George VI Davissons

[Coinery 1,294]

‘Pleasing uncirculated’ halfcrown if you’re looking for one?

[Coinery 1,294]

If you’re looking for a type-set, there’s also this ‘choice uncirculated’ crown to go with it!

[VickySilver 898]

Yes I saw those - he has previously been possibly a bit conservative but believe that to be a family business. Is there now another hand involved with the grading and cataloguing?

[Coinery 1,294]

34 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

Yes I saw those - he has previously been possibly a bit conservative but believe that to be a family business. Is there now another hand involved with the grading and cataloguing?

You may be right, something’s definitely adrift? The starting prices are crazy-high too, I can’t even begin to imagine them selling.

[VickySilver 898]

I have been somewhat saddened by what appears to be the demise of that company. I used to communicate with Alan about coins and got some quite decent pieces from him years ago & do hope he is well. I still look at their "offerings" but have not bid for quite a few years now. Well, here's to hoping the ship can be righted....

 

PS - really superb currency George VI crowns are hard to come by as I believe the planchets were not well cared for and there are nearly always bag marks, including in key areas. Same is generally true of the George V 1935 Jubilee  crown issues.

Edited April 26 by VickySilver

[Rob 3,313]

Alan's son Lief has a large part to play these days. Maybe that's the reason. Still, not had a problem with them though. I bought a token in the last sale which had a spot of verdigris, so he offered me a better one instead at the same price. Very happy. 

[Peckris 2 2,235]

On 4/26/2025 at 4:11 PM, VickySilver said:

PS - really superb currency George VI crowns are hard to come by as I believe the planchets were not well cared for and there are nearly always bag marks, including in key areas. Same is generally true of the George V 1935 Jubilee  crown issues.

AFAIK there aren’t any currency crowns? The 1937 and 1951 were both commemoratives, not for circulation.

[copper123 1,594]

2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

AFAIK there aren’t any currency crowns? The 1937 and 1951 were both commemoratives, not for circulation.

The odd few did circulate esp in the war years remember  many people finances were turned upside down.

Many of those that circulated have been melted down now as they were seen as useless as no-one wanted them in the fifties and sixties , not collectors anyway

Edited April 28 by copper123

[VickySilver 898]

On 4/28/2025 at 9:11 AM, copper123 said:

The odd few did circulate esp in the war years remember  many people finances were turned upside down.

Many of those that circulated have been melted down now as they were seen as useless as no-one wanted them in the fifties and sixties , not collectors anyway

This. They were struck in large numbers in non-proof uncirculated (ie currency) pieces regardless of them being commemorative issues & as we know many commems find their way into business "currency" channels.

[Peckris 2 2,235]

On 4/28/2025 at 2:11 PM, copper123 said:

The odd few did circulate esp in the war years remember  many people finances were turned upside down.

Many of those that circulated have been melted down now as they were seen as useless as no-one wanted them in the fifties and sixties , not collectors anyway

 

On 4/30/2025 at 1:50 AM, VickySilver said:

This. They were struck in large numbers in non-proof uncirculated (ie currency) pieces regardless of them being commemorative issues & as we know many commems find their way into business "currency" channels.

Regardless of whether some found their way into circulation, they weren't struck as currency IMO.

[VickySilver 898]

Perhaps a matter of definition. IMHO if a coin is of uncirculated quality when struck and then pushed out of the mint in bag quantities and spent in significant numbers whilst most not receiving any special treatment or being cased individually or placed In sets (which was what happened) as was the case of these crowns, then they would fit the definition of "currency". 

[Peckris 2 2,235]

On 5/3/2025 at 7:33 AM, VickySilver said:

Perhaps a matter of definition. IMHO if a coin is of uncirculated quality when struck and then pushed out of the mint in bag quantities and spent in significant numbers whilst most not receiving any special treatment or being cased individually or placed In sets (which was what happened) as was the case of these crowns, then they would fit the definition of "currency". 

NOT ‘spent in significant numbers’! (see copper123’s post..). Also 1951 Crowns were struck to ‘prooflike’ quality.

But perhaps we should agree to differ on this?

[Rob 3,313]

Sort of related. I was chatting one night with GC and he mentioned that he got a lot of 1960 crowns from the bank when they were issued as part of the money drawn out for wage packets for the company workers. His father was not amused and instructed him to pay them out asap, and don't do it again. So I suppose they might have circulated anecdotally, but never widely adopted.