1928 Wreath crown, does it look Kosher?

[azda]

Asking for opinions for someone who just reads the forum and asked me to post this. My personal opinion is I don't like how it looks, the toning in the legends looks artificial, would like to hear others thoughst. REV picture to follow tomorrow, weight 28.2g

Edited January 12, 2020 by azda

[Peckris 2]

Could be a cleaned kosher?

[JLS]

Really hard to say just based on that photograph, look forward to seeing the reverse. Definitely looks like it could have been cleaned or lightly polished if genuine. 

[ozjohn]

Compared it with  my 1927 crown and cannot see anything obviously wrong. Perhaps some cleaning in the past. Seemed to be a slightly lighter strike than my 1927 crown.

[mrbadexample]

13 hours ago, ozjohn said:

Seemed to be a slightly lighter strike than my 1927 crown.

But your 1927 is a proof.  

No alarm bells ringing here (which doesn't mean much).

[ozjohn]

True a better strike perhaps but the question posed was about the authenticity of the coin to which I compared the subject coin to the closest I had ie a 1927 proof coin of the same type.

I cannot see your problem with it being a proof.

We are still waiting to see a scan of the reverse.

 

[Sword]

25 minutes ago, ozjohn said:

True a better strike perhaps but the question posed was about the authenticity of the coin to which I compared the subject coin to the closest I had ie a 1927 proof coin of the same type.

I cannot see your problem with it being a proof.

We are still waiting to see a scan of the reverse.

My only example is a 1927 proof too and it is also a better strike. I think mrbadexample is just saying that a proof is generally better struck when compared to a non-proof currency and so this is expected. A currency flan has only been struck once but a proof had been struck multiple times (4 times being common) to improve the sharpness of details.

Fakes of wreath crowns can be very convincing and it is sometimes very difficult to tell from a photo. I guess checking if it is the correct diameter / thickness / weight and if it rings like 0.5 silver would be good indicators. Like others, the coin in the OP could have just been once cleaned.

[Peckris 2]

I think many wreaths were struck to prooflike standards, on carefully prepared planchets, and  with each die necessarily only getting limited use.

[Sword]

42 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

I think many wreaths were struck to prooflike standards, on carefully prepared planchets, and  with each die necessarily only getting limited use.

Limited die use certainly, and I assumed that is the reason why the early struck examples are proof like. But I am not aware that the planchets themselves were specially prepared for the currency issues.

[ozjohn]

2 hours ago, Sword said:

My only example is a 1927 proof too and it is also a better strike. I think mrbadexample is just saying that a proof is generally better struck when compared to a non-proof currency and so this is expected. A currency flan has only been struck once but a proof had been struck multiple times (4 times being common) to improve the sharpness of details.

Fakes of wreath crowns can be very convincing and it is sometimes very difficult to tell from a photo. I guess checking if it is the correct diameter / thickness / weight and if it rings like 0.5 silver would be good indicators. Like others, the coin in the OP could have just been once cleaned.

I just thought it wasn't necessary. 15000 1927 crowns were minted all proofs.

One thing in favour of the 1928 crown in question is the fine detail of the King's eyebrow is visible, something I never noticed until I obtained a 1927 crown . This is hard to see on the smaller size currency issues of the ME coinage and not always present as is like the fine detail on the thistle on the reverse of the halfcrown. These details are the sort of thing that could be missed by a forger.

Edited January 14, 2020 by ozjohn
typo

[VickySilver]

Looks buffed/polished to me. I think legit though.

[oldcopper]

10 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I think many wreaths were struck to prooflike standards, on carefully prepared planchets, and  with each die necessarily only getting limited use.

I'd have thought so - these coins were struck for collectors in relatively small mintages, so a higher standard of strike would be expected.

[Sleepy]

IMO the ear looks worn (or poorly struck) which could be indicative of a bit of polishing. It would be nice to see the reverse and check the roses and thistles. Unfortunately like everyone else I've only got the 1927 proof version to compare.

[mrbadexample]

46 minutes ago, Sleepy said:

IMO the ear looks worn (or poorly struck) which could be indicative of a bit of polishing. It would be nice to see the reverse and check the roses and thistles. Unfortunately like everyone else I've only got the 1927 proof version to compare.

I've got a 1928 but lower grade than the posted coin: 

 

[mrbadexample]

[Peckris 2]

22 hours ago, Sword said:

Limited die use certainly, and I assumed that is the reason why the early struck examples are proof like. But I am not aware that the planchets themselves were specially prepared for the currency issues.

As OldCopper points out, these were specially struck for collectors or as gifts, so they'd have had careful treatment compared to currency. I believe it may have been the same for Geo III crowns? I'm sure I once read that they were delivered to banks in special wrappings to protect them, which wouldn't have been the case for any other denomination, gold included.

[Sword]

Just now, Peckris 2 said:

As OldCopper points out, these were specially struck for collectors or as gifts, so they'd have had careful treatment compared to currency. I believe it may have been the same for Geo III crowns? I'm sure I once read that they were delivered to banks in special wrappings to protect them, which wouldn't have been the case for any other denomination, gold included.

The George III crown were struck by a series of graduated blows even for the currency. They were indeed wrapped in paper before being delivered to the banks. ESC made the comment that it is almost impossible to distinguish a proof from a perfect ordinary specimen. Hence the proof is only included in ESC with "hesitancy"

However, Eric has convinced me that proof Wreath crowns have superior strike and sharper edges compared to proof-like early struck examples. 

[Peckris 2]

3 minutes ago, Sword said:

However, Eric has convinced me that proof Wreath crowns have superior strike and sharper edges compared to proof-like early struck examples. 

They would be on the level of VIP Proof then, i.e. extremely rare. I'm sure what the TPG companies pass off as proofs very often aren’t.

[Stuntman]

My 1930, if it's any help:

[Peckris 2]

2 minutes ago, Stuntman said:

My 1930, if it's any help:

I'd bet my shirt that's not a proof!

[Sword]

10 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

They would be on the level of VIP Proof then, i.e. extremely rare. I'm sure what the TPG companies pass off as proofs very often aren’t.

Eric's recent tread on the subject. The genuine 1928 proof is so much more impressive than the merely proof-like currency examples.

http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/13508-heritage-nyinc-sale-1932-proof-wreath-i-think-not/?tab=comments#comment-188788

 

[Peckris 2]

1 minute ago, Sword said:

Eric's recent tread on the subject. The genuine 1928 proof is so much more impressive than the merely proof-like currency examples.

http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/13508-heritage-nyinc-sale-1932-proof-wreath-i-think-not/?tab=comments#comment-188788

 

Yes that looks like a kosher proof.

[Sword]

4 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yes that looks like a kosher proof.

And considerably better struck than even a top currency I think.

[VickySilver]

There was once much discussion on this topic. LA Lawrence sale(s) - hell Rob - had a number and then Norweb did. The former seemed IMO a bit unsure as to status whereas Norweb sales cataloguer more convinced of Proof status. Steve Hill has weighed in on this on a number of occasions as well.

I have to say that sometimes determining proof status is a bit difficult; I will try to post some pages on writeup of proof vs. specimen vs. currency that came from the Eliasberg Canadian sale & might need a bit of help. I'll try on the weekend if there is interest.

[Rob]

The most significant crown collection to come to market after the wreaths were issued was Lingford in 1950. He had 3 years listed as proofs - 1932 (601) said to be one of four struck for special purposes, ex- G C Brooke collection; 1934 (603) listed as only six struck; 1936 (611) proof from polished dies, only two known. That suggests they are available, but not in large numbers. The Brooke coin note is probably significant as his collection was sold in 1935, and Brooke worked in the BM's C&M department where he had access to the relevant information being in receipt of new strikings from the mint.

His collection of English crowns ran to 614 lots, with issues collected by die variety. It's likely in my view that they were rare enough for the missing years not to have resurfaced, or if the odd example had done so, he or Baldwin's (his usual supplier of material) had not seen them, given he was probably their biggest customer at the time.

Brooke's English Coins reference volume first published in 1932 was also dedicated to L A Lawrence - 'My friend and helper', which again would lead one to assume that there was frequent communication between the two. Lawrence's sale 11/7/1951 had full year sets for 1930-1936, all described as brilliant and very rare (the very rare implying proofs or specimens given it would not be difficult to assemble a complete contemporary collection of top notch current coins, but not noted as such). He also had one lot (879) which was '1929 Crown to Sixpence. Special strikings, like proofs, rare'. So, as Vicky says, maybe Lawrence was unconvinced (or at least the Glendining cataloguer was) as to whether they were proofs or not.

I think on balance it is likely they did produce a few proofs of each year given the accepted existence of proof halfcrowns through to farthings, which would make the lack of similar crowns unlikely), but I am also of the opinion that the number of crowns slabbed as proofs seems to be a little generous. This is not without precedence, as I have Freeman's F329A halfpenny, which has been mentioned before on here as being another contentious proof/specimen coin. It was categorised as such by Freeman and slabbed as a proof in the Terner sale, but a number of equally respected views consider it not to be up to proof standard.