Sword

I am now more convinced that the very worn Wreath pieces (and for that matter the 1935 Rocking Horse) have wear due at least in part to manual polishing. 0.5 silver coins were not minted from 1947 and I understand that the public were keen to hoard pre 1947 coins once they realised that new coins no longer contained silver. Hence those crown pieces probably only "circulated" till about 1947 at the most and I find it difficult for coins to get to Fine or less in such time scale. However, I still believe that a small number did circulate (in the same way that the old style £2 pounds have circulated) for the reasons I already mentioned.

It's really difficult to find an UNC Old Head crown with St George's chest, strap and helmet all fully struck. There is nearly always a flat spot on the strap even on the top examples.

I think the old style two pound coins were more acceptable for spending until 1996. Their style fits in well with the then one pound coins. People were quite likely to accept the odd ones thinking that more will enter circulation soon. However, the introduction of the bimetallic version in 1997 gave most people the defining image of what a two pound coin should look like. Hence I imagine the old two pounds would be refused from that year onward.

I agree. In the case of Old Head crowns, I think with the exception of 1893, it is difficult to get UNC examples for any of the other dates. I also think that UNC crowns are harder to come by than UNC halfcrowns. UNC Old Head crowns (with the exception of 1893) have really got expensive.

Sounds like some shopkeepers did accept these crown pieces but they had to take them to the bank afterwards. Hence, they were "money" in a sense but I wouldn't say they have "circulated" in the 70s.

I think it is a very pleasing design too. It has an ornate garter chain and crown but the large amount of space allocated for the legend ensures that the design is not overcrowded or appear fussy. The pointed Norman style shape shield is soften nicely into a round shape by blending in with the garter chain.

It's indeed a very nice example. The rim is particularly good.

Both the 1893 and 1896 have the long teeth (A) and short teeth (B) varieties. For the 1893, the long teeth (A) is for the currency and B for the proof. The rarer currency variety is the obverse 2. For 1896, the obverse is 2 and the rarer reverse is the long teeth A. Photos below are from Davies, (which gives prices in 1982.) Unfortunately, the prices in Davies has never been updated as a second edition has not been published.

Not being in business, I don't come in contact with £50 notes. Yet, I know what it looks like as I have seen the adverts when the note was introduced. I would have no problem in accepting them if the occasion arrives. Come to think of it, cashiers in many large shops would also accept Scottish banknotes despite not being familiar with their designs.

The only things I can laugh at are the name of the seller "cvdrfhykj" and the standard of his English! "High-quality craftsmanship, just for watching and playing, to make your collection more abundant! It will be your best collection![Let you love it]"

They were the same size as the previous crowns and had the word "crown" on it. In addition, the obverse design is the same as the circulating coins of lower denominations. The Royal Mint must have been advertising them yearly so that people know they are available. My feeling is that if crowns were still being circulated in the 1920s, they could have been accepted. True, what I have just said has a significant element of hope rather than evidence.

For me, it is not particularly important how many (or very few!!) of the wreath crowns circulated but there was the theoretical option of spending them at the time if one wished. This made them "real coins" in a sense. I just don't consider (or get excited with) commemorates which can never be spent (or even exchanged in banks these days) as genuine coins.

The ratio of crown to halfcrown ratio in circulation had never really exceeded 1:10 by mintage numbers. Hence, I think the crown denomination was never really needed. Might be it was simply reintroduced in 1887 for no other reason than "hey, we haven't minted them for decades, let's see if it catches on now". They also introduced the double florin in 1887. Might be it was a social experiment to see how the crown (which was related to the halfcrown) would compare against the double florin (which was related to the florin) in popularity?

Going back further, there was a 40 years gap when the last Young Head crowns were minted and the 1887 Jubilee crowns. Did crowns circulated in the beginning of 1880s? Probably since high grade examples are so rare and expensive. I think the question is when did Victorian / Edwardian crowns dropped out of general circulation. Did people still used them in 1900s? Probably. And in 1910s, 1920s? We are not old enough to know. If crowns were still used in limited circulation in the 1920s and 1930s, then is it not possible that a few wreath crowns would have circulated? They were minted near Christmas so that people can give them as presents and I can imagine that a few were "spent" later on. The Royal Mint presumably advertised them every year so that people know they are available for order. But I do take Peckris' point that many of the worn specimens were probably pocket pieces and the wear is not due to circulation. By the time we get to the 1965 Churchill, crowns have long stopped being circulated (even in small quantities) and it is hard to imagine people trying to spend them. Many people have quantities of these crowns and it would have been easier to take the lot to the bank.

I am rather inclined to think that some wreath crowns did circulate. Although crowns stopped to be minted after 1902, they would have remained in circulation (albeit in limited numbers) for quite a while longer. The 1935 crowns were minted in considerable number and I think it is likely that some of these have circulated. I even remember owning one in less than F condition when I was a child. The wreath crowns have the word "crown" written on it and I think that some unwanted coins have circulated along with the 1935s.

Yes, I agree. The BNTA statement wasn't very well written.

Oh, she is a counsellor. That's nice.

That's just a requirement of BNTA of its members: "Members shall guarantee in writing the authenticity of all objects offered for sale for a period of not less than 10 (ten) years from the date of sale. In case of a dispute, the issue may be considered by the Committee for arbitration."

The joke is on you when you realise that it was her pocket which swallowed the coin.

Many of the comments left after the article are pretty good. E.g. "Daily Mails New Years resolution should be don't recycle the same old coin articles again", "How many times are they gonna peddle this. The writer of this article is desperately trying to shift one on eBay!!" etc

But that's more of ego boosting or wealth-flaunting than coin collecting.

It is indeed surprising for it to be graded 65 with those marks on the cheek.

One problem is that the TPGs have been producing tables with prices for different grades. This help to promote the believe that prices only depend on grades. Things get much less scientific when they try to incorporate subjective things like toning, eye appeal, great provenance etc (which obviously affect value) into the grading number.

Just curious, did you join at the end?

The designs look too crude to be a trial (or proof) in my view. Some of the titles of the King are missing. FID DEF, IND IMP will need to be on the observe or reverse. Hence, I too think it is imitation money.