Citizen H Posted January 16 Posted January 16 hello again, looking through the layers of coins ( all in pockets) 4 more crowns have been found, now someone more organised would have put them in groups and some sort of an order, I didnt!!!!! of late I had a bit of a issue with memory and its hopefully going to get better...... 2 for today... 1892 Victorian Jubilee Head silver crown slightly more dinged so I guess value £30... following on from yesterday. the other 1892 is slightly smaller (Half Crown?) and different obverse. Value? its much better condition but have been circulated, any guidance greatly welcome. All the best "H" Quote
Paddy Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Hi H, The second 1889 is a double florin, which is why it is a little smaller. You are not the first to be confused by them. They were only issued 1887 to 1890 and became nicknamed "The Barmaid's ruin" because of the number of times they were mistaken for a Crown and so the wrong change given. They are not rare and a bit of a niche collectors area, being so few dates to go for. There are a few minor varieties, mostly to do with the font of the date. Because of this I would say yours is worth £20 to £30. 5 Quote
Citizen H Posted January 16 Author Posted January 16 48 minutes ago, Paddy said: Hi H, The second 1889 is a double florin, which is why it is a little smaller. You are not the first to be confused by them. They were only issued 1887 to 1890 and became nicknamed "The Barmaid's ruin" because of the number of times they were mistaken for a Crown and so the wrong change given. They are not rare and a bit of a niche collectors area, being so few dates to go for. There are a few minor varieties, mostly to do with the font of the date. Because of this I would say yours is worth £20 to £30. Hello Paddy, I seem to think I had a period of luck finding these regularly I knew they were silver so was buying them up, it did make me wonder if it was a Half Crown so now Ive been corrected all of its its information is going onto a tag so I can keep everyone in the family updated. many thanks "H" Quote
Peckris 2 Posted January 16 Posted January 16 3 hours ago, Citizen H said: Hello Paddy, I seem to think I had a period of luck finding these regularly I knew they were silver so was buying them up, it did make me wonder if it was a Half Crown so now Ive been corrected all of its its information is going onto a tag so I can keep everyone in the family updated. many thanks "H" This is the halfcrown reverse - the design (like the shilling) is a bit of a dog’s dinner, but this proof makes it look quite good. 5 Quote
Citizen H Posted January 16 Author Posted January 16 3 hours ago, Peckris 2 said: This is the halfcrown reverse - the design (like the shilling) is a bit of a dog’s dinner, but this proof makes it look quite good. Wow, the workmanship is incredible, Busy..but incredible.... I'm sure I don't have have one... but I'm still working through them, Cheers "H" Quote
Sword Posted January 16 Posted January 16 I rather like the double florins myself but they are somewhat unloved and can be obtained significantly more cheaply than crowns. The main varieties for the 1887 is the "Arabic 1" (like you 1889) and the "Roman I". These are my examples: (1887 is the Roman and 1888 is the Arabic) 6 Quote
Peckris 2 Posted January 17 Posted January 17 There are also scarce varieties in 1888 and 1889 where the second I of VICTORIA is missing part of the upper serif (die infill) making it look like a 1. Only significantly more valuable in higher grades. 2 Quote
Sword Posted January 18 Posted January 18 (edited) 12 hours ago, Peckris 2 said: There are also scarce varieties in 1888 and 1889 where the second I of VICTORIA is missing part of the upper serif (die infill) making it look like a 1. Only significantly more valuable in higher grades. I just can't bring myself to spend a lot more on this "inverted 1" variety when it is now well known it is due to a filled die and so not a "true" variety. The correct thing to do is to delist it as a variety. But there is no inclination to do that of course. Edited January 18 by Sword 2 Quote
Peckris 2 Posted January 20 Posted January 20 On 1/18/2025 at 10:48 AM, Sword said: I just can't bring myself to spend a lot more on this "inverted 1" variety when it is now well known it is due to a filled die and so not a "true" variety. The correct thing to do is to delist it as a variety. But there is no inclination to do that of course. I'm old enough to remember when 1961 halfcrowns had a variety “EF missing”, the designers initials below the reverse shield. Of course this was just a filled die and that ‘variety' has not been listed for decades. 2 Quote
Citizen H Posted January 31 Author Posted January 31 The Victorian Crown that was found today, not sure about the marks on one side ? Quote
Citizen H Posted January 31 Author Posted January 31 Just now, Citizen H said: The Victorian Crown that was found today, not sure about the marks on one side ? Quote
jelida Posted January 31 Posted January 31 They look to be where a brooch pin and catch were soldered. Jerry 2 Quote
Citizen H Posted January 31 Author Posted January 31 43 minutes ago, jelida said: They look to be where a brooch pin and catch were soldered. Jerry Hello Jerry... I did wonder... I believe this was a fashion, its rubbed and de valued like drilled coins... it was my Mam who believed it to be most valuable when passing it onto me,....... Sorry Mam don't shoot the messenger! many thanks "H" Quote
Citizen H Posted July 23 Author Posted July 23 Today I found this crown thats been on the side for some months.....I admittedly am a cleaner of grubby coins, warm soapy water soak and a soft tooth brush. the coins that otherwise have been dismissed turn out to be quite a good grade hiding under all of the grime... I dont polish or remove tarnish....which leads to the attached. this is untouched by me, I have been wondering if the tarnish is artificial ? it looks an odd / even colour to me.... any comments welcome.... Quote
Sword Posted July 28 Posted July 28 I don't think the colour is "artificial". I think that perhaps someone has tried to clean it in the past (look in particular to the area in front of the horse). The tarnish is more easily removed from the worn areas of the coin and hence the appearance after "cleaning". 1 1 Quote
Citizen H Posted July 29 Author Posted July 29 Many thanks, its reassuring to have other opinions especially when there's doubt is going around in my mind..... admittedly I do sympathetically wash the grubby ones over removing the hand grime and god only knows what else they have been covered in...however this one I left well alone.....other than the colour its in a more than air condition so its a keep, 👍many thanks fellas, Cheers "H" Quote
Sword Posted July 30 Posted July 30 11 hours ago, Citizen H said: ..... admittedly I do sympathetically wash the grubby ones over removing the hand grime and god only knows what else they have been covered in... I don't think there is any problem with washing really dirty low grade coins gently if necessary. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.