Coin aquisition of the week.......

[Rob 2,855]

Wrong description - not plume over shield and Adams was 2005, not 2008.

The obverse initial mark warranted a footnote in the Adams sale. TWW, who catalogued it, thought it might be tun over a vertical tun, but not tun over crown for either side. Bull catalogued it as Tun over Crown both sides. The complete absence of the cross normally seen on top of the crown does give rise to some reservations about this overmark.

[Paulus 1,834]

2 minutes ago, Rob said:

Wrong description - not plume over shield and Adams was 2005, not 2008.

The obverse initial mark warranted a footnote in the Adams sale. TWW, who catalogued it, thought it might be tun over a vertical tun, but not tun over crown for either side. Bull catalogued it as Tun over Crown both sides. The complete absence of the cross normally seen on top of the crown does give rise to some reservations about this overmark.

Quite right re the plume, sorry Rob - I had copied the description from another coin and hadn't sufficiently edited it.

Re the overmark - yes it doesn't seem clear at all does it!

 

[Rob 2,855]

A bonus halfcrown for me too this week. Bought for stock, but with much of the crap removed it shows the obverse mark to be crescent over book, so it becomes one for me.

Crescent is a rare mark for James I and only used on gold. Book is only marginally less rare. Up to this point I hadn't positively identified this overmark on any coin to add it as a requirement for the initial mark section of the collection.

[Unwilling Numismatist 503]

On 4/6/2020 at 9:42 PM, Rob said:

A bonus halfcrown for me too this week. Bought for stock, but with much of the crap removed it shows the obverse mark to be crescent over book, so it becomes one for me.

Crescent is a rare mark for James I and only used on gold. Book is only marginally less rare. Up to this point I hadn't positively identified this overmark on any coin to add it as a requirement for the initial mark section of the collection.

 

I love it when something you pick up unexpectedly becomes a keeper.

[Unwilling Numismatist 503]

Something to relieve a little part of the lockdown blues. It's taken me a while to get around to this, because oddly they seem to command a higher than average price for what should be a common issue.

[Peckris 2 1,905]

1 hour ago, Unwilling Numismatist said:

Something to relieve a little part of the lockdown blues. It's taken me a while to get around to this, because oddly they seem to command a higher than average price for what should be a common issue.

That is weird - unlike larger OH silver it's the standard common reverse.

[Sword 1,263]

On 4/18/2020 at 9:22 PM, Unwilling Numismatist said:

Something to relieve a little part of the lockdown blues.

I've brought another George V halfcrown on that reasoning. They really are strangely addictive. 

[Unwilling Numismatist 503]

A particularly nice example Sword!

[Sword 1,263]

Thanks. The reverse strike is nice I think.

I brought this Rocking Horse Specimen Crown at the same time to tick a box. I have the RE proof and the currency. With hindsight, I might have waited for one with less contact marks. But the tone and lustre are quite good and the price was fair too.

 

 

[Peckris 2 1,905]

3 hours ago, Sword said:

I've brought another George V halfcrown on that reasoning. They really are strangely addictive.

Not a scarce date by any means, but a very nice example.

[VickySilver 689]

Have to laugh as I have more 1935s than I should even admit to:

2 Currency

5 Specimens including slabbed by PCGS, NGC, CGS

3 RE Proofs

2 RE with garbled edge motto

Proof with incuse edge

I think the biggest challenge is to find the currency uncleaned with "clean"(mark free) well struck  cheek, brow & mustache, and then a clean reverse as far as fields and devices. Why does George's sword so often take a hit? This obverse business is one of the big problems with currency and purported proof wreaths as well.

For many years I thought I was the only one collecting G5 silver....

[Sword 1,263]

It's rather difficult now to find a specimen version free from contact marks at a reasonable price.  It was fairly easy for me to find a RE proof without contact marks. I guess people are more careful with those. The specimens do tend to get knock about as they are much cheaper and less loved. Even being in  in boxes don't seem to protect them as much as one might think. I can understand why getting a prefect currency is such a challenge even though 700K were minted. Common coins are just less likely to be valued and looked after.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Sword

[Nonmortuus 784]

18 hours ago, Sword said:

I've brought another George V halfcrown on that reasoning. They really are strangely addictive. 

Tell me about it, I must have over 70 of them 😖

[Unwilling Numismatist 503]

10 hours ago, VickySilver said:

For many years I thought I was the only one collecting G5 silver....

It's a very appealing line, one I may stray into if or when Vicky becomes too prohibitive to me.

[Sword 1,263]

On 4/21/2020 at 3:14 PM, Unwilling Numismatist said:

It's a very appealing line, one I may stray into if or when Vicky becomes too prohibitive to me.

I have always liked your avatar. I think it is a RE proof as it is better struck than a specimen in my opinion. Am I correct?

[Unwilling Numismatist 503]

28 minutes ago, Sword said:

I have always liked your avatar. I think it is a RE proof as it is better struck than a specimen in my opinion. Am I correct?

You are indeed correct. A shame I don't own the coin, but it's definitely one of my top 5 for design appeal.

 

[Sword 1,263]

For me, the most appealing part of the design is the dragon.

[Unwilling Numismatist 503]

I love the whole design, it must have shaken the populous at the time for being so different to everything before it.

[Rob 2,855]

Just now, Unwilling Numismatist said:

I love the whole design, it must have shaken the populous at the time for being so different to everything before it.

Yes and no. For traditional coin collectors it was probably the equivalent of today's denigrators bemoaning the latest RM output, but I would have thought as an issue for the masses it was probably quite acceptable, being something of an antidote to the economic depression and a contemporary example of art deco. It didn't really circulate, so the people who acquired one bought it because they really wanted one - just like modern day purchasers of RM promotions.

[blakeyboy 1,487]

I don't see it like that now. I think the design clearly and bravely was 'of it's time'.

Standing Britannia EV11 florins, brass threepence ( one of the most popular coins of all time) etc...it's up there with them.

 

When I have to look through the 20th Krause book, I skip over the Commemorative Crap,  that small nations particularly

churn out for 'Collectors', with a shudder. So many thousands of  'investment' (! ) pieces that are far from being such.

Sadly, I now feel the same shudder when looking at the RM's modern output..................

 

[damian1986 141]

I like most things George V, the halfcrowns and florins are frustrating and even the better examples have usually had a dip - you can't win! The 1916 looks decent, all lions struck up, nice one [jealous]

I think people were probably super receptive to a commemorative crown and its design as a special one-off. Everything I read sums up as "yeah we don't want to issue things willy nilly but it's worth it for this occasion".

Same with the stamps even though they'd done a few more commemorative issues by that point. 

PM had already done the Irish coinage for 1928. And he was involved in the recutting of the G5 portrait. Probably just 'felt right' as a design for the time. 

A few clippings from The Times:

 

[Sword 1,263]

Interesting newspaper clippings. With regard to the first clipping, I think the appearance of George V didn't change very much over the years. The modified effigy from 1926/27 did make an attempt to age him by adding some winkles around the eye and made his hair a bit more receding. It probably still flattered the King by giving him a bit more hair than he had, but is in my view still a good likeness. His beard might have turned white by 1935 but you can't show this feature on a coin.

1911 portrait 

 

1923 photo

 

1933 portrait

 

[Bronze & Copper Collector 384]

4 hours ago, Sword said:

Interesting newspaper clippings. With regard to the first clipping, I think the appearance of George V didn't change very much over the years. The modified effigy from 1926/27 did make an attempt to age him by adding some winkles around the eye and made his hair a bit more receding. It probably still flattered the King by giving him a bit more hair than he had, but is in my view still a good likeness. His beard might have turned white by 1935 but you can't show this feature on a coin.

1911 portrait 

 

1923 photo

 

1933 portrait

 

Added some wrinkles too....

[damian1986 141]

I think he was bored. I think it's safe to say we were fortunate to be spared a new bust. Compare Wyons Victoria with the jubilee head 🤐

A nice specimen, the BM just was used on the stamps too. Probably sick of the sight of it..

 

[Peckris 2 1,905]

On 4/26/2020 at 1:09 AM, damian1986 said:

 

 

Very unobservant correspondent - the ME was just as distinct as the small variations in James II, William III, and Anne, to name just three.