New Edge Type on 1935 Crown - I think Not!

[Guest E. Dawson]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...:MEWA:IT&ih=017

OK, I am terrible at setting up links so bear with me.

I think that this coin is likely not as described and have written both the seller and buyer of this ebay item. I would imagine that if real and NOT concocted that this is a mishandled proof. I suggested to both that they get either surface spectroscopic analyses or old-fashioned specific gravity testing to differentiate between the 0.500 fine and 0.925 sterling varieties. I have never heard of this combination before (as he described at any rate) and doubt that the proof collar was used on the circulation strike.

Any ideas/ thoughts?

[Guest Guest]

Hi, I answered your message athough ebay was playing up as you are not neither the buyer or seller in the auction. To me it didn't look crisp enough even if circulated to be a proof although looking at the edge it has the toning that the proof in my collection exhibits. What are the chances of it being circulated as crowns since the turn of the centry although legal tender tended to be minted for commemeration and never saw circulation.

[Chris Perkins]

I've seen 1934 crowns worn down to less than Fine, and 1927 proofs completely unrecognisable as proofs.

[Guest E. Dawson]

Hi, I answered your message athough ebay was playing up as you are not neither the buyer or seller in the auction. To me it didn't look crisp enough even if circulated to be a proof although looking at the edge it has the toning that the proof in my collection exhibits. What are the chances of it being circulated as crowns since the turn of the centry although legal tender tended to be minted for commemeration and never saw circulation.

I have a significant collection of 20th C. crowns including all but one of the 1935 edge variants. In fact, I did have to test one of the incuse specimens thought to be proof that tested out as 0.500 fine which did discredit that particular piece. Many coins end up as pocket pieces or grabbed up by young (or old) relatives and played with, the value not recognised by the culprit. I would also add that I am the cataloguer for Krause which means I would have cataloguing interests in mind.

All this having been said, the piece may still be good and as you surmise but is doubtful and should be tested if at all possible in one of the manners described.

[Chris Perkins]

There was also a .500 proof wasn't there. I seem to remember I bought one off spink described as such, but it got lost in the post! Yes, ESC lists a .500 proof and it has a normal incuse edge...That exists as far as I'm aware.

Where are you based E Dawson, if you're weren't aware, I also produce a British coin publication.

[Guest Guest]

There was also a .500 proof wasn't there. I seem to remember I bought one off spink described as such, but it got lost in the post! Yes, ESC lists a .500 proof and it has a normal incuse edge...That exists as far as I'm aware.

Where are you based E Dawson, if you're weren't aware, I also produce a British coin publication.

Yes, you are correct about the ESC listing, however confirmation of the proof 0.500 incuse listing is lacking, at least to my knowledge and the piece is incuse (listed as ESC 377A) as opposed to this piece in question which has the raised lettering. When we tested the other piece, it really did not have the required strike characteristics of a proof. This is not to say that some of the first struck specimen pieces can not be of excellent quality, but they lack the strike characteristics of the proof.

I am located in Alexandria, Virginia.

[Chris Perkins]

I noticed a little error in the GB coin section of Krause books (not sure what volume/edition). The error concerns the size of the Britannia type groats. In the book they are shown as being the same size as the maundy type groats, which is of course wrong, they are the same size as the threepence (but with a milled edge).

Tell Messrs Krause and Michler about that one if you will, it's bugged me for the last couple of years!

[Guest Guest]

I noticed a little error in the GB coin section of Krause books (not sure what volume/edition). The error concerns the size of the Britannia type groats. In the book they are shown as being the same size as the maundy type groats, which is of course wrong, they are the same size as the threepence (but with a milled edge).

Tell Messrs Krause and Michler about that one if you will, it's bugged me for the last couple of years!

Yes, such a big book. That should be corrected although it is only with next year's 2008 editions inclusive of the 19th C. (to which I will add my two pennies worth after trying to manage only the 20th C. predecimal) issues that it would be included. I will double check on the many changes being effected and hopefully that bit will be included - for some reason not all suggested changes are entered right away.

[Guest Guest]

Yup a proof that has had a rough time. gone back to seller

[Chris Perkins]

Oh, you bought it?

I hope you get your money back ok.

[Guest E. Dawson]

Oh, you bought it?

I hope you get your money back ok.

Yes, as do I. What was the giveaway as to its status?

[Chris Perkins]

From experience seeing other circulated proofs including 1927's etc. I've also never heard of a non proof raised edge, and I do know George V crowns pretty well.

[Guest Guest]

There is always the chance that someone tried out the dies with business flans or decided to make a couple for themselves. You never know . It was obvious the minute it came out of the jiffy bag that it was a proof and that it had been through the wars. It was covered with dings and had lost all the sharpness that you see on a proof but saying that it didn't have a lot of wear. Looking at it straight on it looked business strike but if you turned it in the light the fields shone to much, and if you looked at it edge on the fields were mirrored even though scratch to hell. Also the frosting had gone from both reliefs. I also rung it and it sounded .925 compared to a business strike. I must admit thought I did have it out of the bag a couple of time after I'd packed to return it, just to be sure

oh and I did put a note in with the Paypal payment to the effect that I would expect a full refund if it turned out not to be as advertised.

[Chris Perkins]

You should be able to get your money back from paypal should the seller not refund you. Paypal are extremely effiecient at whipping sellers money right from under their noses, believe me!

You'll have to let us know in here, how it goes.

[Guest Guest]

Got the money back, no problem, fwew.

[Chris Perkins]

That's alright then.

Why don't you register as a member here? There's no funny business or spam and such like.

[Guest Guest]

I already am

[Chris Perkins]

You ought to try logging in from time to time....Or haven't I approved you yet. I have to be careful with those whole legions of Russian spammers out there.

[Gary D]

You ought to try logging in from time to time....Or haven't I approved you yet. I have to be careful with those whole legions of Russian spammers out there.

Oh, the embarressment.