All Activity

I don't think 1927 proof coins are unloved, I just think that a mintage of 15k for a proof coin is not low, and comfortably satisfies the demand of people who wants one. In addition the series also has a large number of circulating coins at UNC giving anyone an opportunity to get a type example. The 1887 proof crown on the other hand has a mintage of only about 1k (and there are far fewer circulating UNC examples).

I have found........., 4th bust 1673 KM# 438.1VICESIMO QVINTO 1673 KM# 438.2plume below bust 1673 KM# 438.3centre plume reverse I've not found references to stops, hopefully others will chip in with more information ... 👍

ESC mentions a variety with no stop after HIB, but not one with ne stops at all on the reverse.

It really is a shame not to see clearer images, it does look 5-like. I do draw caution however from the fact that I can just as easily see an inverted A below the 8. Crystal images are an absolute must in these cases.

This is a cropped image already, taken from a digital microscope and compressed via tinyfy. Which apparently makes it look like I took the photo with a potato.

I have this nice Halfcrown dated 1673 with no stops to reverse. I can’t seem to find another anywhere in reference or previous sales. Does anyone know if it’s a know error ?

Can you crop the original photo to the area of interest and then compress the smaller area to 500kb if necessary? The freeware irfanview will do the job very well.

Appreciate your thoughts and feedback

You're seeing things. Another classic case of pareidolia, methinks. On a genuine die 5, the die number is much larger than your "blob" and also slightly to the right of a border tooth. Your anomaly is to the left... See below:

It is much clearer on the original photograph, however I had to reduce it to very low res to get it passed the 500kb max image size!

Ah, sorry. I don't think it's a 5 either TBH.

Die number 5

errrrmmmmmm? found this'un and in the spirit of thing with the penny interest (although I'm not 🤷‍♂️) I thought id show you all... its not my interest but may float someone's boat... not sure if its a wonky 6 or misshaped 2 ???? or whatever I'm supposed to be looking out for?!?!??! Victorian Penny 1862 👍

I'm not entirely sure what you are seeing, but it's not an H if that's what think it is. Or the face of Jesus either.

1863 Penny. Tell me I'm not seeing things....

Interesting. I don't know why about the half crowns. I did just order a proof 1927 florin (only available in proof that year) and an UNC 1927 Wreath Crown from The Coin King so I'm eagerly awaiting them.

Had a look on Ebay uk listing for 1927 half crowns as suspected most of the better grade of the first shield examples were fairly expensive. What was surprising was the amount of proofs of the new design were listed with only 15k minted for the sets as against 6.8 Million minted for general issue. Again with the 1927 proof florin the Coin King had three proofs for sale while GB Classic Coins had two. Is there something about 1927 proof coins that makes them unpopular?

Ive been looking for a long time but even some very expensive MS 64 examples still showed signs of poor strike / wear.

Not much fun in Stalingrad, no. You need the A361, Barnstaple section....

Very interesting, it was a coin I was offered off a dealer and with this interesting obverse I may purchase it now !

I agree with Peckris that the loss of details is virtually all due to weak striking. Otherwise, wear would be very obvious in other areas like the garter letterings. And with these 0.50 silver points, areas of wear would show discolouration. If there is still lustre on the top of the shield area, then it's another indication that it is weak striking. You can still try to upgrade to specimens that are fully struck!

Isn't it a brockage? No. Just a die clash - see original post at top of thread. This picture immediately above is an overlay / superimposed, not what the coin actually looks like.

Isn't it a brockage?

Seems fine this morning. Thanks for your efforts @Chris Perkins