joe_77 Posted July 23 Author Posted July 23 Thank you VickySilver! I think this is an intriguing topic and it feels like many information have yet not been properly investigated. Hopefully my effort will be beneficial to the community. By the way, in the 1960 Mint Annual Report we read: "[..] the New York Herald Tribune to caption a photograph ‘While Prince Philip stood by Vice-President Nixon looks through a jeweller’s glass at a British gold coin’" (they are referring to the medal which was struck on site). I wonder if this picture is the one immortalising the moment! Quote
joe_77 Posted July 24 Author Posted July 24 Hello everyone, Between July 22nd and 23rd 2025 I was lucky enough to have a fruitful conversation with The Royal Mint Museum. Please do find below our exchange which will surely provide important information to our quest to better understand the 1960 Crown. What follows is a re-formatted write-up for better reading of the whole conversation but has been cross-checked by the RMM. Quote The 1960 crown was struck to proof standard, and it was struck to circulating standard. Beyond that, the other terms that emerge [such as proof-like and VIP proofs varieties] do little more than complicate the situation: there are no “VIP proofs” or “satin finish” specimens, both of which are terms invented by the secondary market and with no basis in production records at the Royal Mint. Similarly, there are no “proof-like” pieces, which is a term again created by the trade market and usually intended to denote circulating standard coins that exhibit proof-like features, for example a circulating coin that was struck very early in the lifespan of the die and is of a crisper quality than normal. Those brought to the New York Exhibition ([..] and contained within plastic cases) were struck from polished dies, but given that a small number were sold separately to collectors, it seems that the proofs were not struck exclusively for the Exhibition. So those struck for the Exhibition were struck on polished dies, to a different standard, but those struck on polished dies and sold at the exhibition would not have been distinct from those struck on polished dies and sold to collectors in Britain. Though it is not beyond the realm of possibility that particularly good examples of the Mint’s work might have been selected to bring over. I can offer the following facts from various records in our archive: 873,638 ordinary crowns were struck 150,400 crowns were struck from polished dies Sales at the Exhibition totalled about 34,500. Separate sales to collectors totalled around 5,300. [Note that 873,638 and 150,400 amount to 1,024,038 which is the figure stated in the 1960 Annual Report] The unsold balance of crowns struck from polished dies was returned, removed from the cases, and then issued in bags to the banks. Again, the term “prooflike” does not appear in any of our records, and it is not a term we would recognise in a production capacity, but its emergence on the secondary market is understandable, especially if the unsold proof balance was issued in bags to the banks thereafter. The terminology used for striking qualities can be a little fuzzy when we go back to the 1960s. In the vast majority of our records, what we now refer to as “proof” 1960 crowns are referred to either as “bright”, “bright finish” or “crowns struck from polished dies”. The total mintage of what we might now call “proof”, “bright”, or “struck from polished dies” coins was 150,400. I do not have an exact figure for those that were issued in that state, beyond “around 34,500” at the Exhibition and “around 5,300” separately to collectors. There is, as best I can see, no mention of “proofs with frosted devices”, only the circulating pieces and those struck with polished dies. [The Royal Mint Museum] holds four specimens of the 1960 crown, all of which are recorded in the collection as proofs. See: https://royalmintmuseum.collectionsindex.com/object-rmm-2367 https://royalmintmuseum.collectionsindex.com/object-rmm-2368 https://royalmintmuseum.collectionsindex.com/object-rmm-2369 https://royalmintmuseum.collectionsindex.com/object-rmm-2370 [As far as the Glendinings auction from 4th October 1962 which lists a silver 1960 Crown], we are not aware of, and have not encountered, a silver proof of this coin. The majority of the original mint files from the period new reside at the National Archives under the designation MINT and reference numbers to the two files below have emerged from our own archive: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5398431 https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5398430 4 Quote
VickySilver Posted July 26 Posted July 26 So Rob, do you have a copy of the mentioned Glens Oct. 1962 catalogue? I would like to see their listing on this crown. Glens used to have some absolutely tremendous coins "back in the day". Note the 1839 halfcrown that is pictured in the PCGS population reports.... Quote
joe_77 Posted July 26 Author Posted July 26 5 hours ago, VickySilver said: So Rob, do you have a copy of the mentioned Glens Oct. 1962 catalogue? I would like to see their listing on this crown. Glens used to have some absolutely tremendous coins "back in the day". Note the 1839 halfcrown that is pictured in the PCGS population reports.... Hello @VickySilver I posted it some post back, you can see it here: https://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/15028-concerning-proofs-of-the-1960-british-exhibition-crown/?do=findComment&comment=216805 Quote
VickySilver Posted July 26 Posted July 26 LOL, you sure did and I guess this discussion went on to the next page and did not notice. Joe, thanks for your work. I even have Linecar and had looked at this many years ago. The problem with the Glens issue is that no further characterisation other than a simple listing is given for the "silver" specimen. Glens was however very respected overall even if I do not recall their principal numismatist. This, if actually in silver, along with the somewhat odd 1937 pattern crown with the odd George slaying the Dragon reverse are the main stoppers on 20th C. crown pattern and proof series - other than the Edward VIII crown of course. Again, I was never able to confirm the silver pattern but the 20th c. pre-decimal crown series was what got me started with Brit coins so many years ago, when I had aspersions of getting them all, and it was nearly possible in the late 80s excepting the Edward VIII piece. Quote
joe_77 Posted July 27 Author Posted July 27 (edited) 18 hours ago, VickySilver said: The problem with the Glens issue is that no further characterisation other than a simple listing is given for the "silver" specimen. Glens was however very respected overall even if I do not recall their principal numismatist. Hello @VickySilver ! Regarding Glens' numismatist, could he have been Mr. Bill French ? On my quest to find more info I had an exchange with Mr. Mark Rasmussen who worked at Spink since the late 60ies. While he did not see/know personally this silver crown, he also shared your sentiment which I will paraphrase below as I did understand it: Quote Mr. French [who ran Glendinings] was a highly esteemed numismatist would not have made a glaring mistake as to ID it as a silver piece. Therefore one can deduce that there is a silver example out there. [..] It made £42 which was a lot of money at the time, the purchaser would have had the knowledge! I am now pursuing Spink directly, hoping they may provide more paper trail for this silver crown! I am also still trying to: Get in contact with Mr. Davies to confirm if he has more info on the silver crown mentioned in his book. Get in contact with Mr. Michael Day to get more info on the referenced "Communication to the author from the Librarian and Curator of the Royal Mint, dated April 25th 1961". While I talked to the Royal Mint Museum I was told this was probably a private communication between Mr. Day and the Mint and as such it is probably lost unless Mr. Day can provide a copy of it. If anyone has better contacts or can help to get these three enquiries going I will gladly welcome the help! Edited July 27 by joe_77 Quote
joe_77 Posted July 27 Author Posted July 27 I would also add that, apart from the glaring silver crown issue, we also have a lot of uncertainty surrounding what we call "VIP Proofs". After my conversation with the Mint it seems obvious that we are really journeying in the dark as far as how many of these were produced. The feeling I got is that there might be even more than we think. The next course of action could be to request the documents suggested by the RMM at the National Archives. Anyone wants to help with that? Another route could be trying to find someone who worked at the Mint during those years but this seems like having a very small chance of success given that 65 have passed. Quote
Coys55 Posted July 27 Posted July 27 6 hours ago, joe_77 said: I would also add that, apart from the glaring silver crown issue, we also have a lot of uncertainty surrounding what we call "VIP Proofs". After my conversation with the Mint it seems obvious that we are really journeying in the dark as far as how many of these were produced. The feeling I got is that there might be even more than we think. The next course of action could be to request the documents suggested by the RMM at the National Archives. Anyone wants to help with that? Another route could be trying to find someone who worked at the Mint during those years but this seems like having a very small chance of success given that 65 have passed. Isn't the RMM statement "there are no “VIP proofs” or “satin finish” specimens, both of which are terms invented by the secondary market and with no basis in production records at the Royal Mint" proof (pun intended) enough that VIP Proofs don't exisit? Quote
VickySilver Posted July 27 Posted July 27 Many of us have long since concluded that the clearly superior proofs of the late pre-decimal era were not labelled as "VIP" or even "Record" & this seems to be either/or invented terms of convenience and marketing (both?) but that it really doesn't matter as they "are what they are". In other words, and particularly of non-standard years, specimens of coins exist that are not run of the mill or willy-nilly early strikes, or whatever; most definitely are exceptional pieces that appear to have been produced with special proof qualities such as are generally are known. Bull is in all likelihood INCORRECT in separating, especially in the off years (and to some degree those from 1911, 1927, 1937, 1950, 1951, 1953 but also the 1960 crown) into ordinary proof and VIP/record proofs. In fact I know some of the principles you have referred to and can tell you that they agree. I do not know Mr. Bull but I would imagine that the difference he refers to may be that some have a cameo contrast between fields and devices and others do not. What we choose to label them is artifactual, but these superior piece do exist and that is clear. As a bonus point: regarding crowns of especially 1937, 1951 and 1953 years there appears to be some confusion - and I will admit to not being clear myself. I believe it well nigh impossible to differentiate between those with exceptional strike and cameo contrast between fields and devices, and those labelled as "VIP", "Record" or any combination of such. There are some exceptions such as the 1953 penny where even amongst the better quality proof strikings that there are die differences with the rarer types different enough that they fetch much higher prices on the market. I will confess to having purchased a 1937 proof crown as "VIP" (or similar designation as I can not remember) from Baldwin and paid significantly more therefore. When I later compared it to a slabbed and graded Proof Cameo 66, I could detect no meaningful difference with the latter generally somewhat superior mainly in that there were less handling marks, etc. I have learned my lesson. Further, a somewhat similar situation to the purported silver strike 1960 crown are the types of 1935 proof crown: specimen 0.500 fine PL coins, proof raised edge lettering coins, proof 0.500 and proof 0.925 incuse edge coins. 1 Quote
Rob Posted July 27 Posted July 27 (edited) Get Graham Dyer's opinion on them. Although not there at the time of striking (joined in 1961), there isn't a great deal he doesn't know. He is still in contact with the RM museum, and it would be right up his street. They would communicate your enquiry to him, assuming he is still in good health. (Haven't spoken for a few years when he picked up on a separate enquiry I made to them, and he was able to contact me and help update my records and therefore knowledge with a piece I wasn't aware of). I would take his word as close to gospel as anyone's. Edited July 27 by Rob 1 Quote
DaveG38 Posted July 27 Posted July 27 1 hour ago, Rob said: Get Graham Dyer's opinion on them. Although not there at the time of striking (joined in 1961), there isn't a great deal he doesn't know. He is still in contact with the RM museum, and it would be right up his street. They would communicate your enquiry to him, assuming he is still in good health. (Haven't spoken for a few years when he picked up on a separate enquiry I made to them, and he was able to contact me and help update my records and therefore knowledge with a piece I wasn't aware of). I would take his word as close to gospel as anyone's. Is he the 'Ashmolean' Graham Dyer? Quote
Rob Posted July 27 Posted July 27 No idea. I wouldn't have thought so given he joined the mint 64 years ago. He was retired when he came to us and gave a talk, and that was over 7 years ago Quote
VickySilver Posted July 28 Posted July 28 Good point and had forgotten about him Rob. I asked him a few questions about the 1952 proof long ago and had sent him a coin maybe 20 years ago that I was lucky enough to get back before the millennium, LOL. Quote
david.bordeaux Posted July 28 Posted July 28 I spoke to Graham Dyer two weeks ago at the Michael Dolley symposium in London and can confirm that he is still an encyclopaedic source of information on the Mint. Best to contact him via the Mint Museum, as Rob suggests. Quote
joe_77 Posted July 28 Author Posted July 28 Thanks everyone, I will ask to the RMM to pass along to Mr. Dyer our main enquiry (Silver proof existence) & whether he has some comments on VIP quantities/origins for the 1960 Crown. After ruminating on the VIP proofs a few day I basically have the same opinion as @VickySilver i.e. they do exist therefore.. whether by accident or intent ..something/someone did something different to make them compared to the way more common proof-like version. Thus, it would be very interesting in understanding more of how they actually came to exists. Understanding this might also shed some light on their quantities. Quote
Peckris 2 Posted August 7 Posted August 7 My understanding of the term "VIP proof" is that it doesn't refer to a characteristicallly different method of striking, but that they are normal proofs produced in very limited quantities for VIP visitors in years when proofs weren't otherwise issued. Therefore there aren’t any VIP proofs for e.g. 1950 1951 1953, but would exist if struck in 1948 1949 1952 or 1954. 1 Quote
Rob Posted August 7 Posted August 7 (edited) IMO it is only worth considering a difference between a proof and VIP proof if the latter was presented to a known and named VIP. You basically have an above average strike with any issue and the RM will give the best ones (or any first strikes) to the people highest up the social order of eligible recipients. So Charles is guaranteed a visually perfect example, whilst you and me are not important enough for them to care. However, if there are sufficient above average examples, then you would expect to see trickle-down. Whatever is out there is by default the norm for any issue. Edited August 7 by Rob 1 Quote
The Bee Posted August 8 Posted August 8 Sounds like a collector would need evidence of provenance / proof of chain of custody. I wonder if the RM wrote a letter to the "VIPs" and still has a record of who they wrote to either at the RM or possibly the Public Records Office if they have deposited any records there. [free "gifts" are not always looked after well], . Quote
VickySilver Posted August 10 Posted August 10 Maybe it is just me, but the proofs of the "off years" are quite obvious no matter what somebody chooses to name them and I have seen them of every year except 1929 from 1927-1963. Have only seen the 1941 shillings and only the 6d from 1945 however. Where Bull tries to differentiate between these and calling some "VIP" and others not is IMHO artifactual based on the coins themselves. As I. said, I would hazard a guess that he was using the presence of cameo devices that is more prominent on some. I would be interested what Joe finds in terms of confirmation on the true silver version of the 1960 crown. Quote
david.bordeaux Posted August 10 Posted August 10 If a silver proof does exist, and assuming it is the same thickness as the cupro-nickel crown, it would be more easily identifiable by weight than by the unreliable "ring" test: Cu-Ni: 28.27590 g (the standard weight given in the Coinage Act 1946) .925 silver: 32.82 g .999 silver: 33.16 g Otherwise, a silver coin of the same weight as the cupro-nickel crown would be noticeably thinner (about 2.47 mm compared with 2.91 mm, so easily visible to the naked eye when placed side by side). This is due to the differing densities of the metals/alloys: Ag 10.49 g/cm3, sterling silver 10.3845, cupro-nickel 8.9455. 2 Quote
joe_77 Posted August 12 Author Posted August 12 Good morning all! I'm very happy to share another piece of the puzzle that the Royal Mint Museum was able to unearth! Kudos to them! As mentioned in some prior messages, Day references in "English Silver Crowns" a Communication to the author from the Librarian and Curator of the Royal Mint, dated April 25th 1961. Here's Day's letter and the reply. Surprisingly enough, the exchange also talks about our main query regarding the search of the silver crown! 5 Quote
joe_77 Posted August 12 Author Posted August 12 The above letter mentions a discussion in the 1958 Report which I believe references the snippet that shall post below. 2 Quote
joe_77 Posted August 19 Author Posted August 19 On 7/28/2025 at 6:56 AM, david.bordeaux said: I spoke to Graham Dyer two weeks ago at the Michael Dolley symposium in London and can confirm that he is still an encyclopaedic source of information on the Mint. Best to contact him via the Mint Museum, as Rob suggests. Due to Graham Dyer's retirement from the RMM, the RMM is not able to either forward our queries to him or share his contact details. I tried writing to the BANS but so far no reply. Anyone has a way of getting in contact with him? Quote
joe_77 Posted August 23 Author Posted August 23 On 7/22/2025 at 11:13 AM, joe_77 said: [..] Again thanks to Mr. Hill I was able to find the catalogue in question here [..] I was able to discuss the matter at hand with Spink, which is on record for the buy of lot 322 of the Glendining auction in 1962. I was told that (quoting) "[..] the coin would have been privately sold to a Spink client shortly after; it was typical for English numismatic dealers of that period to bid on behalf of clients". I was also notified by the Spink specialist that Glendining did actually offer such silver crowns in other occasions. We see mention in 4th September 1969 (lot 194); 22nd October 1970 (lot 505) and 25th November 1981 (lot 432). The AR symbol, unless used loosely, should indicate that these were silver. Attaching in this thread following the same order below. Links: https://archive.org/details/catalogueofengli00gle_a48 & https://archive.org/details/catalogueofengli00gle_t4t & https://archive.org/details/catalogueofengli00gle_rgo This further evidence raises some questions: Could they have consistently mistaken VIP proofs as silver? Were these the same coin or are there many specimens around? Consequently, are (or were) these silver versions more common than we thought? It's also worth noting, as pointed out by the Spink specialist, that the writing "..in case of issue" in the 1970 auction might indicate an official distribution by the Royal Mint. Quote
VickySilver Posted August 24 Posted August 24 (edited) Very good job on the research. Not at all sure however that the "AR" can be taken literally as the coin definitely being of silver composition as it was and continues to be used in referring to copper nickel iterations of former actual struck-in-silver coins of that denomination(s). As a side note there are some transitional issues of coins of a date that should be actual silver being struck in pattern form in Cu-ni (ie 1923 3d, 1923, 1924 shillings and the very rare 1946 shillings).... So these 1960 crown coins may well exist in silver but definitive proof would be required: wight, specific gravity and XRF testing, etc. Edited August 24 by VickySilver 3 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.