how much?....

[Guest mckenziec]

i have recently come in possesion of a 1920, half-crown coin and i was wondering if anybody could help me by telling me how much it would be worth...

any suggestions?

its in good nick apart from two slight black marks on the crest side which i have ben told was during the forging of the coin.

please comment and help me with my task. thank you

[Rob]

i have recently come in possesion of a 1920, half-crown coin and i was wondering if anybody could help me by telling me how much it would be worth...

any suggestions?

its in good nick apart from two slight black marks on the crest side which i have ben told was during the forging of the coin.

please comment and help me with my task. thank you

You would have to post a picture to get an idea of the grade which is all important. It could be anything from bullion value (£1.50-2) to £100 or more.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Rob

[Chris Perkins]

But, important to point out that the vast majority of them come in the the bullion-around-£1 category! Before you get any hopes up.

[VickySilver]

Please do not use the term "forge", but rather "strike" for the minting of coins. Forging is what they do with the one pound coins when counterfeiting or in China to make items for ebay....

[Chris Perkins]

It's better than an email I got describing a coin that had an error from being 'stamped' wrongly!

[Geoff T]

i have recently come in possesion of a 1920, half-crown coin and i was wondering if anybody could help me by telling me how much it would be worth...

any suggestions?

its in good nick apart from two slight black marks on the crest side which i have ben told was during the forging of the coin.

please comment and help me with my task. thank you

Yes, a picture would be helpful. The 1920 half crown can be an interesting one. The silver content had just been reduced to 50%, yet some are known to exist in sterling silver as before. There were also initial problems in getting the optimum alloy for the reduced silver content. Moreover, a lot of 1920s are still pretty weak strikes. Good examples above EF aren't easy to find.

G

[Peckris]

Moreover, a lot of 1920s are still pretty weak strikes. Good examples above EF aren't easy to find.

G

Not weak strikes - there are two obverses used in 1920 : the first is the one used between 1911 and 1919 with a deeply cut, slightly smaller portrait, the second a shallower one with only lightly defined hair detail that was used between 1920 and 1926 on shillings, florins and halfcrowns. This second one was introduced only months after the alloy change, in an attempt to reduce the notorious "ghosting" problem (a similar obverse change was also applied on the pennies between 1921 and 1926).

It is slightly confusing because two things occurred almost simultaneously : 1. a high rise in the price of silver that necessitated the change to a 50% silver alloy and 2. the last attempt by The Royal Mint to eliminate the 'ghosting' problem that was only finally resolved by the introduction of the modified portrait in 1926.

The two obverses occur on the 1920 coins about equally. Coins of the first obverse type are very much easier to find in high grade (as are the pre-1920 .925 silver coins). The second obverse - the shallow one - provides major problems as they began to wear very quickly indeed, and as a result it is normal to find coins of this series a whole grade or more lower on the obverse, than the reverse.

[Gary D]

Moreover, a lot of 1920s are still pretty weak strikes. Good examples above EF aren't easy to find.

G

Not weak strikes - there are two obverses used in 1920 : the first is the one used between 1911 and 1919 with a deeply cut, slightly smaller portrait, the second a shallower one with only lightly defined hair detail that was used between 1920 and 1926 on shillings, florins and halfcrowns. This second one was introduced only months after the alloy change, in an attempt to reduce the notorious "ghosting" problem (a similar obverse change was also applied on the pennies between 1921 and 1926).

It is slightly confusing because two things occurred almost simultaneously : 1. a high rise in the price of silver that necessitated the change to a 50% silver alloy and 2. the last attempt by The Royal Mint to eliminate the 'ghosting' problem that was only finally resolved by the introduction of the modified portrait in 1926.

The two obverses occur on the 1920 coins about equally. Coins of the first obverse type are very much easier to find in high grade (as are the pre-1920 .925 silver coins). The second obverse - the shallow one - provides major problems as they began to wear very quickly indeed, and as a result it is normal to find coins of this series a whole grade or more lower on the obverse, than the reverse.

Davies also quotes two reverses giving four varieties, plus a third obverse giving five varieties in total.

Gary

[scott]

yea i got this one, has some discolouration, got it nice and cheap though

[1949threepence]

Moreover, a lot of 1920s are still pretty weak strikes. Good examples above EF aren't easy to find.G

Not weak strikes - there are two obverses used in 1920 : the first is the one used between 1911 and 1919 with a deeply cut, slightly smaller portrait, the second a shallower one with only lightly defined hair detail that was used between 1920 and 1926 on shillings, florins and halfcrowns. This second one was introduced only months after the alloy change, in an attempt to reduce the notorious "ghosting" problem (a similar obverse change was also applied on the pennies between 1921 and 1926).

It is slightly confusing because two things occurred almost simultaneously : 1. a high rise in the price of silver that necessitated the change to a 50% silver alloy and 2. the last attempt by The Royal Mint to eliminate the 'ghosting' problem that was only finally resolved by the introduction of the modified portrait in 1926.

The two obverses occur on the 1920 coins about equally. Coins of the first obverse type are very much easier to find in high grade (as are the pre-1920 .925 silver coins). The second obverse - the shallow one - provides major problems as they began to wear very quickly indeed, and as a result it is normal to find coins of this series a whole grade or more lower on the obverse, than the reverse.

Yes, I've nearly finished my 1902 to 1936 shilling collection, and with the exception of some of the Edwardian ones, including the notoriously rare 1905, I've got the lot in either EF, UNC or BU. It's taken me several years and a fair bit of money.

During that time I've noticed some interesting details. As you say those issued between 1920 and the pre ME 1926, have a lack of hair detail, which to the relatively ignorant might be mistaken for undue wear, and a mismatch in quality between obverse and reverse. Although in my collection, the one issued in 1920 actually has decent hair detail, one of the two 1920 types you refer to above.

Another detail I noticed was that the lion's nose on the reverse, was much more subject to very quick wear in the pre 1920 .925 silver examples. It was the first place to suffer wear, whereas on the 1920 to first type 1927, the lion's nose was much more hard wearing. Even VF examples show less wear than GEF pre 1920 ones.

Somewhat oddly, I found the 1921 very difficult to get in UNC condition from anywhere, dealers, e bay etc, despite the relatively high mintage. Similarly the 1930, though the low mintage that year makes that one self evident.

The ghosting was most obvious during the examples issued in WW1.

Differences in value are apparent between weak and strong strikes.

[scott]

i have noticed the striking errors more on farthings, and that spreads to both sides

[Peckris]

Somewhat oddly, I found the 1921 very difficult to get in UNC condition from anywhere, dealers, e bay etc, despite the relatively high mintage.

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down!

[mint_mark]

Yes, I've nearly finished my 1902 to 1936 shilling collection, and with the exception of some of the Edwardian ones, including the notoriously rare 1905, I've got the lot in either EF, UNC or BU. It's taken me several years and a fair bit of money.

During that time I've noticed some interesting details.

Hi 1949threepence,

Have you ever noticed any difference in the graining (milling) around the edge? I've got a late George V shilling (1935 I think) which I noticed has finer graining than the other couple I have of the same type.

[1949threepence]

Yes, I've nearly finished my 1902 to 1936 shilling collection, and with the exception of some of the Edwardian ones, including the notoriously rare 1905, I've got the lot in either EF, UNC or BU. It's taken me several years and a fair bit of money.

During that time I've noticed some interesting details.

Hi 1949threepence,

Have you ever noticed any difference in the graining (milling) around the edge? I've got a late George V shilling (1935 I think) which I noticed has finer graining than the other couple I have of the same type.

Sort of, yes. I've just looked at them all, prompted by what you said above, mint mark, and what I did notice was that some years appear to have a thinner width and coarser edge milling, than others. But I didn't notice any pattern or consistency. Unfortunately, I only have one example for each year with my shillings, as I went for broke on quality with each one. Therefore I have no fillers for comparison purposes.

[1949threepence]

Somewhat oddly, I found the 1921 very difficult to get in UNC condition from anywhere, dealers, e bay etc, despite the relatively high mintage.

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down!

A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems.

clicky

Every date of the debased coinage of 1920-1927 (the first reverse) is tough except for 1926. In my opinion the key date of the entire George V is 1921. How can this be, when 22.6 million were minted?? First, a very poor debased alloy was used. Second, most of the issue tarnished to an unattractive colour.[/quote]

[1949threepence]

Somewhat oddly, I found the 1921 very difficult to get in UNC condition from anywhere, dealers, e bay etc, despite the relatively high mintage.

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down!

A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems.

clicky

Every date of the debased coinage of 1920-1927 (the first reverse) is tough except for 1926. In my opinion the key date of the entire George V is 1921. How can this be, when 22.6 million were minted?? First, a very poor debased alloy was used. Second, most of the issue tarnished to an unattractive colour.

[Gary D]

Somewhat oddly, I found the 1921 very difficult to get in UNC condition from anywhere, dealers, e bay etc, despite the relatively high mintage.

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down!

A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems.

clicky

Every date of the debased coinage of 1920-1927 (the first reverse) is tough except for 1926. In my opinion the key date of the entire George V is 1921. How can this be, when 22.6 million were minted?? First, a very poor debased alloy was used. Second, most of the issue tarnished to an unattractive colour.

Another thing that make 1921 tough is the five Davies types for this year, I still need the nose to VS which come up ocassionally but I'm looking for EF or better.

[1949threepence]

Somewhat oddly, I found the 1921 very difficult to get in UNC condition from anywhere, dealers, e bay etc, despite the relatively high mintage.

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down!

A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems.

clicky

Every date of the debased coinage of 1920-1927 (the first reverse) is tough except for 1926. In my opinion the key date of the entire George V is 1921. How can this be, when 22.6 million were minted?? First, a very poor debased alloy was used. Second, most of the issue tarnished to an unattractive colour.

Another thing that make 1921 tough is the five Davies types for this year, I still need the nose to VS which come up ocassionally but I'm looking for EF or better.

I'm not aware of these different types & would be interested to know.

By "nose to VS", do you mean one of these, currently for sale on e bay ?

[Peckris]

Somewhat oddly, I found the 1921 very difficult to get in UNC condition from anywhere, dealers, e bay etc, despite the relatively high mintage.

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down!

A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems.

clicky

Every date of the debased coinage of 1920-1927 (the first reverse) is tough except for 1926. In my opinion the key date of the entire George V is 1921. How can this be, when 22.6 million were minted?? First, a very poor debased alloy was used. Second, most of the issue tarnished to an unattractive colour.

Another thing that make 1921 tough is the five Davies types for this year, I still need the nose to VS which come up ocassionally but I'm looking for EF or better.

I'm not aware of these different types & would be interested to know.

By "nose to VS", do you mean one of these, currently for sale on e bay ?

No, that's the "nose to S" variety (i.e. George V Obverse 2 used between 1920 and 1926). The "nose to VS" variety is Obverse 1, the slightly smaller, deeper cut, better defined obverse that was used between 1911 and 1920. That's what I was referring to above when I was talking about 'good luck tracking it down' (but thanks for the research anyway 1949threepence - I think that site doesn't even know about this variety, or should have mentioned it).

A small number of 1921 shillings is the only time that Obverse 1 makes an appearance on larger silver after 1920, and it's rare. I only have one, and only in VF. The chances of finding an Unc is very small indeed, and Spink price that variety far too low in my opinion (I was the one who got them to incorporate the two obverses - specifically for this variety - in the Standard Catalogue, and it was my scans of the two 1921 shillings I own, on which I'd highlighted the position of the nose to the legend, that prompted them to come up with the 'nose to S' and 'nose to VS' descriptors.)

I'd be interested to know the differences that mark the 5 Davies varieties?

Footnote : I think another reason that 1920 and 1921 are difficult dates, is because of the alloy change. People probably began to hoard pre-20 for its silver content, and got rid of the 50% coins as quickly as they could.

[1949threepence]

No, that's the "nose to S" variety (i.e. George V Obverse 2 used between 1920 and 1926). The "nose to VS" variety is Obverse 1, the slightly smaller, deeper cut, better defined obverse that was used between 1911 and 1920. That's what I was referring to above when I was talking about 'good luck tracking it down' (but thanks for the research anyway 1949threepence - I think that site doesn't even know about this variety, or should have mentioned it).

A small number of 1921 shillings is the only time that Obverse 1 makes an appearance on larger silver after 1920, and it's rare. I only have one, and only in VF. The chances of finding an Unc is very small indeed, and Spink price that variety far too low in my opinion (I was the one who got them to incorporate the two obverses - specifically for this variety - in the Standard Catalogue, and it was my scans of the two 1921 shillings I own, on which I'd highlighted the position of the nose to the legend, that prompted them to come up with the 'nose to S' and 'nose to VS' descriptors.)

I'd be interested to know the differences that mark the 5 Davies varieties?

Footnote : I think another reason that 1920 and 1921 are difficult dates, is because of the alloy change. People probably began to hoard pre-20 for its silver content, and got rid of the 50% coins as quickly as they could.

Ah, understood. Thanks very much for the clarification, Peckris

My EF 1921 is definitely of the second "nose to S" variety.

[Gary D]

Somewhat oddly, I found the 1921 very difficult to get in UNC condition from anywhere, dealers, e bay etc, despite the relatively high mintage.

That's true - it's a difficult date in both shillings and halfcrowns, in high grade. However, the 1921 shilling with the 1911-1920 obverse is very rare indeed, especially in top grades. Good luck with tracking that one down!

A bit of research has revealed the reason for the 1921 problems.

clicky

Every date of the debased coinage of 1920-1927 (the first reverse) is tough except for 1926. In my opinion the key date of the entire George V is 1921. How can this be, when 22.6 million were minted?? First, a very poor debased alloy was used. Second, most of the issue tarnished to an unattractive colour.

Another thing that make 1921 tough is the five Davies types for this year, I still need the nose to VS which come up ocassionally but I'm looking for EF or better.

I'm not aware of these different types & would be interested to know.

By "nose to VS", do you mean one of these, currently for sale on e bay ?

No, that's the "nose to S" variety (i.e. George V Obverse 2 used between 1920 and 1926). The "nose to VS" variety is Obverse 1, the slightly smaller, deeper cut, better defined obverse that was used between 1911 and 1920. That's what I was referring to above when I was talking about 'good luck tracking it down' (but thanks for the research anyway 1949threepence - I think that site doesn't even know about this variety, or should have mentioned it).

A small number of 1921 shillings is the only time that Obverse 1 makes an appearance on larger silver after 1920, and it's rare. I only have one, and only in VF. The chances of finding an Unc is very small indeed, and Spink price that variety far too low in my opinion (I was the one who got them to incorporate the two obverses - specifically for this variety - in the Standard Catalogue, and it was my scans of the two 1921 shillings I own, on which I'd highlighted the position of the nose to the legend, that prompted them to come up with the 'nose to S' and 'nose to VS' descriptors.)

I'd be interested to know the differences that mark the 5 Davies varieties?

Footnote : I think another reason that 1920 and 1921 are difficult dates, is because of the alloy change. People probably began to hoard pre-20 for its silver content, and got rid of the 50% coins as quickly as they could.

Davies doesn't use the nose as a pointer and I suspect he orders them the oposite way around to spinks which is very confusing.

Davies 1805 is I of Georgivs to bead full neck, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg on N in IND to bead.

Davies 1806 I of Georgivs to space low relief head, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg of N in IND to bead.

Davies 1807 I of Georgivs to space low relief head, Rev tuft closer to M, right leg of N in IND to space.

Davies 1808 is I of Georgivs to bead low relief head, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg of N in IND to bead.

And finally Davies 1809 is I of Georgivs to bead low relief head, Rev tuft closer to M, right leg of N in IND to space.

[Peckris]

Davies doesn't use the nose as a pointer and I suspect he orders them the oposite way around to spinks which is very confusing.

Davies 1805 is I of Georgivs to bead full neck, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg on N in IND to bead.

Davies 1806 I of Georgivs to space low relief head, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg of N in IND to bead.

Davies 1807 I of Georgivs to space low relief head, Rev tuft closer to M, right leg of N in IND to space.

Davies 1808 is I of Georgivs to bead low relief head, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg of N in IND to bead.

And finally Davies 1809 is I of Georgivs to bead low relief head, Rev tuft closer to M, right leg of N in IND to space.

Does he have illustrations, Gary? If so, can you see from them if 1805 is indeed the first obverse? (But in any case, the obverse 1 does have a "full neck" while the shallow protrait has a "hollow neck"). Also, does he state rarities? If he does I should estimate that 1805 will be the rarest, unless any of those low relief varieties is also truly rare.

And you're right - Spink have listed those descriptors the wrong way round ! (At least in the 2005 book which is the latest I have). 'Nose to S' is the common shallow portrait (I of Georgivs to space), 'nose to SV' is the rare first obverse (I of Georgivs to bead full neck). Ignore your Spinks, folks ...

[Gary D]

Davies doesn't use the nose as a pointer and I suspect he orders them the oposite way around to spinks which is very confusing.

Davies 1805 is I of Georgivs to bead full neck, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg on N in IND to bead.

Davies 1806 I of Georgivs to space low relief head, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg of N in IND to bead.

Davies 1807 I of Georgivs to space low relief head, Rev tuft closer to M, right leg of N in IND to space.

Davies 1808 is I of Georgivs to bead low relief head, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg of N in IND to bead.

And finally Davies 1809 is I of Georgivs to bead low relief head, Rev tuft closer to M, right leg of N in IND to space.

Does he have illustrations, Gary? If so, can you see from them if 1805 is indeed the first obverse? (But in any case, the obverse 1 does have a "full neck" while the shallow protrait has a "hollow neck"). Also, does he state rarities? If he does I should estimate that 1805 will be the rarest, unless any of those low relief varieties is also truly rare.

And you're right - Spink have listed those descriptors the wrong way round ! (At least in the 2005 book which is the latest I have). 'Nose to S' is the common shallow portrait (I of Georgivs to space), 'nose to SV' is the rare first obverse (I of Georgivs to bead full neck). Ignore your Spinks, folks ...

Apart from a discription Davies doesn't give much more information. There are pictures but they are just close-ups of the areas he's interested in, eg. RGIVS showing bead alignment and IMP showing the tuft alignment. He also doesn't give rarities although he does give a 1982 values in mint condition. 1805 £85, 1806 £42, 1807 £75, 1808 £60 and 1809 £30. I guess you could infer comparitive rarity from this.

Gary

[1949threepence]

Davies doesn't use the nose as a pointer and I suspect he orders them the oposite way around to spinks which is very confusing.

Davies 1805 is I of Georgivs to bead full neck, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg on N in IND to bead.

Davies 1806 I of Georgivs to space low relief head, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg of N in IND to bead.

Davies 1807 I of Georgivs to space low relief head, Rev tuft closer to M, right leg of N in IND to space.

Davies 1808 is I of Georgivs to bead low relief head, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg of N in IND to bead.

And finally Davies 1809 is I of Georgivs to bead low relief head, Rev tuft closer to M, right leg of N in IND to space.

Does he have illustrations, Gary? If so, can you see from them if 1805 is indeed the first obverse? (But in any case, the obverse 1 does have a "full neck" while the shallow protrait has a "hollow neck"). Also, does he state rarities? If he does I should estimate that 1805 will be the rarest, unless any of those low relief varieties is also truly rare.

And you're right - Spink have listed those descriptors the wrong way round ! (At least in the 2005 book which is the latest I have). 'Nose to S' is the common shallow portrait (I of Georgivs to space), 'nose to SV' is the rare first obverse (I of Georgivs to bead full neck). Ignore your Spinks, folks ...

Apart from a discription Davies doesn't give much more information. There are pictures but they are just close-ups of the areas he's interested in, eg. RGIVS showing bead alignment and IMP showing the tuft alignment. He also doesn't give rarities although he does give a 1982 values in mint condition. 1805 £85, 1806 £42, 1807 £75, 1808 £60 and 1809 £30. I guess you could infer comparitive rarity from this.

Gary

Thanks Gary, very interesting. I just wonder how many collectors are actually aware of these very subtle differences.

[Gary D]

Davies doesn't use the nose as a pointer and I suspect he orders them the oposite way around to spinks which is very confusing.

Davies 1805 is I of Georgivs to bead full neck, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg on N in IND to bead.

Davies 1806 I of Georgivs to space low relief head, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg of N in IND to bead.

Davies 1807 I of Georgivs to space low relief head, Rev tuft closer to M, right leg of N in IND to space.

Davies 1808 is I of Georgivs to bead low relief head, Rev tuft between I and M, right leg of N in IND to bead.

And finally Davies 1809 is I of Georgivs to bead low relief head, Rev tuft closer to M, right leg of N in IND to space.

Does he have illustrations, Gary? If so, can you see from them if 1805 is indeed the first obverse? (But in any case, the obverse 1 does have a "full neck" while the shallow protrait has a "hollow neck"). Also, does he state rarities? If he does I should estimate that 1805 will be the rarest, unless any of those low relief varieties is also truly rare.

And you're right - Spink have listed those descriptors the wrong way round ! (At least in the 2005 book which is the latest I have). 'Nose to S' is the common shallow portrait (I of Georgivs to space), 'nose to SV' is the rare first obverse (I of Georgivs to bead full neck). Ignore your Spinks, folks ...

Apart from a discription Davies doesn't give much more information. There are pictures but they are just close-ups of the areas he's interested in, eg. RGIVS showing bead alignment and IMP showing the tuft alignment. He also doesn't give rarities although he does give a 1982 values in mint condition. 1805 £85, 1806 £42, 1807 £75, 1808 £60 and 1809 £30. I guess you could infer comparitive rarity from this.

Gary

Thanks Gary, very interesting. I just wonder how many collectors are actually aware of these very subtle differences.

Fortunately not many when I'm looking for them on ebay, unfortunately not many when I'm trying to sell them on ebay.

Gary