Proof or Prooflike on this 1951 5 Shillings?

airplanenut

I hate the issues where a proof and prooflike exist and I can't find any definitive diagnostics listed to differentiate the two. Some photos of PCGS prooflikes look to have slightly mushier rims where the denticles meet the flat area, while on this coin they're quite sharp. That makes me think it could be a proof. Any thoughts?

7Jaguars

I'll go proof on that based on the excellence of strike, detail & rim presentation.

JBK

Nice coin.

YQQ

I say proof, just does not look PL.

ajaan

Proof. Is the fingerprint very noticeable with the naked eye?

7Jaguars

I know, no cleaning, but if this was mine, a quick dip in 50% household ammonia and tamp with cotton buds/swabs will remove at least a portion of the fingerprint.

BillDugan1959

While a nice coin, the book says that only 1 or 2 proofs are known, while the total mintage is over two million pieces. Long odds against getting this acknowledged as a proof.

7Jaguars

No, the exact truth of it is that on the matte proofs 1-2 known. The exact number of VIP proofs (which this is NOT) is only estimated, and probably is about 50 or so. The number of "ordinary" proofs is reported variously, but there were supposedly 20,000 sets produced which included this ordinary proof, and then a number of single and usually cased proofs.
This is certainly an ordinary proof, but IMO quite attractive. This is a relatively mark-free coin, with overall pleasant toning (xpt the print). Shamelssly, I would be interested if for sale.

airplanenut

Thanks, all! Nice to get a good consensus.

angelo43

Was there a significance in the case colors between proof and regular issue?

7Jaguars

This has been chewed on, and no definite conclusions by my memory.
The ordinary uncirculated or PL seem to have some edge varieties in that the motto is occasionlly screwed up or left off, and this seems to have happened with the 1935 and 1953 crowns as well.

coinkat

I thought I would revisit this thread in part because of the question but also because of the image. I have looked at some of the 1951 PL Crowns and it seems that there are at least two different and distinct reverse designs. The one pictured here by Airplanenut is truly an amazing image that will help illustrate my point. Please take a look at how well the front legs of the horse are defined. And the same can be said for the dragon wing and arms. Also the arm that holds the sword is defined well as evidenced by the muscle tone at the forearm. Others examples do not display this definition in the design. One could make the argument that the others that do not share the definition are merely later strikes. And while that sounds plausible, the wing design is different in terms how it is defined. One coin I have looked at which does not share the characteristics of Airplanenut's coin, and has a softer design and the wings are clearly different.

I am going to see if I can locate a picture of the other coin which in my opinion, looks to be a different variety. Stay tuned... this could either get very interesting or turn out to be a lot to do about nothing----

coinkat

coinkat

Okay... I found a copy from the PCGS Pop report. Now, please take a look at this one which I believe was graded PR66. This example is less defined at the points of comparison I cited in my prior email. Take a careful look at the front legs of the horse and there is a striking difference. And that difference can be seen on the forearm and the arms of the dragon.

Seems we have a Variety I and a Variety II reverse.

coinkat

This is the image of the Deep Cam graded 64 by PCGS - this reverse design is similar if not the same as Airplanenut's coin. Seems proof dies may have been used to strike PL coins

coinkat

In an effort to further research this, I dug out my Coincraft cat from 2000. There is an interesting line in the section referencing the 1951 crown- taken directly from Coincraft... It was said that the reverse of this crown was made from a punch originally manufactured for an 1899 crown.

So it seems that there is a factual record or at least speculation- other than just photographs- to support that are two distinct types. In looking at the first image I posted, seems that reverse would be the reverse similarly used on the earlier crowns of the late Victorian era.

Coincraft also references that crowns were struck at the Festival of Britain. So I wonder if the different reverses could be an indication as whether the coin was struck at the South Bank at the Festival or at the Royal Mint. It seems improbable that question can be answered unless there are records that exist which seems to be a Hail Mary at best.

airplanenut

@coinkat said:
Okay... I found a copy from the PCGS Pop report. Now, please take a look at this one which I believe was graded PR66. This example is less defined at the points of comparison I cited in my prior email. Take a careful look at the front legs of the horse and there is a striking difference. And that difference can be seen on the forearm and the arms of the dragon.

Seems we have a Variety I and a Variety II reverse.

Interesting work! Now, if I can throw a possible wrench into it. Notice that in the different photos, the lighting is notably different. The way photographs of this type of coin can be taken, particularly whether the reflectivity is highlighted (my picture and the first one you showed, to some degree) or the surfaces are shown more evenly (the toned DCAM you showed) will change the strength and location of shadows. I do see some differences you pointed out, but at least some, I think, may be a result of the lighting angles. I think this would really take having a few pieces side-by-side, whether to just be observed by the same set of eyes, or photographed carefully to ensure no differences are simply the effects of lighting. For major differences that might not be much of an issue. But for these differences that are somewhat small and could also be, in part, the result of die wear, photos alone may be deceiving.

coinkat

@airplanenut

I have some 1951 Crowns. I noticed the difference on my coins first not on any images. Instead of me trying to photograph my coins (it's okay to laugh at that prospect...), I thought there would be images and possible threads about 1951 crowns. That is when and where your thread came into this. Your picture is outstanding and captures the Type II characteristics so I used your thread to initially explain the reverse design differences by adding two other PCGS photos. The first being a Type I Proof graded PR66 by PCGS and a second which is a PRCAM graded 64 by PCGS. I included that picture mainly because it clearly is a type II reverse and has the similar perhaps the same characteristics as your coin.

So looks as if we know there are least two reverse types and possibly given variations with the dragon wings that may not be attributable to die polish or wear. That will require further research. Looks as if Proofs exist with both reverse types.

airplanenut

@coinkat said:
@airplanenut

I have some 1951 Crowns. I noticed the difference on my coins first not on any images. Instead of me trying to photograph my coins (it's okay to laugh at that prospect...), I thought there would be images and possible threads about 1951 crowns. That is when and where your thread came into this. Your picture is outstanding and captures the Type II characteristics so I used your thread to initially explain the reverse design differences by adding two other PCGS photos. The first being a Type I Proof graded PR66 by PCGS and a second which is a PRCAM graded 64 by PCGS. I included that picture mainly because it clearly is a type II reverse and has the similar perhaps the same characteristics as your coin.

So looks as if we know there are least two reverse types and possibly given variations with the dragon wins that may not be attributable to die polish or wear. That will require further research. Looks as if Proofs exit with both reverse types.

Gotcha. I wonder if this is something worth bringing up to the folks at Spink or elsewhere. I know that with US varieties (though typically minor doubled dies or repunched dates/mint marks, not necessarily (un)intentional design changes) there are a few experts to inform, get their thoughts, and then possible have the attribution become official, but I don't know the right organization for UK material. Spink is more specialized, but if it's notable, even Krause could list it... they certainly have some minor varieties among other issues.

coinkat

I have looked at six (6) 1951 crowns in my collection thus far. I know there are more... I need to them including one that was graded by NGC about 25 years ago. The breakdown can be summarized as follows:

One came from a maroon Festival Box and two from the green... all three of those crowns were Type I reverses. The other three are Type II reverses so there is an even split.

While I see a noteworthy and significant difference, I am not sure about the surviving population. I suppose the interest may come if there is a third type within the Type II reverse based on the variation in the dragon wings. There is more research to do and at the moment the whole Type I and Type II variation raises many questions waiting to be answered which may or may not happen.

It would be interesting to see if the Royal Mint has any records that could shed further light on this.

airplanenut

@coinkat said:
While I see a noteworthy and significant difference, I am not sure about the surviving population. I suppose the interest may come if there is a third type within the Type II reverse based on the variation in the dragon wings.

Time to spend your life savings on buying as many examples as you can!

7Jaguars

I am going to have to have a look and see amongst my crowns of 1951 & report back.

coinkat

Found two more... both are type II reverses. Still need to find and look at the NGC graded one. So out of the 8, 5 are type II reverses

7Jaguars

Here is the pattern 1951:

ex-Mark Rasmussen

coinkat

@7Jaguars

Your pattern seems to have the features associated with what I have called a type I reverse.