Proof Wreath Crowns? - Besides 1927 Mostly NOT

[VickySilver]

A pet peeve of mine are Wreath Crowns labelled as proof. Besides the 1927 Proof/Specimen Only date, the others are decidedly rare whether one chooses to call them specimen or proof and this has been a controversy since at least the LA Lawrence Sale of 1954.

As an example the latest DNW catalogue has lot #995 slabbed by (L)CGS as a 1932 Proof. It is not. Strike is poor, the fields are not struck up how they should and even the rims/denticles, etc. are not right for a proof. I have seen multiples of the 1934 date that also fail most peoples' definition of proof....

[Sword]

The coin in question:

[Sword]

[Sword]

VS, I think it would be interesting to e-mail DNW and express your doubts. It is all to easy to say a coin is a proof if it say so on the slab. But they might change their mind if someone were to question it. The strike is not great (but I am certainly not good enough to tell a proof from a currency). 

[mrbadexample]

2 hours ago, Sword said:

 (but I am certainly not good enough to tell a proof from a currency). 

Nor me, but there's nothing about that one that suggests a proof to me. 

[VickySilver]

I have seen waay too many of these, and have on good authority agreement with me. I have known this series for 25 years and will state again: suspect most slabbed as “proof” to not be. 

I have currency specimens far superior in strike and surface to this one. 

[Peckris 2]

I'd see no reason to strike proofs - the 1927 was  a proof and popular, which was why they struck 1928-36 as limited edition specimens for collectors in lower numbers by far than the 27 proofs. In other words, they'd done the proof already and in a quantity that nearly amounted to the total subsequent issue of wreaths. There were no currency wreath crowns.

[mrbadexample]

12 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

There were no currency wreath crowns.

Bearing that in mind, how do we account for the worn specimens? 

[Nick]

15 hours ago, mrbadexample said:

Bearing that in mind, how do we account for the worn specimens? 

I don't think they were intended for circulation, but it's certain that many did.

[mrbadexample]

Quite extensively, by the looks of some of them. 

I'm not sure how far you'd get these days trying to spend your Charles & Diana 25p on sweets. 

[VickySilver]

Technically they were currency, though mainly these were given as Christmas presents and so did not function that way. IMO proofs were struck but very hard to distinguish.

[Sword]

I do wonder if the  "currency" 1928-36 crowns were issued at the face value of 5 shillings. VS, do you think the general public had the chance of applying for a proof at the time or were they just minted for various institutions / museums / VIPs etc?

[Rob]

Excluding the first year sets, proofs in the early years of the 20th century were extremely rare and could probably be counted on one hand. The 1927 proof sets were clearly minted for the general public, but for any other years the jury is out unless the mint can shed light on how many, or even if any, were struck.

Having said that, the existence of proofs in smaller denominations would suggest that proof crowns also exist. At that point it comes down to numbers. Do we have any numbers for claimed proofs for any particular year? It is well known that some proofs are commoner by date than others.

[mick1271]

I have an old catalogue from 1938 ,with prices for all the wreath crowns . All are only available in FDC , apart from the 1928 which is available in VF, EF and FDC. Which may point towards some of the 1928 being released for circulation . Only 30 bob for a 1933 ,the rest are between 14 and 16 shillings each .

[Peckris 2]

23 hours ago, mrbadexample said:

Bearing that in mind, how do we account for the worn specimens? 

 

My thought is that ?most? of them were caused by excessive rubbing by over-enthusiastic owners. Grade wasn't a major issue back then anyway. The one you illustrate may have been carried around in ignorance in someone's wallet or pocket. Perhaps there was the odd shopkeeper who would take one? Though considering the total mintage was a few thousand most people wouldn't have seen one.

[VickySilver]

The non-1927 Wreath proofs were presumably distributed officially to museums - probably some found their way into private individuals hands on occasion as well  I have never seen ANY record of montages of either these crowns or of the minor denominations. 

 

The proof Jubilee crown was available by subscription to 2500 montage with a lottery for the gold specimens. Lesser folk had to manage with so-called specimen coins that were special but just not so special. Some of the George V proofs are very much scarcer than others - the 1930 half crown comes to mind. 

[Rob]

The thing that makes me suspicious about the proof crowns is that Norweb only had one year (1934) where the crown was described as a proof. A couple more years had a proof-like description, but were not categorised as a proof. I find it difficult to believe that she wasn't able to find any proof crowns for the other years given the collection had virtually all the proofs for G5 halfcrowns and below. More so as she was a hoover, and usually given first choice by the London dealers. The question therefore still remains in my mind as to how many, if any, were made apart from 1927.

[VickySilver]

I have what appears to be an original 1936 6 coin silver proof set with the crown IMO a fully proof coin. Most really are not as I've said however. I also have "probable " proofs bought from Spink 20 years ago - 1932 and 1934 - that have the blessing of Steve Hill, if that be of any comfort. 

[rpeddie]

mind if i nip pictures off you of the 1936 proof set? 😁

[Peckris 2]

11 hours ago, VickySilver said:

I have what appears to be an original 1936 6 coin silver proof set with the crown IMO a fully proof coin. Most really are not as I've said however. I also have "probable " proofs bought from Spink 20 years ago - 1932 and 1934 - that have the blessing of Steve Hill, if that be of any comfort. 

Sounds like they did a few VIP proofs - not surprising since other denominations got them too.

[Rob]

19 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Sounds like they did a few VIP proofs - not surprising since other denominations got them too.

I wouldn't be surprised either if there were a handful - say comparable to the numbers of the smaller denominations, but the large number so attributed leads me to play devil's advocate.

Having said that, I stand by my comments about Mrs N only having a 1934. As the go to cash cow for the large London dealers over a period of 25 years, I am surprised that she only had the 1934, as you would have expected the large houses to come up with more in such a lengthy period if they existed in appreciable numbers. After all, she did manage nearly a complete set of all the smaller coins.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Rob

[craigy]

nice matte proof one up for sale at sovereign rarities next week, some big old gouges on the obverse, who do they get on a proof coin 

Edited September 21, 2018 by craigy

[Peckris 2]

13 minutes ago, craigy said:

nice matte proof one up for sale at sovereign rarities next week, some big old gouges on the obverse, who do they get on a proof coin 

Same as always - careless handling by a previous owner.

[VickySilver]

A couple of the larger ones appear to be present prior to "sandblasting". I don't understand how this one got a 66 and the other a 63 - matte grading is not a strong point of the TPGs.

[youliveyoulean]

Surely if VIP proofs were made for the lesser denominations, one would expect a corresponding version for the Crown (can you honestly imagine the powers that be giving a VIP a sixpence etc. without a larger denomination!?) although Rob's point must be right and is very perplexing!

I must admit, although not technically correct, I work on the principle if it is not an obvious proof to the naked eye, then I would seriously question it. If you can clearly see some of the sixpences etc. as proofs (which you most definitely can), then you should sure as hell be able to spot a VIP proof Crown. There should be no doubt.

That 1932 proof Crown falls into my criteria of no way Jose!!