Good Fine Mule £1,250 Any Takers?

[Rob]

Did not a Bury mp go to prison for fraud , really we should vote martin Platt MP for bury.

I think you are very generous gradeing the platt mule GVF or vf - I am sure its not that nice.

I think i am closer with good fine , or maybe my grading is bit strict.

That was David Chaytor (Bury North). They just don't learn, do they? They are still trying it on. When we eventually get politicians that are working for the good of the whole country instead of themselves and not just pandering to their mates, you might be surprised at their popularity.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Rob

[scott]

1933 wasn't offical currency either.

and i was refering to in that grade.

can have my satin 19 in low grade for 1249.99

[Peckris]

1933 wasn't offical currency either.

and i was refering to in that grade.

can have my satin 19 in low grade for 1249.99

I'd say a 1905 halfcrown and shilling were official currency, wouldn't you?

[VickySilver]

Ah yes, and the 1926ME penny as well as a topnotch 1919KN with full strike or a 1922 Rev. 1927 (and all the scarcer iterations of that date) in, say, mint red uncirculated...Or marginally the 1934 Wreath?

[Peckris]

Ah yes, and the 1926ME penny as well as a topnotch 1919KN with full strike or a 1922 Rev. 1927 (and all the scarcer iterations of that date) in, say, mint red uncirculated...Or marginally the 1934 Wreath?

I don't think scott will allow a 1934 Wreath as a currency coin! Nor would I, tbh.

[DaveG38]

I've seen one in no better than fine condition, so why not a currency piece?

[declanwmagee]

Do you think they were spent at the time, Dave? For five bob, I mean.

Edited August 18, 2013 by declanwmagee

[Colin88]

Hi Rob

Did you get my PM?......I'm not too sure I did it right?

thanks

Colin

Is there a 1869 proof farthing? I don't see one in the book.

[Peckris]

I've seen one in no better than fine condition, so why not a currency piece?

With a total mintage of between 35-40,000, and with the vast majority kept for the very reason they were struck - i.e. for collectors - it's highly unlikely that any retailer or average Joe would even have known what they were, let alone taken them as payment for anything. I think we can assume that wear was caused by repeated handling, perhaps where a piece was bought by a collector and given to a favourite niece or nephew as a keepsake.

Is there any record of Wreaths being spent as currency?

[RLC35]

Hi Rob

Did you get my PM?......I'm not too sure I did it right?

thanks

Colin

Is there a 1869 proof farthing? I don't see one in the book.

Hi Colin,

I did not receive a note through the system (Forum). You can send direct at: RLC35@aol.com.

Regards,

Bob

[VickySilver]

I might have a picture of it as I recall I took one of that coin as well as an 1863 proof farthing (no dot). Easier for me to email these than to post them for some reason.

[Colin G.]

I might have a picture of it as I recall I took one of that coin as well as an 1863 proof farthing (no dot). Easier for me to email these than to post them for some reason.

Would you be willing to e-mail me a copy as well?

[DaveG38]

Do you think they were spent at the time, Dave? For five bob, I mean.

Some certainly were, as the degree of wear is well beyond normal handling or keeping in change. The 1934 I saw, from a local dealer, was a poor fine and well worn. No way was that just a bit of handling wear. Going by Derek's grading book, I'd say the obverse was almost exactly like the illustration at the top of page 88 and the reverse, if anything, was worse than that on page 225.

[Colin88]

Never mind Platt, If overgrading was a crime then john welsh would be doing a life sentence....

[copper123]

Ah yes and John welsh has been hawking total rubbish and selling it for good money for 40 years or so a crying shame.

Lets hope martin ain't around as long.

[Peckris]

Do you think they were spent at the time, Dave? For five bob, I mean.

Some certainly were, as the degree of wear is well beyond normal handling or keeping in change. The 1934 I saw, from a local dealer, was a poor fine and well worn. No way was that just a bit of handling wear. Going by Derek's grading book, I'd say the obverse was almost exactly like the illustration at the top of page 88 and the reverse, if anything, was worse than that on page 225.

Sorry, I have to disagree here. The number of transactions it would have had to be part of to be that worn would be huge. You're telling me that a whole load of shopkeepers or suchlike, would have handled one of the rarest 20th Century coins without a) questions being asked about what on earth it was and c) without falling into the hands of a collector somewhere along the way?

Maybe it was given to a child who used it with its friends for years of 'playing shop', or swapping for something else. Who knows? I'm not saying it wasn't handled over a long period of time by grubby little hands, just that I doubt it saw 'normal' circulation.

[Gary1000]

Do you think they were spent at the time, Dave? For five bob, I mean.

Some certainly were, as the degree of wear is well beyond normal handling or keeping in change. The 1934 I saw, from a local dealer, was a poor fine and well worn. No way was that just a bit of handling wear. Going by Derek's grading book, I'd say the obverse was almost exactly like the illustration at the top of page 88 and the reverse, if anything, was worse than that on page 225.

Sorry, I have to disagree here. The number of transactions it would have had to be part of to be that worn would be huge. You're telling me that a whole load of shopkeepers or suchlike, would have handled one of the rarest 20th Century coins without a) questions being asked about what on earth it was and c) without falling into the hands of a collector somewhere along the way?

Maybe it was given to a child who used it with its friends for years of 'playing shop', or swapping for something else. Who knows? I'm not saying it wasn't handled over a long period of time by grubby little hands, just that I doubt it saw 'normal' circulation.

To see any of the wreath crowns with light wear is not unusual, my 1934 crown is a GVF. Although probably not intended to circulate I suspect they saw quite a bit of circulation posibbly into the 1940s.

[just.me]

Slightly different but, here is a good example of a worn 1853 Crown that Michael Gouby has on his website, twice as rare as the 1934 and were all the 1853s only issued in the Proof sets?

http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/cr1853.htm

[declanwmagee]

Slightly different but, here is a good example of a worn 1853 Crown that Michael Gouby has on his website, twice as rare as the 1934 and were all the 1853s only issued in the Proof sets?

http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/cr1853.htm

Yes, I can see crowns being used as five bob in the 19th century, but in the 1940s? Really?

I wonder if there's any research or numbers as to what constituted circulating coinage in a particular era. Now that would be interesting. The Veiled Head crowns were issued for circulation, so they must have been circulating freely at least till the 1920 debasement. They would have been top targets for reclamation by the Mint after that though, you'd have thought.

[Gary1000]

Slightly different but, here is a good example of a worn 1853 Crown that Michael Gouby has on his website, twice as rare as the 1934 and were all the 1853s only issued in the Proof sets?

http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/cr1853.htm

Yes, I can see crowns being used as five bob in the 19th century, but in the 1940s? Really?

I wonder if there's any research or numbers as to what constituted circulating coinage in a particular era. Now that would be interesting. The Veiled Head crowns were issued for circulation, so they must have been circulating freely at least till the 1920 debasement. They would have been top targets for reclamation by the Mint after that though, you'd have thought.

The Crown is legal tender still so when else would they have circulated?

[Peckris]

Slightly different but, here is a good example of a worn 1853 Crown that Michael Gouby has on his website, twice as rare as the 1934 and were all the 1853s only issued in the Proof sets?

http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/cr1853.htm

Yes, I can see crowns being used as five bob in the 19th century, but in the 1940s? Really?

I wonder if there's any research or numbers as to what constituted circulating coinage in a particular era. Now that would be interesting. The Veiled Head crowns were issued for circulation, so they must have been circulating freely at least till the 1920 debasement. They would have been top targets for reclamation by the Mint after that though, you'd have thought.

The Crown is legal tender still so when else would they have circulated?

I note that Michael says :

"The person selling this coin thought that his grandfather might have had it as a "good luck" pocket piece and that could be the reason for its condition now !?"

Absolutely. My own definition of 'circulated' doesn't include being carried by one single individual in their pocket which would account for any and all wear. But if someone wants to define 'circulation' to include that circumstance, then fair enough - you couldn't distinguish such wear caused by one person over many years, from the same wear caused by many different people over the same period.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Peckris

[copper123]

I really find it strange that people on here will not believe that a wreath crown might circulate, while the mintage on these coins is really low you have to remember the 1930's were lean times for many, and just as the worldwide economic upturn came along world war II started.

A crown in the mid nineteen thirties was an item was an item of considerable value .

Remember many of these crowns were left at the bottom of a drawer just gathering dust , many young children must have come across them while "hunting for treasure" and some when they found the coin would have taken it straight down to the local sweet shop and spent it.

While it would not be the norm for it to circulate , I am sure a few did.

[Nick]

It's a strange one alright, but I can see both sides of the argument. There are many wreath crowns that look circulated and therefore it is reasonable to assume that some of those did circulate. On the other hand, the total coinage of all of the wreath crown years (excluding 1927 proofs) was only ~35,000 and you would probably find it difficult persuading a shopkeeper to accept the largest face value coin, the like of which he/she had never seen before. Similar to trying to spend a £5 coin today.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Nick

[VickySilver]

I don't recall any accounts of these Wreaths circulating. What was to be bought with a crown or why would a non-collector want one in the first place?I have collected these for nearly 20 years, and though have not purchased any for greater than 10 have seen in the main EF specimens that were likely clanking around in tellers drawers. A few gVF specimens with precious few at the F level, and a few "pocket pieces" every now and then.

My own opinion is that they rarely circulated, were legal tender obviously, much as Nick says...

[copper123]

Oh and by the way I have accepted £5 coins as payment where i work , as i know they are legal tender - they really don't appear that often probably less than once a year unlike those pesky scottish £5 and £10 notes