Sword

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!

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

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.

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?

cgs used to slab any coin (even polished) without grading for £5. However, I think they have stopped doing that as this service has been removed from their current price list.

if in acid i would have imagined the whole coin to be affected not just a liitle bit as shown. as acid makes a mess of anything Acid will affect all areas equally so the thin areas will go first, but you will retain a surprising amount of definition Putting a penny into concentrated nitric acid is a fun school "experiment". The copper gets oxidised leaving the steel penny behind. If done properly, you will end up with a very nice steel penny with the details of the coin preserved. If you are in a bit of a hurry and put a load of pennies in (with some on top of others), you often end up with patches of copper on the pennies. (However, poisonous brown fumes are produced in the process and it is not something to try at home!)

You MAY be right about a "coin worth many thousands", but actually, in those cases I doubt very much that a slabbing will affect the value much if at all. It's lower value items where a slab - rightly or wrongly - can add so much value. As for constructive criticism: 1. Dave has already pointed out, TPG companies do make mistakes, and fakes have been noted. So much for a cast-iron guarantee. 2. Storage - for those of us who own nice mahogany cabinets with proper 'cut outs', the slab is a disaster area. They cannot be stored in any of the traditional coin storage media, and they take up a hell of a lot of room. 3. Photography - very difficult if not impossible to take a decent picture, which is essential if selling. 4. Insurance - I have my own database which not only has scans of every coin that is worth more than £15-£20, but - unlike a slab - has the date purchased, where from, how much paid, notes on any distinguishing features, etc etc. More use to an insurance assessor than a slab that's ... oh, gone! stolen! 5. Handling - yes, those of us who own nice coins actually DO like to handle them every now and again.. wearing cotton gloves.. holding and tilting to view in just the right light.. examining through a loupe for any unsuspected varieties.. A slab makes all of that difficult. As for preserving its condition, you only have to look at Royal Mint proof sets from the 1970s to see how well sealed coins are 'protected' - true, you can't scratch them, but they can tone UGLY. Those who like slabs will continue to sing their praises no doubt, but there is a majority against them in this forum at least. I have a somewhat love-hate relationship with slabs. On one hand, I will not buy a slabbed coin unseen, as even a high grade (assuming it has acutally been accurately assessed) is no guarantee of decent eye appeal. I always avoid coins with bad toning, (large) carbon spots, scratches in prominent positions, small edge knocks etc and these "defects" are not directly indicated by the grade. Secondly, I agree that slabs can inflate the price of the coin inside (especially if the grade is high)and the asking price can be unrealistically high. Hence I rarely buy slabbed coins. Slabs (e.g. those of CGS) can make examining the edge difficult but the NGC slabs are much better in this aspect. I also find that many people do bash the slabs a bit and even the holders of coins slabbed recently can pick up a lot of scracthes / marks which reduce the pleasure when viewing. Also I am a believer than vintage speciemen / proof coins should always be with their original boxes and I consider a coin to be "incomplete" otherwise. Having said that, I do confess that I have slabbed the high grade (UNC to GEF) coins that I particularly like. I don't do it for the grading but for protection. I do like to enjoy looking at these coins without worring about gloves, dust, accidentially dropping them or breathing too close to them. Many TPG companies do take photo of coins. CGS photos are generally not too bad as they were taken before slabbing. (But NGC photos taken after slabbings are pretty useless). With regard to coins toning ugly in slabs, I wonder why don't the TPG companies slab coins under an inert atmosphere? Slabbing in dry Argon (or even plain cheap nitrogen)will not result in silver toning assuming the slab is air tight.

It's good isn't it. I can just make out the repair to the reverse but obverse is undetectable. Really amazing. Even the toning on the repaired bit looks right. Just out of interest, how much does it cost to get something like this done?

Hello All I have been reading the posts on the forum for quite a while and is now making now making my first post. I used to collect coins as a kid and have restarted the hobby a few years back. I like to collect crown size coins and have only got a very small collection. I brought the few coins I have from auctions and have to leave absentee bids as I generally cannot attend. The problem I found is that the auction photos are often not great and the actual coins, when in hand, can be half a grade out from the description sometimes. I therfore bid conservatively and don't win things often (Just as well as my budget is modest). Anyway, I would like to share images of my two favourite coins: a high grade 1898 crown with a very nice golden tone and an 1818 crown. The 1818 crown was slabbed by cgs as a new variety to them (second 1 in 1818 with no serif) and graded EF70. Like most members, I don't slab coins because I need someone to tell me the grade but I like to be able to look at both sides easily and can enjoy the coins in a shaded corner of the garden! I have only seen one other 1818 crown with on serif to second 1 and that was on ebay. Photos to follow:

Thank you.

Many thanks for the warm welcome. I look forward to benefitting from all your advice and expertise!

1818 crown reverse

1818 crown observe