Early British Crown Help Needed

Comments

• ajaan Posts: 17,601 ✭✭✭✭✭

  July 17, 2011 1:22AM

  It looks likes someone started a hole in the Chuck I crown and then it was filled.

  
  DPOTD-3
  'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
  
  CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
  
  
  Don

  0
• nicholasz219 Posts: 1,386 ✭✭✭

  July 17, 2011 1:38AM

  I agree with Don. That odd spot on the Charles Crown looks like a filled hole. Both are still great coins.
  

  My Collection

  0
• FilthyBroke Posts: 3,518 ✭

  July 17, 2011 1:43AM

  I believe that's the mintmark on the Charles I, maybe a rose, I don't have a Spink book to look it up right now.
  
  
  added -- Here's a LIST of mintmarks for the Charles I series.

  0
• RobP Posts: 483 ✭✭

  July 17, 2011 2:05AM

  
  
  << <i>Charles I Crown
  
  
  
  One of my concerns is the area above the king's head. The picture in Krause is unclear and doesn't help . Is this part of the coin or ?
  Also on the shield side next to the harp the numbers 1464 have been lighty engraved.
  I grade this about VF
  >>
  
  
  The reason for the fuzzy area above the King's head is that this obverse die (Cooper X) was first used with the Plume or Feathers mark (June 1630-June 1631). Following the pyx for the plume mark, the die which was still serviceable was recut with the Rose mark which followed Plume and was used until June 1632. The die was still intact at the end of Rose and was recut for a second time with the Harp mark which operated until July 1633. The mark is therefore Harp over Rose over Plume - hence the reason for the messy splodge. Although it looks as if it has been tampered with, this is quite normal. The reverse die is another matter however. It is interesting as it isn't one recorded by Cooper who listed 4 reverse dies in his 1968 BNJ article, but not this one. It isn't a recycled die as there is no obvious underlying mark, or matching die used with a previous mark. It may have been published elsewhere, but I don't have any info. Grade is no better than fine for the obverse, the reverse looks slightly better, but not a lot. You would probably look to pay £500-600 (say up to $1000 max) for it as the type appears quite regularly.
  
  
  
  << <i>
  Queen Anne Crown
  
  
  
  This looks like a no problem coin. I looks like it grades VF to me, but I don't know the series.
  The mark near the M on the reverse looks to be raised not a scratch.
  
  Thanks for any help.
  Dave >>
  
  
  
  Not a bad example and VF looks about right, though I can't say about the mark by the M. The reverse looks a bit better possibly.

  0
• lordmarcovan Posts: 43,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

  July 17, 2011 11:06AM

  
  
  Love that Anne.
  
  Both are impressive, of course.

  
  
  

  0
• RobP Posts: 483 ✭✭

  July 18, 2011 4:15AM

  
  
  << <i>
  Charles I Crown
  
  
  
  Also on the shield side next to the harp the numbers 1464 have been lighty engraved.
  >>
  
  
  Please could you do a closeup of the numbers by the harp and also check whether there are any numbers in the field behind the king or above the horse's rump. Thanks.

  0
• coinnerd Posts: 492 ✭✭✭

  July 19, 2011 7:55AM

  Here is the area around the harp. Looking again it looks like this may be plachet stress cracks that just look like numbers.
  
  
  
  The right side of the king and horse. These look like stress cracks.
  
  
  
  
  I've added one more owner thinks it is EF I don't think it quite makes it though close. The strike is a little weak in the centers. Any opinions? Any marks are on the holder.
  
  

  0
• RobP Posts: 483 ✭✭

  July 19, 2011 9:34AM

  Thanks for that - I agree they are only stress marks. I am interested in any etched numbers on hammered crowns and half crowns as there was one specific collector in the period from ca 1930 onwards who on more than one occasion scratched the lot number from the sale he purchased the coin from in the obverse field. Behind the king or above the rump in the case of crowns, and between the king's face and sword on halfcrowns. It means you can establish a provenance if you can tie the number and description to a lot he bought.
  
  The William III is a bit of a mixture. The obverse is slightly better than VF but not much better whereas the reverse looks for the most part EF. The Scottish arms look virtually wear free, though the obvious flattening to the Lion of Nassau and bottom lion drag it down slightly. This reign often causes a bit of grief because the recoinage meant that huge numbers of dies were made and only brought into use at odd intervals. The reverse has obvious rust marks, so it wouldn't be surprising to see die blockage and softness in the detail as this strike was made when the die was already old. Rusty dies from thisperiod are very common. It's also a shame about the small bump by the 96 as it is quite a decent example otherwise.

  0
• coinnerd Posts: 492 ✭✭✭

  July 20, 2011 9:17AM

  RobP
  
  Thanks for the info.

  0
• coinkat Posts: 23,836 ✭✭✭✭✭

  July 20, 2011 10:50AM

  Just for the sake of completeness, there is another obverse variety for the 1696 Crown-

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

  0