Peckris 2

Their estimates are absurd. For most coins, the hammer price is on average double the top estimate.

Actually, it’s the Jubilee Head issue for 1893 that's very rare - the Old Head which you have is the normal (not rare) issue. But the 1821 is a very nice example.

I'd say GVF at least, but as said, the tone is offputting. I'm not sure I'd want it in my collection, even if the price was right.

Yes - the Edward obverse was flatter and didn't cause ghosting to the same extent; but the savage ghosting on 1911 and 1912 reverses must have caused them to redesign.

I've bought silver that was so shiny that some dealers avoided it like the plague. However, I have a nearly infallible way to tell : if the shine is in the fields and between the legend, but not on the design or legend, then I judge it’s natural; it would be virtually impossible to clean only the parts that exclude all the raised elements. As to how they survive in that condition, I wouldn't like to speculate.

It’s very definitely Reverse ja, else it would be Reverse nein.

Have you tried the Unconfirmed Varieties forum?

I'd be interested in the scarce non-Maundy early Vic examples, also W IV, G IV, G III.

Some of the above grades are questionable. Specifically: the grades Fair and Very Good (VG) are interchangeable, and describe a coin that is very worn but where most of the legend is intact, and where the main designs are more than just outlines; in other words, the grade below Fine. About Unc is a coin that is About Unc - oh, please!! Choice Unc and Gem Unc are just terms used by dealers to enhance a description and make a coin seem more desirable BU and Mint State are the same thing FDC should only strictly be used of proofs Otherwise useful.

The 1914 is AVF/GVF, the Gothic is GVF minimum, IMO.

there's Greek on the ?reverse? - upper case Epsilon Omicron Sigma spelling EOS, the name of an Ancient Greek goddess.

I agree - but the incuse dig by the 7 is almost certainly post-Mint damage.

yes, it’s way too perfect not to be a repro

NOT ‘spent in significant numbers’! (see copper123’s post..). Also 1951 Crowns were struck to ‘prooflike’ quality. But perhaps we should agree to differ on this?

Farthings were 1) a lower priority due to being so small that people didn't study them too closely for die failures etc, 2) being so small, there was a greater proportion of protective rim, 3) (guess..) the dies didn't wear so quick?

I'd say more likely post-mint where someone has either whacked the coin or put it in a vice-like device which i s why you can still see a trace of the original design.

Regardless of whether some found their way into circulation, they weren't struck as currency IMO.

I think I'd concur about the MS64 - though it is slightly hard to tell from small pictures. (Perhaps next time you could just screenshot the coin without the surrounding stuff?)

AFAIK there aren’t any currency crowns? The 1937 and 1951 were both commemoratives, not for circulation.

Do you have pictures? Sometimes grading is notoriously fickle, and if these coins formed a set, one might expect them to be in similar condition.

Wish it was mine!

A nice enough example - some collectors are a lot less bothered about rim holes than others. I have an UNC 1826 halfcrown with graining weaknesses at 12 and 6 o’clock indicating it might have been held in a brooch or something similar. It’s never bothered me in the slightest.

I'm puzzled about this. Edward V was never crowned king, and during his brief spell as monarch Richard III would have controlled the Mint. After Bosworth it would have been moot anyway.

It’s not that far off VF imo. Obviously such coins look more worn when enlarged, so in hand it probably looks very nice.