Peckris 2

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.

It’s not VF but it’s better than Fine. Between the two I'd say.

both coins are nice to have - the William especially.

Edward VIII didn't have any coins OFFICIALLY issued, but the new brass 3d was issued to traders for them to try them out in slot machines. They were supposed to be returned but a few weerent so these are extremely rare and valuable. Also, there are rare proofs of many (all?) denominations, so it could be argued you can exclude him from the list. As for Lady Jane Grey, she is not included in many lists of official English monarchs - Edward VI had tried to disavow Mary and Elizabeth and nominated Jane as the nearest Protestant candidate. Even if you do allow her, 9 days was hardly enough time to prepare and issue coins!.

I would say “UNC for details” but the wiping and green tone makes it a less than desirable coin.

Yes, as already mentioned this was withdrawn to avoid them being gold plated - but they're not rare, nor is the replacement reverse (which was introduced for William IV, and continued to be used until 1911 when the ‘lion on crown’ design replaced it.) You've got two very nice examples there, around EF.