Let's See Your Toned English Milled Silver!

[VickySilver]

Well, you could go for the 1911 Canadian Dollar that would run about 500k + quid!

[Peckris 2]

10 hours ago, Paulus said:

Yes, I always thought it a little strange that they didn't do a crown for 1911!

I think it may well be because 1911 fell between the death of the crown as currency (either 1901 or 1902) and its rebirth purely as a commemorative (1927 and after).

[Sword]

12 hours ago, Paulus said:

Yes, I always thought it a little strange that they didn't do a crown for 1911!

It's a real shame that the crown is missing. The 1911 set would look significantly more impressive with it. Mind you, I guess it would add another £700 or so to the price of the set making the whole thing rather expensive. 

Great toning by the way. Really nice!

[Sword]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

I think it may well be because 1911 fell between the death of the crown as currency (either 1901 or 1902) and its rebirth purely as a commemorative (1927 and after).

But the wreath crowns weren't commemorating anything though. It was more of a nostalgic item.

[Rob]

Struck in Edinburgh, but sort of makes it into English silver.

[Unwilling Numismatist]

@Paulus that set is just coinPorn.

 

[Peckris 2]

22 hours ago, Sword said:

But the wreath crowns weren't commemorating anything though. It was more of a nostalgic item.

Not at all - it was an entirely new design so nothing to be nostalgic about. 'Commemorating' new designs, in that sense.

[Sword]

39 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Not at all - it was an entirely new design so nothing to be nostalgic about. 'Commemorating' new designs, in that sense.

For me, the first commemorative crown is the 1935 rocking horse. A commemorative coin generally features a one-off design and only issued for a single year for which the event took place. 

Making a commemorative coin to commemorate new coin designs sounds a bit strange. The Wreath crown were also struck for 9 years, not one. If the wreath crowns were "commemorative", then the currency halfcrowns, florins of the fourth coinage might also be classified as "commemorative" by the same argument which doesn't make much sense. 

By 1927, the production of crowns has ceased for more than a quarter of a century and it was obvious that it will not be minted again for general currency use. I think coin collectors regretted the absence of this large size coin and was nostalgic with this denomination. Hence, Oxford MP and president of the Royal Numismatic Society , Sir Charles Oman, pushed for crown pieces to be minted in small numbers each year. 

[Peckris 2]

On 12/11/2019 at 11:44 PM, Sword said:

For me, the first commemorative crown is the 1935 rocking horse. A commemorative coin generally features a one-off design and only issued for a single year for which the event took place. 

Making a commemorative coin to commemorate new coin designs sounds a bit strange. The Wreath crown were also struck for 9 years, not one. If the wreath crowns were "commemorative", then the currency halfcrowns, florins of the fourth coinage might also be classified as "commemorative" by the same argument which doesn't make much sense. 

By 1927, the production of crowns has ceased for more than a quarter of a century and it was obvious that it will not be minted again for general currency use. I think coin collectors regretted the absence of this large size coin and was nostalgic with this denomination. Hence, Oxford MP and president of the Royal Numismatic Society , Sir Charles Oman, pushed for crown pieces to be minted in small numbers each year. 

You're using "commemorative" in a very literal sense. In the coin world they are often just designs created to be sold to collectors rather than as currency. I would class the 1951, 1953, and 1960 crowns as such, even though there was no specific event on them unlike the Churchill.

As for wreath crowns being issued for 9 years, that was only because the 1927 was very popular with collectors and the Mint saw an opportunity to make money (hey, what a concept!), which accounts for the very low mintages; why else do you think so few were minted? I've read that the 1927 was originally planned as a one-off, which indeed makes it a "commem" or whatever you want to call it.

[Sword]

I guess I am rather literal with the term "commemorative" but do accept that it is not clear cut with certain coins. I do however agree that 1951, 1953 and 1960 crowns are commemoratives. 1951 was for the Festival of Britain, 1953 was for the coronation and 1960 was related to the New York Exhibition. Of these three, 1960 is more debatable. 

The 1927 wreath crown in sets  weren't good sellers. In fact, the 15000 sets were only sold out in 1933. My opinion is that the low mintages of wreath crown was simply because demand was low but the mint produced them because of tradition rather than as some money making scheme. True commenoratives like the 1935, 1951 etc were far more popular with the public and much greater numbers were minted.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Sword

[ozjohn]

7 hours ago, Sword said:

I guess I am rather literal with the term "commemorative" but do accept that it is not clear cut with certain coins. I do however agree that 1951, 1953 and 1960 crowns are commemoratives. 1951 was for the Festival of Britain, 1953 was for the coronation and 1960 was related to the New York Exhibition. Of these three, 1960 is more debatable. 

The 1927 wreath crown in sets  weren't good sellers. In fact, the 15000 sets were only sold out in 1933. My opinion is that the low mintages of wreath crown was simply because demand was low but the mint produced them because of tradition rather than as some money making scheme. True commenoratives like the 1935, 1951 etc were far more popular with the public and much greater numbers were minted.

In the late 1920s and early 1930s with the world still in the grip of the great depression. 5 shillings was a considerable sum of which most people at the time would have found difficult to find from their weekly budget assuming they had work which many people did not making it even more unlikely they would buy these coins.

[Sword]

According to data from the Royal Mint which was previously posted, the issue prices were:

1927 proof set (in cardboard box): 15 shillings (11 shillings 3 pence face). Extra for leather case.

1935 raised edge proof in cardboard box: 7 shillings 6 pence

1935 specimen in cardboard box: 5 shillings 6 pence.

So the 1935 currency was probably issued at 5 shillings face. It is therefore possible that the 1928 -34, 36 wreath crown which were issued in currency without boxes were also issued at face value (or with just a very small premium). I think they were issued at the end of each year so that people might want them for Christmas presents. 

[Peckris 2]

It's not a clear cut issue I guess.

Certainly the 1928-36 wreaths can't be classed as any kind of commemorative, but I did hear (where? can't remember..) that they were struck for collectors only hence the low mintages. They would not have circulated, as crowns hadn't been struck for currency for over 25 years; the worn examples are almost certainly due to excessive rubbing, or to being kept in a purse wallet or pocket.

The 1927 set on the other hand was obviously struck as 'record proofs' of the new designs. Most denominations in it would go on to be currency, but not  the crown. It therefore follows the same pattern as the 1937 and 1953 proof sets which both included a crown which - though also struck as non proofs - were clearly one-off commemoratives.

Earlier, there were proof sets for the 1887 and 1893 redesigns but the crowns in those were also currency types. Before that there were the Gothic crowns and the William IV rare proof-only mantle crowns. The 1831 set didn't include a currency crown nor did the 1853 set. Arguably (if you accept the Young Head crown as currency) the 1839 set did.

It's a can of wriggly things!

[Unwilling Numismatist]

Not the finest example going, but in hand eye appeal is very good.

[Sword]

1896 florin 2+A. Posting it here as it is one of my top two coins in terms of toning. Toning is better than what the photos would suggest.

 

 

 

 

[Sword]

[Rob]

Things are a bit dead at the moment, so let's try to breathe a bit of life into this place.

P1163 Taylor restrike pattern halfpenny.

 

[Rob]

And something more mundane - as it says on the label.

[Unwilling Numismatist]

it's not very toned, but it is silver, a gap filled but not as nicely as I'd like...

[Paulus]

[Paulus]

Edited June 16, 2020 by Paulus

[Nonmortuus]

[Diaconis]

Still in the post, one of the abundant Mestrelle sixpences.

Borden & Brown 24-O3 24-R5 - easy to spot this one with the die flaw on the reverse, below the shield. This one appears to have a tail on the 6, I'll be interested to see if it was cut into the die.

 

[Unwilling Numismatist]

1887 Sixpence ESC3267 JEB on truncation, would like better but online prices don't seem to reflect aution realised prices very well.

[Diaconis]

Another one, 1561this time. (Spink 2020 plate coin). B&B 21 dies 2/2 (NEF?)