The 1879 Fantasy Crowns of Victoria - Why the sudden interest?

brg5658

The first mention of the 1879 Fantasy Crown of Victoria produced in the year 2000 on these PCGS boards came in 2003.

Other mentions have sporadically come up throughout the years, and I had posted about a particularly odd (i.e., expensive) example that sold on eBay in 2016. I posted again in 2017 about my wish that PCGS would start labeling these more honestly with some mention that they are Fantasy pieces struck in 2000, not patterns from 1879.

A recent mention of these by @cardinal in the "Under $100" thread piqued my interest yet again.

Over the past year there has been a very substantial number of these appearing on Heritage, and I've also noticed similar items in the inventory of Atlas Numismatics. My comments are not geared toward either of those entities. But, PCGS still insists on labeling these without a transparent notation that they are Fantasy strikes of modern origin.

Furthermore, I have noted that PCGS is now labeling some of the silver examples as "Piefort" issues - of which there are none from official records. To make matters even more misleading, when you click into the PCGS CoinFacts view of these, they are listed with a "Mintage" of 1 piece (an implication of uniqueness that some may be taking far too seriously) - yet have a graded population of 28 pieces at PCGS alone.

Some of these Fantasy pieces have started to demand high prices, and I think it behooves PCGS to either fix their Mintage numbers (the Three Graces mintage was 790 sets) or start labeling these as "Fantasy" - or both!

They are beautiful pieces, and I believe quite collectible. But, some transparency in labeling would really be nice. Below is my $25 copper example of the Three Graces Design.

Exbrit

Nice piece

cardinal

@brg5658

These are the 4 pieces I have. Note that the labels say “Retro Issue.”

pruebas

I am astounded at the prices these things bring in the HA weekly sales.

brg5658

@cardinal said:
@brg5658

These are the 4 pieces I have. Note that the labels say “Retro Issue.”

The labels also all say Pft = Piefort - which is not correct. They are not pieforts. No such thing exists.

The dates should be listed as "1879" (2000) to make it clear they are not from 1879. The Retro Issue verbiage in no way explains to someone that they are Fantasy pieces, not coins.

These are $25-40 Fantasy medals - now suddenly selling in PCGS plastic for $400 and more. People clearly don't know what they are bidding on, which is on them - but I still think PCGS could be better about labeling them. NGC is more honest in their labeling, at least including the word "Fantasy" (see below).

Any, why can't PCGS update their "Mintage" information on CoinFacts to reflect the actual mintages. The mintages of these Fantasy issues are known and reported in Krause. They are not mintage = 1.

brg5658

On an aside, there are much lower mintage examples than the Victoria issues (see below). NGC is also guilty of what could be better labeling - they did not include the word "Fantasy" on this example, but they used the "1910-Dated" and the "Retro Issue" verbiage similar to the wording @cardinal noted for the PCGS examples.

Zohar

@brg5658 great to have you back! Super coins.

Stork

I hadn't noticed these were spiking in popularity. Perhaps it is time to sell...and yes, I have always thought the labeling could be clearer. edited to say, um wow! I spent far less! And much as I like that version of St. George so much...hmm.

The NGC version of slabify-ing, the 'goldine' version, the name in the paperwork. NGC called it brass.

Atlascoin

I just wanted to add that I agree it would be best if PCGS labeled these as "fantasy" issues on the insert as well as using the "Retro" language. We always describe them as fantasies on our website and note the date of striking and the company that issued them. PCGS has now started adding the issuing date on the insert, which is a positive step.

7Jaguars

And I have voiced my issues with the gold versions of these. I have two, and PCGS will not slab as the silver but not gold were listed in the Krause Unusual Coins Catalog.

brg5658

@7Jaguars said:
And I have voiced my issues with the gold versions of these. I have two, and PCGS will not slab as the silver but not gold were listed in the Krause Unusual Coins Catalog.

@7Jaguars : Can you post a picture of your gold issues? The gold pieces are in the Krause Catalog, usually denoted with a "c" at the end of the X-number or with a completely separate X-number. If you can post a picture of your examples, I may be able to help with identifying them with Krause number.

brg5658

@Atlascoin said:
I just wanted to add that I agree it would be best if PCGS labeled these as "fantasy" issues on the insert as well as using the "Retro" language. We always describe them as fantasies on our website and note the date of striking and the company that issued them. PCGS has now started adding the issuing date on the insert, which is a positive step.

James, thanks so much for replying here. I'm happy with some of the improvements for the more recent (e.g., 2007) pieces they are making with the parenthetical year of issue. Also, thanks for your email - I replied with some information for you to help PCGS update mintages of these original year 2000 issues.

pruebas

@brg5658 PCGS mintages are wrong all over the place. It would probably take too much manpower and human intervention to fix them all. It would probably be best to just remove all that wrong information rather than try to maintain it.

For example, I routinely send in world patterns. Just looking at a few from my most recent submission, I see mintages of 10,000,000 and 117,884,000 to mention just two. (I see this when I click on the PCGS number in the cert verification page.) For patterns, most mintages are not even known, let alone that those numbers are just plain wrong on their surface. I suspect they somehow get coordinated with a regular issue coin of a similar type.

brg5658

@pruebas I am well aware of all of the wrong mintages. I agree PCGS should simply remove mintages when they don’t know. For example, the British Mudie medals have mintages listed of 200 - I don’t know where they get these numbers. It seems sometimes they are just made up.

7Jaguars

Here ya go Brandon:

I believe this is the 42.2 gm.. Ex- Spink Patina sale

I also have the matte one, and a Edward 8 Wreath Crown in gold.

brg5658

@7Jaguars said:
Here ya go Brandon:

I believe this is the 42.2 gm.. Ex- Spink Patina sale

I also have the matte one, and a Edward 8 Wreath Crown in gold.

Krause X-92c for the one pictured.
I believe a mintage of one in gold for each of coin orientation and medal orientation. A Matte example is noted for this strike with coin orientation. Both types are numbered X-92c.

——-
The Edward 8 type came in two “flavors” as a wreath crown in gold, both dated 1937.

X-102c: Does not have “IND IMP” in the legend on the obverse.

X-103: Includes “IND IMP” in the obverse legend. This type was only struck in gold and does not have a suffix letter.

Both types are reported as being struck in quantities of one for coin orientation and one for medal orientation.

Atlascoin

I just wanted to add a personal thank you to Mike Sargent and Sanjay Gandhi at PCGS for helping correct some of these issues in the database. You can see some revised information now: https://www.pcgs.com/valueview/great-britain-temp/1879-crown-x-81-ina-retro-issue-var-ag-pft-dcam/4610?sn=709372.

HashTag

Gee thanks! I love everything 1879; from iron counting trays from banks, treasury reports, all coins MS & PF. Now I have to buy fantasy coins. They are stunningly beautiful.