Pattern 1951 Crown, What Do You See?

[VickySilver]

Here is a pattern 1951 crown I got from Mark Rasmussen some 6-8 years ago. The main difference is in the lettering, but even the devices to obverse and reverse seem somewhat different, what do think?

 

 

 

sorry I can’t get the reverse to load for some reason as I can’t compress it. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by VickySilver
Clarify

[VickySilver]

It looks that a note or figure was removed from the fields to the right of George. 

[ozjohn]

Try IfanView 64 or 32 which ha a resizing function.

[Nick]

I can't really see any difference in the design between your pattern and my 1951 proof (attached).  I overlaid the pictures and nothing stands out.  Is the reverse substantially different?

[Nick]

Just read the description on your pattern on rascoins:

1951, similar to last but struck from unpolished dies, graffiti (Royal Mint, identification marks?) removed from obverse field, edge with polished finish and lettering of finer style, 27.97g., ESC-; L&S -, S.-, unlike the previous specimen this is fully struck, of the highest rarity,
Ex. Rees-Jones (293, part).
EF

[VickySilver]

Yes, that is the one. I believe the lettering is slightly different in font and spacing. For whatever reason, I can't add the image after I compress it (of the reverse, that is).

Edited February 22, 2021 by VickySilver
clarification

[Nick]

Here's the reverse, on behalf of VS.

 

[Coinery]

So how would it be possible to distinguish between the pattern and the proof coin, with all devices being equal? Is that the main enquiry?

[Sword]

It is rather unusual that the pattern was struck using worn reverse die. Hence the flatness on St George's chest and helmet. I remember reading somewhere that the 1951 crown was struck using a left over die from the Victorian era with the date altered. Might be someone experimented with a worn old die as an experiment and then a previously unused one was employed for striking the real thing?

[VickySilver]

That was my thought. I could be wrong but the lettering on the obverse appears different. As example each of the letters on pattern appears a bit taller. The upper serif on the first  "S" of SHILLINGS besides being larger looks to be more pronounced. Look also on the serifs and general shape of the second "S" on that part of the legend, etc.

[Sword]

The serifs on the letters "S" certainly do look different. 

It's a real shame that someone has removed the possible identification marks on the obverse. It could have given really interesting information. 

[Coinery]

Definitely different lettering for me, especially  when compared against Nick’s example.

[Peckris 2]

I think THE most obvious difference is the rim - it's very much wider on the pattern.

[VickySilver]

I think they use acid to show semi-worn or softly struck dates on buffalo nickels - but think I'll have to forego on this one.

 

Interestingly, I have a 1927 Crown that is a similar type of  pattern, ex-Pretoria Mint, that has some edge differences and perhaps a couple of others, maybe I will try to find and post with a bit of help (I think an "update" on my iPhone has cost me the ability to post smaller pictures)....

[Mr T]

16 hours ago, VickySilver said:

Interestingly, I have a 1927 Crown that is a similar type of  pattern, ex-Pretoria Mint, that has some edge differences and perhaps a couple of others, maybe I will try to find and post with a bit of help (I think an "update" on my iPhone has cost me the ability to post smaller pictures)....

Oh interesting - hope you can dig it up.

[VickySilver]

Hi all, I believe Nick will post some pictures of the 1927 which I have sent to him...THis 1927 coin was posted in the April 1997 SNC and bought for nearly a song by today's standards. Supposedly a pattern and listed with a bevelled edge, I bought it along with a modest 1927 shilling pattern as well....See what you think and please comment.

[Nick]

Here are the pictures (reduced in size) from VS:

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Nick

[VickySilver]

As they say in old Mexico: "Gracias amigo"!

 

I don't  believe the edges are filed, but can not be certain; see for example the. second photo of obverse. BTW, none of that toning on the coin, that is reflection of the mylar in the 2x2 & the apparent scratches are on the mylar and not the coin which is decent enough but no crazy cameo contrast.

Edited February 27, 2021 by VickySilver
clarification

[Mr T]

Thanks - any other differences to look for besides the edge?

[VickySilver]

I am trying to see, but these old eyes can't see a lot....I wasn't too keen about the initial SNC offering but the shilling has more differences (I can not find that one at the moment).

[Mr T]

Thanks - I'll try and take a closer look on the weekend.

[Mr T]

On 3/1/2021 at 4:59 AM, VickySilver said:

I am trying to see, but these old eyes can't see a lot....I wasn't too keen about the initial SNC offering but the shilling has more differences (I can not find that one at the moment).

Hard to say from the pictures, but comparing to https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/57841, there might be a bit more detail in the King's hair and area under his eye, and on the reverse the left arm of the centre cross almost touches the bottom arch on the pattern but is well clear on the standard.

Both reverses have 180 denticles and both obverses have 183 denticles by my count.

Are there any better images?

[VickySilver]

PM me email and I can get you better pictures - these are compressed.  Good looking out, Gold Star for you Sir!

[coinkat]

The reverse is different... I would suggest substantially different. There was another thread I started under varieties that address the main difference between what I refer to as the type I Reverse which is the type we see on the pattern and the type II Reverse which is the reverse type on the other that was posted on this thread. There are significant differences in the detail of the horse, the dragon wings, the forearm of holding the sword. What I find puzzling is how this difference could go virtually unnoticed for the better part of 69 years. For these interested, the discussion is more developed on the other thread

Edited March 4, 2021 by coinkat

[Mr T]

On 3/5/2021 at 7:01 AM, coinkat said:

The reverse is different... I would suggest substantially different. There was another thread I started under varieties that address the main difference between what I refer to as the type I Reverse which is the type we see on the pattern and the type II Reverse which is the reverse type on the other that was posted on this thread. There are significant differences in the detail of the horse, the dragon wings, the forearm of holding the sword. What I find puzzling is how this difference could go virtually unnoticed for the better part of 69 years. For these interested, the discussion is more developed on the other thread

Related to http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/13797-1951-crown-type-i-and-type-ii-reverse/