjohn
More info
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 10:51 PM, ozjohn said:

You may be right. The 1912 & 1913 are not too bad either. The rot set in with WW1 and did not really improve until the modified effigy. Part of this was probably due to debasing the alloy to 50% Ag in 1920.

It was more than just a new alloy - the obverse was recut with a shallower portrait to try to reduce ghosting. This means that the hair detail was 1) less crisp, and 2) wore much faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

It was more than just a new alloy - the obverse was recut with a shallower portrait to try to reduce ghosting. This means that the hair detail was 1) less crisp, and 2) wore much faster.

I have read in ESC that the obverse wasn't recut then. The mint according to ESC, said that the new (and harder) alloy resulted in a shawllower portrait. The pressure of strike might have also been reduced so that the dies won't wear out more quickly. I must admit I am still not totally convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Sword said:

I have read in ESC that the obverse wasn't recut then. The mint according to ESC, said that the new (and harder) alloy resulted in a shawllower portrait. The pressure of strike might have also been reduced so that the dies won't wear out more quickly. I must admit I am still not totally convinced.

I have two pieces of evidence that the obverse WAS redesigned:

1. an illustration of the 3 silver obverses used

1124337547_GeoVobverses2.jpg.71ffe3d410d345bb10eaa0cfbdbc5a0b.jpg

*note that George's nose points between V and S pre-1920, but direct to S post-1920

2. A comparison of two halfcrowns done for an article I wrote for Coin News long ago, as a result of which Coincraft amended their catalogue preface to admit that there had been a new obverse:

......................................................................................................1915           1923
  (1) Size of portrait from top of head to tip of truncation        24mm         25mm
  (2) Presence of serifs on ‘E’ of ‘DEI’ and ‘REX’ ................           yes            no
  (3) ‘I’ of ‘DEI’ points to a border tooth...........................                no            yes
  (4) Hollow in the back of the neck............................                    no            yes
  (5) Large or small ‘A’ in ‘GRA’ .................................                   large            small
  (6) Distance of truncation tip from border...............                1mm           1.5mm
   

Edited by Peckris 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The extract from ESC is shown below. Like I say, I am not really convinced by it. I do think you are right in that there was a new bust. 

774798592_1-Copy-Copy.JPG.17c4fcb766433c17a2ef01d1db2e8f88.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sword said:

The extract from ESC is shown below. Like I say, I am not really convinced by it. I do think you are right in that there was a new bust. 

774798592_1-Copy-Copy.JPG.17c4fcb766433c17a2ef01d1db2e8f88.JPG

Is that the 1974 edition? It does seem strange that the Mint should give false information, unless the relevant records and personnel had gone by the mid-70s. My research and article were done mid-90s. I would say that when the ESC were writing, the 1921 shilling with the pre-1920 obverse was not yet known about, but when you compare it with the normal 1921, the difference is obvious and yet both were struck from the same alloy.

In one sense the Mint was correct: it IS the same bust but with minor changes to lower the profile. It is not, as in the case with the ME, a new design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Is that the 1974 edition? It does seem strange that the Mint should give false information, unless the relevant records and personnel had gone by the mid-70s. My research and article were done mid-90s. I would say that when the ESC were writing, the 1921 shilling with the pre-1920 obverse was not yet known about, but when you compare it with the normal 1921, the difference is obvious and yet both were struck from the same alloy.

In one sense the Mint was correct: it IS the same bust but with minor changes to lower the profile. It is not, as in the case with the ME, a new design.

It's from the latest 2015 edition of ESC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took these photos in a museum. It is really difficult to see how they can be identical busts. The hair detail is so much finer on the later bust. But it is not easy to discard information which came from the Mint.

354467688_1(2)-Copy.JPG.b267fd44a4c205978f08ff7daaa86791.JPG1321348383_1(1)-Copy.JPG.93ef7ceac5f6cb8e604600c957766abf.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's a pity this detail never translated into the RM's production. The only thing that approaches this are the proof issues.

Edited by ozjohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sword said:

I took these photos in a museum. It is really difficult to see how they can be identical busts. The hair detail is so much finer on the later bust. But it is not easy to discard information which came from the Mint.

Adopting my hair-splitting stand:

It could be that the Mint defines a different bust as a redesigned thing, a la Modified Effigy. What happened for the large silver 1920-1926 was taking the existing bust and tweaking it a bit to lower the profile. However, when you add in the changed lettering, pointings, bust size, distance from border, etc, they did quite a bit of tinkering.

Additionally: the 2015 ESC was written ... when, exactly? It's quite possible that this is an old trope carried forward from one edition to the next and never considered important enough to update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think they did and always irritated me just a bit as it was nonsense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Adopting my hair-splitting stand:

It could be that the Mint defines a different bust as a redesigned thing, a la Modified Effigy. What happened for the large silver 1920-1926 was taking the existing bust and tweaking it a bit to lower the profile. However, when you add in the changed lettering, pointings, bust size, distance from border, etc, they did quite a bit of tinkering.

Additionally: the 2015 ESC was written ... when, exactly? It's quite possible that this is an old trope carried forward from one edition to the next and never considered important enough to update.

I have checked my 1992 edition and it has got the same information. I am also disappointed that the rarities have not been updated going from the fifth to the sixth edition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sword said:

I have checked my 1992 edition and it has got the same information. I am also disappointed that the rarities have not been updated going from the fifth to the sixth edition.

For many less widely collected varieties they were a guesstimate 70 years ago and mostly remain so. Nobody has the time or inclination to revise the complete book and so it is down to individuals to do their homework in their chosen field. Nobody has all the coins in the world at their fingertips, so any estimation of rarity will be just that. I'm sure we all have R's that we have seen but one, and R7s where you can pick and choose. Know your subject or be prepared to be pleasantly surprised or disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rob said:

For many less widely collected varieties they were a guesstimate 70 years ago and mostly remain so. Nobody has the time or inclination to revise the complete book and so it is down to individuals to do their homework in their chosen field. Nobody has all the coins in the world at their fingertips, so any estimation of rarity will be just that. I'm sure we all have R's that we have seen but one, and R7s where you can pick and choose. Know your subject or be prepared to be pleasantly surprised or disappointed.

I understand what you are saying and rarity is a matter of opinions and guesstimates. However, it was somewhat disappointing that the 6th "Fully Revised" Edition (published 23 years after the 5th edition) has not made any (?) attempt to update the rarity values given in the Fifth. One would imagine that a token effort involving several experts could have been made. E.g. if a couple of experts say that several examples of a coin is known, the R7 shouldn't be given. I do take your point that one has to know your area by experience and auction archive searches. The ESC is a bit like a tabloid newspaper. It makes an entertaining read but just don't trust it too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sword said:

I understand what you are saying and rarity is a matter of opinions and guesstimates. However, it was somewhat disappointing that the 6th "Fully Revised" Edition (published 23 years after the 5th edition) has not made any (?) attempt to update the rarity values given in the Fifth. One would imagine that a token effort involving several experts could have been made. E.g. if a couple of experts say that several examples of a coin is known, the R7 shouldn't be given. I do take your point that one has to know your area by experience and auction archive searches. The ESC is a bit like a tabloid newspaper. It makes an entertaining read but just don't trust it too much.

Which is how I treat it. The rarities were never very accurate and always seemed to be one person's opinion written on the back of a fag packet. TBH they are redundant for most applications because as long as there is enough to go around - nobody cares. Somewhat depressingly, the one area where they could be of use is the least attractive to collectors (proofs and patterns), but even then things seem to be based on a number plucked out of the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a truly wonderful example. High grade and beautiful tone. And almost no contact marks! Can look at this all day!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×