Peckris

"Rarity" C, C5, C16 - right, they are off my Xmas pressy list then

Section 12 of the Currency and Banknotes Act 1928 states the following:- I cannot find any legislation relating to the defacement of coins. Ask ski - he can quote chapter and verse on it

Love it ? Esther Rantzen c. 1983? I remember when That's Life featured a photo of an antiques dealer's van - his name was Robin Bastard. I kid you not.

Good god!!! Has he just sold that cos its ended? The description looks like he's using the mk.2 Ayephone (specific to Dundonians). Completely incomprehensible. One gap you could fill is "Charles II was ruled from 1660-1685 by Catherine of Braganza" He's the diametric opposite of Dave - his spelling is ok but what he says is incomprehensible!

That one's a piece of cake - try and distinguish the 3 kinds of 1958 halfpennies! You mean 1858, Declan? If not, then what on earth are the 1958 varieties??

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, Accumulator. Excellent pic, actually. It would be an odd die flaw, surely ? Odd, yes. But not much odder than a teensy remnant of a 2?

It's not the best photo, but the oblique stroke of the '2' can be seen poking out below the centre of the '3'. Question - how are they so certain that's a 2 and not just a die flaw?

Welcome to the forums Sheencrofter I have no information on your token, but it is an interesting piece, not your run of the mill token. Have you a copy of Dalton and Hamer in your local library?

Being that there was an unbroken run of crowns minted from 1887 to 1900 I think it would be safe to assume missing 1 year to 1902 that the 1902 crown with a mintage similar the the Victorian years could be assumed to be minted for currency use. And as proof crown only enjoyed a limited mintage and were in general passed out to dignitaries and the aristocracy could they not be considered commemorative. I'm not sure a limited mintage defines a commemorative, Gary? Surely a commem is struck (sometimes in vast numbers - viz. the Churchill Crown) to 'commemorate' a special occasion, e.g. a Royal wedding or anniversary, death of someone special, anniversary of something like all those commem 50p issues, etc. You could argue that the first year of a new monarch is something to commemorate, except that the 'proof' of the new coinage wasn't traditionally issued for that reason? The even more limited VIP proofs were certainly handed out to dignitaries, but didn't commemorate anything. I'd separate - at least in my own mind - a proof from a commemorative; the latter being a modern phenomenon and not known before the 1935 Crown? Before that, it seemed that the medallion was used for this purpose, with no legal tender. Whereas proofs have been known for most of the milled era. As for the non-proof 1902s, I was only thinking aloud when I wondered if it was simultaneously a business strike and commemorative - as commems were unknown at the time, I guess it must have been only for circulation, as you say. But I can't think of a single other denomination that was discontinued in a particular form after the first year of a reign, especially when you think of all the work and expense involved in producing new designs, dies etc. Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into: 1) coins intended for circulation 2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event) 3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1) Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not . The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins Yes, I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for that, Sword. (I'd disagree with you only about commems being usually for collectors? After all, the Churchill Crown, and every "anniversary of.." 50p and £2 and £5 have been regular circulation currency strikes, but only for a single year.) Edited - no, not the £5 coins - they ARE mainly for collectors! You are absolutely right Peckris. I forgot about the commenorative circulating coins in the decimal era and in our pockets! LOL. If it wasn't for them, there would be precious few commems!

"All exactly the same" - yes, they are equally blurred

Being that there was an unbroken run of crowns minted from 1887 to 1900 I think it would be safe to assume missing 1 year to 1902 that the 1902 crown with a mintage similar the the Victorian years could be assumed to be minted for currency use. And as proof crown only enjoyed a limited mintage and were in general passed out to dignitaries and the aristocracy could they not be considered commemorative. I'm not sure a limited mintage defines a commemorative, Gary? Surely a commem is struck (sometimes in vast numbers - viz. the Churchill Crown) to 'commemorate' a special occasion, e.g. a Royal wedding or anniversary, death of someone special, anniversary of something like all those commem 50p issues, etc. You could argue that the first year of a new monarch is something to commemorate, except that the 'proof' of the new coinage wasn't traditionally issued for that reason? The even more limited VIP proofs were certainly handed out to dignitaries, but didn't commemorate anything. I'd separate - at least in my own mind - a proof from a commemorative; the latter being a modern phenomenon and not known before the 1935 Crown? Before that, it seemed that the medallion was used for this purpose, with no legal tender. Whereas proofs have been known for most of the milled era. As for the non-proof 1902s, I was only thinking aloud when I wondered if it was simultaneously a business strike and commemorative - as commems were unknown at the time, I guess it must have been only for circulation, as you say. But I can't think of a single other denomination that was discontinued in a particular form after the first year of a reign, especially when you think of all the work and expense involved in producing new designs, dies etc. Thinking about it, I agree with Peckris that proof doesn't always mean commenorative. I think coins can in theory can classified into: 1) coins intended for circulation 2) coins intended for collectors (not always commenorative as examples such as 1927 crown or George IV shield crown did not mark any event) 3) commenorative coins (which are generally type 2 but some can arguably be type 1) Personally, I think that commenorative coins need to be "one-off" or "out of the ordinary" in some way (e.g. a unquie design) and is issued for just the year which the event took place. Hence, I do not regard the the 1887 Jubliee Head crown to be (truly) commenorative as the indentical 1888 or 1889 etc... are clearly not . The Edward VII is not clear cut as it was only issued in 1902. However, I would say it is not commenorative as there is nothing "unique" about the coin. The reverse design has been used in the previous years and the observe design are used in the other denominations for the whole reign. (I know the same might be said about the 1951 crown commenorating the Festival of Britian but it did came with a box + certificate + the crown was long out of circulation by then). Hecne I take the view that the 1902 business strike can be classified as circulating coins and the matte proofs are collectors' but not commenorative coins Yes, I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for that, Sword. (I'd disagree with you only about commems being usually for collectors? After all, the Churchill Crown, and every "anniversary of.." 50p and £2 and £5 have been regular circulation currency strikes, but only for a single year.) Edited - no, not the £5 coins - they ARE mainly for collectors!

Where exactly is Ponterfract? And they spelled catalogue wrong too. Tsk. Americarns. Love the new avatar, by the way Tom. Very stylish

Where exactly is Ponterfract? Lol, i thought it was my spelling Not this time

Being that there was an unbroken run of crowns minted from 1887 to 1900 I think it would be safe to assume missing 1 year to 1902 that the 1902 crown with a mintage similar the the Victorian years could be assumed to be minted for currency use. And as proof crown only enjoyed a limited mintage and were in general passed out to dignitaries and the aristocracy could they not be considered commemorative. I'm not sure a limited mintage defines a commemorative, Gary? Surely a commem is struck (sometimes in vast numbers - viz. the Churchill Crown) to 'commemorate' a special occasion, e.g. a Royal wedding or anniversary, death of someone special, anniversary of something like all those commem 50p issues, etc. You could argue that the first year of a new monarch is something to commemorate, except that the 'proof' of the new coinage wasn't traditionally issued for that reason? The even more limited VIP proofs were certainly handed out to dignitaries, but didn't commemorate anything. I'd separate - at least in my own mind - a proof from a commemorative; the latter being a modern phenomenon and not known before the 1935 Crown? Before that, it seemed that the medallion was used for this purpose, with no legal tender. Whereas proofs have been known for most of the milled era. As for the non-proof 1902s, I was only thinking aloud when I wondered if it was simultaneously a business strike and commemorative - as commems were unknown at the time, I guess it must have been only for circulation, as you say. But I can't think of a single other denomination that was discontinued in a particular form after the first year of a reign, especially when you think of all the work and expense involved in producing new designs, dies etc.

Where exactly is Ponterfract?

My point exactly, Rob. So I did a quick and dirty count of Vic OH halfcrowns versus crowns - 20m against little over 2m.

and a Mint-sealed bag of 1933 pennies Or 1954 Or 1952, or 1953 toothed Aren't these fantasies wonderful?

I wasn't sure what they meant by "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" and assumed it wasn't something to get excited about so gave it a miss. Now if it had been an edge error or upside down I would have sat up and took notice. Yes, it would be interesting! What exactly DOES lettered edge mean? They're ALL lettered! Poor bit of promotion on the auction's part, if it didn't properly distinguish a significant difference! The actual description is "unusual in having the lettered edge with a bright Proof-like finish" (no comma). This must mean that only the edge has a bright proof finish, because the rest of the coin is a matt proof as can be seen from the pictures. What's ridiculous is that their pictures don't show the one feature that marks the coin apart. My question about 1902 crowns is this : was it the last regular crown issue, or commemorative-only? The mintage is in line with the Vic OH issues, but only a third of the 1935 commem. I remember seeing that 1902 crown in the auction catalouge but did not bid for it. A thought crossed my mind then. If someone brought that crown and had it slabbed by CGS, then the holder would make it very difficult to see the only interesting feature of it! (But the NGC type would allow the edge to be seen. Just a passing mention;I certainly don't to get that topic started again :) ) I think opinion is split whether the 1902 is a commenorative or not. Everyone would agree that all old head crowns are circulating issues and the last was 1900 LXIII. Victoria died in Jan 1901. The 1902 was Edward VII's coronation crown and so there is no real break in the series. As Peckris pointed out, the mintage was similar to the previous years. We have all seen lots of worn 1902s and those have definately been circulated for long periods. A true gem unc circulating type is rare. Hence I would consider it to be the last of the ciculating crowns.If people were told that it was commemorative and no more ciculating crowns will be minted, then might be many more in top condition? Also, George V did not have a coronation crown. This could suggest that the idea of commenorative crowns wasn't popular at the beginning of the 20 century. As we are talking Matt Proof I would suggest in this case a commemorative. And as with the George V crowns only 1935 was aimed at the general public so I would say the 1902 business strike was the last of the circulated crowns. Thanks for your input Sword. Gary, I'm not sure what your conclusion is? Certainly the Matt proofs weren't intended for circulation (no proofs are!) but proofs aren't usually regarded as commemoratives either. Are you saying you think the non-proof 1902s were intended for circulation? I do think it could be thought of a normal business issue, but then the question arises, why only 1902? ESC is silent on this subject and my Coincraft is not immediately to hand so for now I can't look up what they said about it (if anything). Davies says the Mint sustained its first ever loss in 1904 due to a lack of demand for coins. CCGB says 1902 was the final business strike of Crowns (what was your source for that, Chris?). Perhaps the Mint had decided to discontinue crowns but thought that people would like to see one for the new monarch, especially as they included it in the proof sets? In which case, perhaps the 1902 non-proofs could be regarded simultaneously as both a business issue and a commemorative? One would have to presume that sovs and half sovs were used for higher end transactions, and that halfcrowns on down were adequate for everyday ones. The issue of bank notes obviously had no bearing on this as the first Treasury notes (10/- and £1) didn't appear until 1914 though higher denominations had been around for a long time. I would think that the poorer classes paid cash for everything, and used nothing larger than a halfcrown (would weekly rents have come under this too?); the better-off classes would have settled their bills with tradesmen and shops with notes or gold. So during the Edwardian era, maybe the way people spent their money meant the crown wasn't much in demand?

and a Mint-sealed bag of 1933 pennies

I wasn't sure what they meant by "lettered edge, with bright proof like finish" and assumed it wasn't something to get excited about so gave it a miss. Now if it had been an edge error or upside down I would have sat up and took notice. Yes, it would be interesting! What exactly DOES lettered edge mean? They're ALL lettered! Poor bit of promotion on the auction's part, if it didn't properly distinguish a significant difference! The actual description is "unusual in having the lettered edge with a bright Proof-like finish" (no comma). This must mean that only the edge has a bright proof finish, because the rest of the coin is a matt proof as can be seen from the pictures. What's ridiculous is that their pictures don't show the one feature that marks the coin apart. My question about 1902 crowns is this : was it the last regular crown issue, or commemorative-only? The mintage is in line with the Vic OH issues, but only a third of the 1935 commem.

That's an interesting theory. The possible problem with it is there wasn't a great inflation between 1893 and 1910, compared to 1914 - 1919? And if all those halfcrowns were pressed into service during WW1, why do the Vic Jubilee and OH issues survive much better than Ed VII? My own belief is that the design plays a major part.

Just out of interest, I compared the mintages of Vic OH halfcrowns with Ed VII : near 20m versus 16.5m, so not a massive difference to account for the relative scarcity of Ed VII (Vic OH not nearly so scarce in high grades). So what other reasons could there be? First, the Vic mintages are more even - not one under 1.5m compared to 3 Ed VII rarities. Also, people would have put aside the 1902s then immediately run into problems for the next three years; the next two dates for 'keeping' would have been 1906 and 1907, both of which were high mintages and exist in high grades more than any others except 1902. Then, there's the difference in design. The Vic halfcrown is strong and bold with good rims, and would have taken time to wear. By comparison, the Ed VII has a very shallow portrait that wore quickly, and the rims are tiny. Fast forward to the George V and you have a much stronger portrait and better rims. This reason alone is probably why Ed VII are so scarce in the top two grades. Then, there's the massive inflation of WW1 - this would have seen Vicky and Ed halfcrowns given a lot of circulation, likewise George V though his would have had more limited use as the silver ones were hoarded in and after 1920, and exist in an average of GVF grade. Any other reasons that Ed VII might be so scarce in high grades?

When I look at the picture of the 1903 open 3 on Michael's website the 3 always looks incuse to me. Yep, it does, as can be seen here Compare and contrast that with the other coin in the picture, which appaers as raised. Don't know why it is. Bit of a mystery. Maybe it's to do with the shading. Ditto. I think this is one everyone can see the effect on.

Here's my 1908, which confirms what you say scott But I think you'll agree that my 1909 is as red as the KNs? (next post)