coinkat

I have looked carefully at the 1951 Crown. And perhaps this is already common knowledge on the other side of the pond, but there is not much written about this. There looks to be two distinct reverses used for the 1951 crown. The first seems to be the more traditional as used in earlier Victorian crowns and a second that has far more sharper and defined details. Specifically, look at the legs of the horse, the dragon wings and the forearm that holds the sword. Instead of rewriting all that I have written, I invite anyone interested to read the commentary on the PCGS world coin forum under Airplanenut's initial post asking whether his 1951 crown is a Proof or the standard PL. There is an outstanding image of his coin, I have attached an image of a different coin that features what I will call the 1899 reverse predicated on what was written in Coincraft. I would be interested to hear thoughts as I see a distinct difference that I suspect has been noticed by others earlier. Perhaps there may not be an interest in the difference? I would be disappointed if that turns out to be the case.

When the opportunity presents itself

I currently own three 1799 1/2. Two were bought raw over 20-25 yrs ago and graded MS65 by NGC. I do not recall which variety they are and I do not believe they were attributed by NGC at the time I submitted them. As I remember, they are attractive for the grade or at least they were then. The one that created the question was purchased within the past year. I bought it because of the strike and reflectivity. And while I was not completely convinced it is a proof, it really had what I would call a special look separating it from others I have seen. And I just don't have all the answers for this date and all the varieties. So the time finally has come to ask and collect some thoughts and contemplate whether it is submission worthy. Again... Thanks for sharing you thoughts Rob

Thank you for your reply. I should have more specific. Your answer is addressing the actual variety thar I have questioned... The 5 gunports. The example that I have is sharp with reflective fields and is more of a chocolate brown with some traces of red within protected areas. It is a fairly attractive but falls short of 65 for those that apply the Sheldon scale in grading. It clearly is PL.... The question is whether it is a copper proof. I just have not seen enough of the proofs in hand to really appreciate the difference

Do all the known varieties exist in proof?

BTW, congrats... terrific looking coin

I would leave it as it is. However, If the build up on the reverse around ONE FLORIN is that disturbing to you, consider taking razor blade, shave off the point of a tooth pick to reduce the size of the point and gently go into the letters to remove the black build up without effecting the surfaces. That might be the least intrusive way to improve the coin. Just be very careful... You can use a loupe to help identify the spots and the magnification will help determine if the tooth pick treatment is working and if you made progress in removing what might just be gunk. If you try this, consider posting a picture to illustrate whether the treatment produced an improvement. Good luck with whatever you choose to do.

AU is not without controversy - I see your point.

It was graded MS64 by PCGS

https:///coinimages/2026/04100933/05728398_large.1698.jpg?v=1549156610276

https:///TrueView/28436102_800x600.jpg And this is my 1701-

I just posted my 1689 half crown- it is a 53 graded by PCGS

I consider the 1698 to be the most available date of the series. Your example looks well struck. My concern is over the quality of the fields and that could be just in the image and not the coin. I would not be in the MS camp- the thread captures the problems of trying to grade from an image

As for the 1689 - if that was graded by NGC, I suspect it may grade 50- possibly 53 given the detail in Mary's hair- Again, lustre would be critical with this coin as well.

The Sheldon scale and American grading in general is set to a different standard than UK grading. Lustre is a critical factor in terms of establishing a grade above EF45. Lustre is not just measured by reflectivity but the actual quality of the surfaces - especially the fields. There are pick up points to determine wear from circulation over that of a weak strike. Further, understanding dies varieties and determining whether a coin is a early or late die state example helps assessing a grade. There are mint state coins with less than satisfactory strikes- but that is how they were made. Perhaps the better and more satisfying term should be "as struck"- that seems to be used by some of the UK auction houses. Not all coins within the same series or even within the same grade are created equal. The coin should tell the story.

Thanks Nick... That's about what I thought

The grade will depend on Lustre. From the image, the lustre is difficult to determine. Based on some of the gold colour in the protected areas, the lustre could be decent but does it extend into the fields? The portrait looks pretty good. If there is lustre, NGC will likely grade it within the AU spectrum. If lustre is absent, then EF40-45. Best of luck with the submission.

Just curious about the mintage and surviving population for this coin... I have not been able to locate separate mintage figures for the Laureate Head 6d. So my question is more about the surviving population, interest, rarity and valuation for this coin. Please share your thoughts

There are many different things to consider here and there is just no simple answer... -Auction participation... The right collectors need to participate if auction results are going to be used as a market indicator -Demographics... Varieties are not common knowledge to common collectors. Further, there are fewer younger people that seem to connect with history, art and design and how that is memorialized on coinage. This is unfortunate. -Availability... How often do certain rarities appear on the market and think how condition plays a role in determining the hammer price. I suspect the overall copper market is okay but certain rare varieties will fluctuate given demand.

The earlier George II shillings, especially those through 1729 are tougher to find in higher grades than those minted 10 years later. I have enjoyed collecting this series. My 1727 was bought about 12 years raw and submitted to NGC and it graded AU53. It has an original look and I am pleased with it. I don't recall seeing a GEM Unc. I don't think the series is overpriced for coins in the GVF and higher grade range.

Good to read that there has been a vibrant discussion. As for the 1912 1/2 crown, the question of a possible strike thru was raised given the size and sharpness. I suppose it could be bag mark. It is not an MS coin so a 58 is the best day at a TPG and on the NGC side of the pond. The 1957 1/2 crown does show evidence of die clashing at the lower area that was circled. The area around the ear looks to be a lamination issue and the area below the eye is either a bag mark or some type of post mint hit from another object. The Victorian copper is die clashing... Nice looking obverse.

Does anyone think that what is next to A in HALF is a strike thru? It just looks too clean to be a gouge.

Colin88- Just for fun, what coins did you submit? Your post reads as if you were surprised with the PCGS grades. What might help facilitate explanations to the difference in UK and US grading extends beyond comparing the Sheldon scale to either a 100 point scale or the traditional UK grades. Start by appreciating the differences in what US TPG and UK graders look for. The strike carries so much more weight in the UK. That is the standard and the expectation is that a complete or near complete strike is required for a MS grade. There are numerous UK coin series that UK collectors are reluctant to call MS because a coin may not have have a complete or near complete strike. In contrast, the focal point of US grading centers on lustre and how that translates into eye appeal. While the strike of a coin is not overlooked, there seems to be an appreciation that not all coins within a series are created equal. I suspect the strike of the coins that you submitted is part of the difference in your grade and the PCGS grade. Best wishes in connection with your future submissions.

A start in trying to quantify subjectivity. And it does not pass the straight face test as subjectivity cannot be eliminated in the evaluation of selecting numbers for these categories especially eye appeal. Grading is just simply not absolute.