ozjohn

Thanks.Perhaps I should submit one for grading with NGG or PCGS. It's something I have been reluctant to do given potential issues with customs.

Thanks for the information I already have a couple of 1916 florins in reasonable condition but I was trying to complete the series with a MS 63/4 encapsulated coin to join the other George V encapsulated florins I have. So there's no hurry and I will bide my time.

I've been looking for a MS 1916 for a while as an upgrade to my AU58, the bottom coin. Finally I see one on Ebay Top coin. When I looked carefully at the coin I was truly unimpressed. Although the coin looks to be mint state from the patina but the strike quality lets it down badly. The reverse is similar. Like they say judge the coin not the attributed grade.

There's a lot of country's central banks buying gold and silver rather than US Treasury bonds. Food for thought. Australian one pound and ten shilling notes up to the 1930s had the inscription on them with a promise to pay the bearer the value in gold coin long after Britain stopped issuing gold coins for circulation. The Australian branches of the Royal Mint were still minting gold sovereigns.

A florin in 1912 is worth GBP 15.00 in buying power in 2026 . A silver florin contains one third once of silver worth about GBP 16.00 in 2026. Food for thought I think. The argument in 1919 was silver had increased in price so debase the currency. the truth was the pound had lost value due to the pressures of WW1 and with the withdrawal gold in 1914 by issuing paper promises despite a short lived return in 1925 until 1931

My example of seems to measure about 33 mm.

On this coin there seems to be a circular mark on the bottom of the obverse that may be a die crack and could account for the double striking of the date.

I decided to look at my 1845 half crown after seeing an example of a 1845/3 for sale. On this example the date seems to be double struck. Any thoughts?

Noticed on Ebay

Further investigation suggests that the 1927 proof set was released in the cardboard case for 15/- per set with and additional 6/- for a set housed in a leather case.

I have a 1927 set in an identical box even down to the remains of tape on the back of the box. I don't know if any 1928 proof sets were ever issued but this looks like a cobbled together set of 1928 coins presented in a 1927 proof set box to trap the unwary at a high price.

And Florin.

One proof set in original cardboard box 3d to Crown 6 coins for sale at the Wynyard Coin Center, Sydney $A1500 or GBP 750.

Like I say Coin King has 2 for about GBP 160 and one for GBP 150.

I used the word probably which is a guess that there probably more potential collectors than coins to satisfy the potential demand from that amount of collectors. 15000 is not a huge amount of coins for example a 1905 half crown has a published mintage of 166008 and you would require a lot of money to obtain a good example. It's called supply and demand. Maybe there are more collectors of half crowns than florins and as the 1905 half crown was issued for circulation less of the total would survive in good condition but even a worn example attracts a fairly high price. Recently I saw one for sale in fine condition for GBP 440.

Agreed for 1887 and 1893. However 1902. 1911, 1927 and 1937 were all released in significant numbers. 1911 being the smallest. As for the 1932 florin only 15k with no general issue. There are probably more than 15000 collectors worldwide collecting date runs of UK florins.

Had a look on Ebay uk listing for 1927 half crowns as suspected most of the better grade of the first shield examples were fairly expensive. What was surprising was the amount of proofs of the new design were listed with only 15k minted for the sets as against 6.8 Million minted for general issue. Again with the 1927 proof florin the Coin King had three proofs for sale while GB Classic Coins had two. Is there something about 1927 proof coins that makes them unpopular?

Ive been looking for a long time but even some very expensive MS 64 examples still showed signs of poor strike / wear.

Thanks for the comments I wasn't sure as wear and poor strike are hard to distinguish sometimes as i was thinking of upgrading.

Two half crowns I have collected over the years. Both have good obverses with the King's ear intact. The reverse however shows wear/poor strike on the to the top of the shield lions and Scottish lion. An opinion on this wear as against poor strike would be welcome. Again an opinion on the grade of these coins would be appreciated

I don't think Charlie would be too impressed with truck loads of cupro - nickel dumped in front of the palace.

True butt he UK did it 44 years earlier if you consider the 1920 debasement and 18 years from the finale debasement of British coins in 1946 compared with the US.. Over that time fiat currencies, currencies based on paper promises have lost value. This has been true since Rome, through Tudor times to the present day when currencies are debased. Little by little like the frog in heating water your money becomes less and less with income never seeming to catch up. Some suggest crypto as an answer but this is just another scam like the banks who could never honor a run on their commitments other than printing more promises or numbers in a computer with crypto. Where no body knows where the money invested is. With crypto, if someone switched off the computers tomorrow where would your money be? I wouldn't hold your breath. Banks have similar issues but do receive some limited backing from governments

The YouTube post was about the US not the UK who did not reduce the silver content in 1920 but waited until 1964.

Errata $US 4713.56