1951 Crown- Type I and Type II reverse

[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. 

[Peckris 2]

Your attachment isn't.

Nor is the link to PCGS world coin forum.

FWIW I have not seen any real difference, but is this the proof you're talking about? It could be a heavily processed image.

[coinkat]

I did not include attachments or a link to the other thread. The image you have posted is what I would call the Type II reverse. 

[coinkat]

The one that I just posted would be the Type I reverse... please look at the legs of the horse, the forearm that holds the sword and the difference in the dragon wings and arms. This clearly has the look of the reverse of an 1899 Crown which is what was written in Coincraft. The difference is quite clear and I have seen the difference in hand by actually looking at a coin that has the type I and type II reverse..

Edited November 28, 2020 by coinkat
clarification that I seen actual coins and not just images

[Peckris 2]

Yes, I can certainly see those differences.

Could the Type II be from the proof sets? If Type I is vastly more common then that could be the reason.

[coinkat]

This is where more research will be needed. I have not rounded up all of the 1951 crowns I own yet. I have one Type I- (the 1899 reverse) and the others are the modified design which I am calling Type II. The coin I posted here is from the PCGS pop report and graded as a PR66- note it was graded as a proof- and not a PL. I am not sure yet if the differences in the type I or II are a sure determining factor as to distinguishing between a Proof and a PL. My gut says both reverse types were used to strike proofs and the dies saw continued use for PL examples. One of the other interesting questions is whether just one reverse type was used for the Festival crown production and if there are records that track that mintage. My initial gut reaction to all of this is that the Type I reverse was used first and it was replaced by the type II. How long the Type I reverse was in production may never be known. 

I do hope that those collectors that so happen to own a 1951 crown will look at the reverse to see which type they have.

[Peckris 2]

I have several but they're scattered, I also have a 51 proof set. I don't have the manual dexterity these days, but if you get no other replies I'll try and look a couple out.

[Sleepy]

Well here's mine to add to the debate I am not going try and say if they are type I or II, or even if such a variety exist.

From the left a boxed crown, one from a proof set, and on the right just a bog standard coin with green stuff.

[Sleepy]

ok those images are terrible try these:-

 

[Rob]

I have two lying in front of me as I read this and it's one of each. I was wondering if one is a 'problem' with the reducing machine, or alternatively, given the variation in the end of the horse's tail, that could be down to how much the die is polished. A third possibility is whether one type was made at the Festival of Britain and the other at the mint.

Dave Groom also noted in his book that a larger space before FLORET had been reported. Again, these two here are one of each. This must be due to different collars being used.

Edited November 29, 2020 by Rob

[coinkat]

@sleepy

The first is a type I and the second is a type II and the third also looks to be a type II

@Rob

While I considered die polishing, I tend to doubt that given the variation in the wings between the two issues. If one compares the 1951 type I reverse to an 1899 reverse, one will see a greater commonality in the features of the horse and dragon.  And your third possibility as to one being made at the festival and the other at the Royal Mint is spot on and cannot be ruled out until further research is completed... that is if there are any records that still exist that may shed light on this.

Thank you all for looking. 

[coinkat]

sleepy... my mistake as the third one is a Type I 

[Peckris 2]

Another difference is the horse's head - much more detail on the Type II

I think Rob may have the answer : the dies used at the Festival of Britain may have either been a different engraving, or were allowed to wear more than the Mint equivalents.

[Rob]

1 minute ago, Peckris 2 said:

Another difference is the horse's head - much more detail on the Type II

I think Rob may have the answer : the dies used at the Festival of Britain may have either been a different engraving, or were allowed to wear more than the Mint equivalents.

Not only that, but they would likely have used the minimum force to give an acceptable result to minimise stress on the presses. A breakdown would not be good.

[Peckris 2]

1 minute ago, Rob said:

Not only that, but they would likely have used the minimum force to give an acceptable result to minimise stress on the presses. A breakdown would not be good.

Yes, there is an overall lack of sharply clear detail on the Type I, not only in the areas mentioned.

Just one thing : did the Mint also sell their crowns in the Festival of Britain cardboard cases? I appear to have one such that is apparently Type II

[Rob]

After nearly 70 years I would hesitate to say with certainty if any crown was in its original box. You have a load of crowns and you have a pile of boxes, then you find a box to match the state of the coin. The only ones virtually guaranteed to be original are those that have never changed hands.

[coinkat]

I have located 6 and I know that I have others. What is interesting to note is I have three that came from boxes- one maroon and two green- And those were all type I reverses. The other three are type II reverses. 

There are differences in the horse's head as both of you have noted. What is even more interesting is even within the type II reverses I have inspected, there is a significant difference in the dragon wings. One has the outer wing webbing missing in part which I suspect is either die polish or die wear. However, the other has a very well defined outer webbing that sets this one apart from the others.  It has the look that the die on that well defined example came from either a reworked/reengraved die. 

[divemaster]

Variants listed by LCGS 

[coinkat]

I would expect more from a grading service... regardless as to which side of the pond they so happen to be located.  Look at the details LCGS provided and  those images I provided in this thread and how that difference was  identified in pictures I provided. And in all fairness, they are not my pictures... but at least I found and provided pictures that clearly illustrate reverse variations that should have been recognized decades ago. But that really seems shallow and short sided as this 1951 Crown has been reduced to the who cares category instead of honoring the interest and tradition in issuing a Crown sized coin not to mention a Monarch that deserves attention and appreciation for the situation he inherited and did not seek or ask for.  Sad...

Edited May 12, 2021 by coinkat
grammar

[mick1271]

I have dug my four boxed ones out .Looking at the dragons wing webbing alone .One has all the webbing .one is missing a part of a section , one is missing a full section and the other is missing 2 sections .I will stick pics up when I get a chance .

 

[mick1271]

[mick1271]

Top four are boxed . 2 green , 2 burgundy .Last one is from a proof set .I had a couple of dozen , but kept 4 because of the different box types .Matchbox type and lift off lid ,in each colour .Looks like verd on the proof set one , but it must be my photographic skills as it isn't visible on the coin itself .

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by mick1271

[coinkat]

So based on the images and the distinguishing features between what I have described as type I and type II- And seriously these distinctions will likely be further delineated should there be collector interest- your first and fifth coins are Type II; the second and fourth are Type I;  the third coin is alittle challenging based on the image as the central details are not quite as well defined. Please do not take that as a criticism of the image. I see that one as a type II. 

What is truly amazing... at least in my view... is that there has not been a further study of the die varieties associated with this coin that has either been done or found its way to the mainstream for collectors to appreciate.

 

[Lotad]

I took these ages back, I gave up trying to resize them, but they’re here now. 
 

I had 15 on hand at the time, mostly boxed, some loose, maybe one graded PCGS PL64. 
 

Type 1 - chubby

 

[Lotad]

Oh man, I can’t upload 0.5mb per post? Now I remember why I didn’t do this the first time. 
 

Here’s a link to the 4 photos, arranged Type 1/2/1/2

https://imgur.com/a/l8npJds