Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

Which Crown would you rather own and why?


I have posted the trueview images of a 1716 and 1726 George I Crowns.

Which would you rather own?

Which has the better look of the two?

How do you think they graded?

Just alittle background- The 1716 is the first year of issue and 1726 is the last. The 1716 has a greater surviving population as opposed to the 1726 which has a population of 6 in all grades at PCGS.

Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

Comments

  • BailathaclBailathacl Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭

    Greatly prefer the “look” of the second one. The both look AU (53?).

    "The Internet? Is that thing still around??" - Homer Simpson
  • TheRavenTheRaven Posts: 4,143 ✭✭✭✭

    1716 I believe by a hair. The gunk by the G in George and I just like the reverse of the 1716 better.

    Collection under construction: VG Barber Quarters & Halves
  • bigmarty58bigmarty58 Posts: 1,994 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like the 1716 - 53
    1726 - 55

    Enthusiastic collector of British pre-decimal and Canadian decimal circulation coins.
  • fluffy155fluffy155 Posts: 218 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 11, 2023 1:41PM

    Going by the TV I'd have to pick the 1726. The 1716 looks flat and the fields look off. My guesses for the grades before looking... XF details and 50.

  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think they are close, with both having their good and bad points, but my eye leans to the 1726.
    As for the Why? It's just simply an opinion on which of the two my eye likes more.

  • ElmhurstElmhurst Posts: 767 ✭✭✭

    I’d pass on both, sorry. Looks like old cleaning to me.

  • CocoinutCocoinut Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'd go with the 1716. I find the hit on the "R" in GEORGIUS on the 1726 to be too distracting .

    Countdown to completion of my Mercury Set: 2 coins. My growing Lincoln Set: Finally completed!
  • bronzematbronzemat Posts: 2,597 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like 1716 too. The hit at 9'o'clock on the 1726 drive me nuts.

  • pruebaspruebas Posts: 4,257 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like the 1716 as well for the same reasons as above.

  • HoledandCreativeHoledandCreative Posts: 2,721 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You can't be too picky with a pop of 6, price would have to be a factor with that spot or hole. I like the 16 better, also.

  • Bob13Bob13 Posts: 1,411 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like the 1716 better as well, mostly due to the reverse rim ding and observe spot.

    I could see both anywhere from AU50-55.

    My current "Box of 20"

  • John ConduittJohn Conduitt Posts: 346 ✭✭✭

    Both are nice coins. They both look good regardless of knocks or old cleaning. Historically, the oldest is more appealing. I don’t know how relevant the PCGS populations are so I don’t know I’d have a coin based on that, but the wear on the 1726 is less. So with it so difficult to choose, I’d go for the cheapest, as whatever grades PCGS have given will dictate that now they’ve been slabbed.

  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I like the 1712, but it looks to have old cleaning. Maybe neither of those 2 and continue to look for a better example?

  • ClioClio Posts: 473 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would've voted for the 1716 without seeing how they look in hand. Interesting to have the scarcer example as well. Would be hard for me to choose.

    https://numismaticmuse.com/ My Web Gallery

    The best collecting goals lie right on the border between the possible and the impossible. - Andy Lustig, "MrEureka"

  • lordmarcovanlordmarcovan Posts: 43,194 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Both nice, but I prefer the first (1716). The second has a black spot at 9:00 which doesn’t ruin it, but does put it in second place as far as I’m concerned.


    Explore collections of lordmarcovan on CollecOnline, management, safe-keeping, sharing and valuation solution for art piece and collectibles.
  • TPRCTPRC Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I also prefer the 1716. Don't love the spot on the 1726.
    1716-50
    1726-53

    Tom

  • RedSealsRedSeals Posts: 278 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Id take the obverse of the 1716 and the reverse of the 1726. Glue em together.

    Successful BST Transactions with: PerryHall, MrSlider, Cent1225, SurfinxHI, Blu62vette, robkool, gowithmygut, coinlieutenant, Downtown1974, MilesWaits, Shrub68, justindan

  • neildrobertsonneildrobertson Posts: 1,168 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The reverse on the 1726 is strong enough that it outweighs a slight preference for the color on the 1716 obverse.

    IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
    "Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me

  • TheRavenTheRaven Posts: 4,143 ✭✭✭✭

    I would ask the question, a coin from 1716, or any coin with that much age to it, wouldn't most of them have been cleaned over the 100's of years the coins have existed. Being this was typically a more excepted action in the past then it is now.

    Collection under construction: VG Barber Quarters & Halves
  • RexfordRexford Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TheRaven said:
    I would ask the question, a coin from 1716, or any coin with that much age to it, wouldn't most of them have been cleaned over the 100's of years the coins have existed. Being this was typically a more excepted action in the past then it is now.

    Many times, but not always. There are plenty of European coins from this period or earlier that have not been cleaned in a harmful manner. For all coin types there is a threshold where the amount of cleaning present becomes unacceptable for a straight grade, though the severeness of that threshold may vary from coin type to coin type.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,653 ✭✭✭✭✭

    At the time I submitted both of these crowns, my grade was a straight grade 40 on the 1716 and a 45 on the 1726. I also took some time to look at images from past auctions... And the surviving population really confirms that there simply is not much of a surviving population in a state of preservation in what I would consider "quality for the grade" or just those that have "the look"

    I pulled both the 1716 and 1726 out again today to take a deep look//exam. The obverse spot on the 1726 that has most concerned is flaw in the planchet. While it is a distraction, GB coinage from this era has issues including haymarking which can be problematic. This flaw really does not bother me as it is part of what exists for the time frame.

    Inasmuch as I will admit to mistakes, the 1716 even with the au details grade is just not a bad coin in comparison to what survived.

    Everyone is entitled to their thoughts//opinions.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • BjornBjorn Posts: 526 ✭✭✭

    Is that porosity on the obverse of the second coin, or just tiny toning spots? Like several others, I slightly prefer the obverse on the 1st and reverse on the 2nd coin.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,653 ✭✭✭✭✭

    haymarking with a planchet imperfection

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

Sign In or Register to comment.