1935 Great Britain 1 Crown - Position A & Position B [solved]

1935 Great Britain 1 Crown

N#10337

It would appear that the Incuse Lettering on this coin comes in two varieties:

Similar to the Belgium 50 Francs that is dated 1935

N#7421

I propose that the listing for this coin be updated to reflect these varieties as follow:

Position A: The edge lettering reads normally when the Obverse side faces up.
Position B: The edge lettering reads upside down when the Obverse side faces up.

It should be noted that they did make a Raise Edge variety of this coin as well thus the possibility exist of a Position A or B  version.

If they are just random (~50:50) then no.

I am curious if anyone else has seen this? Or can collaborate these findings.

In Belgium we don't use obverse and reverse to determine the position of the edge writing but instead:

Value up (which many times is the reverse), edge writing upright.

Value down, edge writing upside down.

If you notice, this is the opposite of what you mention in your post and also opposite of what you read in the comments of the Belgian 50 Francs (comments need to be updated for this one!)

But more on topic: to my knowledge Belgium is the only country that minted some of its coins in such a way that both obverse and reverse AND the edge were struck in one go. This made sure the edge writing was always in the same position. Mistakes were made, but very few, so you have coins with mintages of 95% position A and 5% position B.

Most other countries used a technique that first made the edge of the coin, including any writing. These planchets were the put in large containers to be inserted in the next coining machine to strike the obverse and reverse. This was done in a random way so you never knew if the edge was upright or not when the coin was struck. Thus resulting in about 50% chance of either position.

Looking in my catalog of Belgian coins I notice that for the 50 Francs 1935 you mentioned, numbers are 50% Pos A and 50% Pos B, suggesting these coins were already made like in other parts of the world: first the edge and then obv and rev on a randomly inserted planchet…

Newtony

In Belgium we don't use obverse and reverse to determine the position of the edge writing but instead:

Value up (which many times is the reverse), edge writing upright.

Value down, edge writing upside down.

 

If you notice, this is the opposite of what you mention in your post and also opposite of what you read in the comments of the Belgian 50 Francs (comments need to be updated for this one!)

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic132636.html

It depends which way they enter the minting machine as the edge writing and collar are minted before the obverse and reverse. This is an ongoing situation with new coinage and people try to pass them off as minting errors when in fact up to 50% can have in use writing on the edges. Nothing to see here move on 

harryg

As the OP said, we must do some research  to see what the case is in this matter. There are plenty of Numista members who claim to have an example of this coin. Perhaps a PM to each member can solicit a response and we could get a better picture of exactly what we have going on here.

 

Edit. How about lets not assume and being so dismissive? Move on if you like.  I am seeing all over the internet “edge varieties exist” without much explanation or detail. Very vague and generalized. Is this one of them?. 

I’m not being dismissive just helping the op with fact. 

harryg

Show us.

 

Here is an error that you failed to mention. Do you think a collector of Crowns might be interested in this considering it's value?  The Numista page makes no mention of it either. Perhaps more discussion about varieties and errors are in  order. There are at least several examples like this documented in my very short research. 

 

https://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=165&searchlot=2543&searchtype=2

 

 

That piece is the raised edge proof pattern which is listed here, complete with error edge year line:

N#324279

The 1953 coronation crown also has the same minting anomaly 

I have both versions of this coin just graded by NGC.

For the record: Both MS. No differentiation and no Comments. (Therefore they are currently considered the same coin which is why I sent them in together in the first place. Interesting that this post should come up at the same time). No idea on the frequency of the variation.

The mere fact that there is a position A & B position should be mentioned on the Coin Detail Page.

harryg

superagentman

The mere fact that there is a position A & B position should be mentioned on the Coin Detail Page.

Agreed, and certainly if they are a only a fraction of the total mintage. Yes, they exist and I think the object of this discussion now is to try to determine the rough ratio of each type and so far it does not look anywhere near 50/ 50. It could also add value if this proven to be true.

 

Curious as to what these were graded at and if any comments were added.

 

It will really be valuable if the Raised version has a Position A or Position B 😍😍😍

That funny 😂 I own that enamel version 😂

harryg

 

These lines would indicate to me that the coin was made in a collared die (don't know the real term) similar to the Swiss 5 Franken. So the edge and the faces are made at the same time and there should be 3 different text positions (if the collar is made from 3 pieces) and usually a preferred text orientation (unless someone at work made a mistake).

Edge lettering right side up with obverse up for mine.

For what it is worth, the edge lettering on my Rocking Horse crown reads the right way up when the reverse is uppermost. However, this is entirely random due to the coin manufacturing process so can't really be called a variety. Recently had this response from the Royal Mint Museum - ‘It is indeed the case that edge lettering is conventionally applied prior to the strike. Edged blanks are not inserted into the press in any specific orientation, resulting in no specific or set orientation for the edge inscription in relation to the obverse or reverse.’

radrick007

Recently had this response from the Royal Mint Museum - ‘It is indeed the case that edge lettering is conventionally applied prior to the strike. Edged blanks are not inserted into the press in any specific orientation, resulting in no specific or set orientation for the edge inscription in relation to the obverse or reverse.’

Did they say that was the case in 1935?

For what it's worth this is mine.

Cheers Mike

harryg

rsirian1

radrick007

Recently had this response from the Royal Mint Museum - ‘It is indeed the case that edge lettering is conventionally applied prior to the strike. Edged blanks are not inserted into the press in any specific orientation, resulting in no specific or set orientation for the edge inscription in relation to the obverse or reverse.’

Did they say that was the case in 1935?

Thank you. I just assumed he was referring to a 1935 and clarification would be helpful.

I had asked the question with reference to the 1935 crown, although when the answer came back it was slightly ambiguous. So I sent a further message requesting clarification regarding the rocking horse crown in particular and the following response was received from the Public Engagement and Information Officer at the RMM - ‘I can confirm that this convention applies also to the 1935 crown. We might expect to find specimens with edge lettering aligned towards the obverse or the reverse at random, and indeed the Museum collection contains examples of both orientations. This is entirely standard, and there exists no set rule for the orientation of the edge inscription, including on the 1935 crown.’

We have our answer. Not a variety or an error. 

Personally, I don't think this warrants having a specific Position A or Position B version within the “Manage Collection” area.

My impression is that Numista typically only has an A / B option if there's a “correct” and “error” version. I.e. If the coin was supposed to be always A, but for whatever reason, a small amount of B were produced. There might be differences in some listings (such as the Belgian 50f previously mentioned), but that's more because the creator of that page was either too “enthusiastic” or perhaps Belgium have a special way of making coins which seems to be what some other posters are suggesting.

For comparison with other UK coins, we know that the many of the £2 & the old round £1 have edge inscriptions and, as per the Royal Mint's own website, the blank faces are simply fed into the machine at random resulting in text in both directions. Yet we don't have variants on the Numista listing.
*royalmint.com/help/coinage-faqs/edge-inscription-upside-down/

I would argue that, in order to preserve consistency within the UK catalogue, we should not make any changes.

If the RMM had replied to Raddick saying they should always be A, but we acknowledge B exists, then we should add the option. But that's not what they said. Their response would suggest that, in perfect probability, there would be an equal amount of both.

If the OP particularly wants to, they could add a comment in along the lines of “Lettering can face either direction”. I'm always under the impression that, unless stated otherwise, that is always the case anyway, but I don't believe it would do any harm either.

harryg

 

What's the current score?

A Collector

Personally, I don't think this warrants having a specific Position A or Position B version within the “Manage Collection” area.

 

My impression is that Numista typically only has an A / B option if there's a “correct” and “error” version. I.e. If the coin was supposed to be always A, but for whatever reason, a small amount of B were produced. There might be differences in some listings (such as the Belgian 50f previously mentioned), but that's more because the creator of that page was either too “enthusiastic” or perhaps Belgium have a special way of making coins which seems to be what some other posters are suggesting.

 

For comparison with other UK coins, we know that the many of the £2 & the old round £1 have edge inscriptions and, as per the Royal Mint's own website, the blank faces are simply fed into the machine at random resulting in text in both directions. Yet we don't have variants on the Numista listing.
*royalmint.com/help/coinage-faqs/edge-inscription-upside-down/

 

I would argue that, in order to preserve consistency within the UK catalogue, we should not make any changes.

If the RMM had replied to Raddick saying they should always be A, but we acknowledge B exists, then we should add the option. But that's not what they said. Their response would suggest that, in perfect probability, there would be an equal amount of both.

 

If the OP particularly wants to, they could add a comment in along the lines of “Lettering can face either direction”. I'm always under the impression that, unless stated otherwise, that is always the case anyway, but I don't believe it would do any harm either.

I wholeheartedly support this view! 

I am currently not denying the facts. I just don't agree that the catalogue should be fragmented further. 

Since you seem to feel that data will back up your argument - I do have this coin, checked with a couple of non-numista friends and my local coin shop. Between us, we have 3 x “B” and 2 x “A”.

But the problem with using statistics on a relatively small site like Numista means that it's really quite irrelevant. Using my data alone would suggest that “B” is the common coin, and “A” is the rarer variation, yet totalling up the few people who have commented / had a nosey on a well known auction site, would suggest the exact opposite.

My “research” suggests a 60/40 (3:2) split for B. Yet your last comment with stats in suggests a 87/13 (13:2) split for A. Combining our data gives a 75/25 (15:5) split for A. That's a huge variance in results going from “B” is a bit more common to “A” is overwhelmingly more common.

Both of our data pools are way too small to draw any true conclusion (or “fact”) from. We know over 700,000 examples of this coin were made, yet have only been able to get exact data for ~20. That's not even three-one-thousandths of one percent. At this point, any “conclusion” could simply be co-incidence.
 

Raddick has already asked the RM, and they themselves say that there was no set orientation. There is your fact. Probability working the way it does means that the given A & B had an equal chance of happening, there should be a roughly equal amount of each. The RM also has a mix of A & B themselves, though they didn't state exactly how many of each.

In order to draw any serious conclusions, you need to have serious research. I mean, even if you checked 3,500 of these coins, that's still only half of one percent. If you want to go down that rabbit hole, then by all means go ahead. I have no intentions of standing in your way but unless you can conduct an investigation that involves checking literal thousands of these coins, then your research is too small and could be easily skewed by chance.

P.s. I don't wish for this to sound stand-off-ish or aggressive. You're asking should the catalogue be fragmented down into “A” and “B” variants. Your opinion seems to be that it should, mine (and the general Numista policy for the UK catalogue) is that it shouldn't until such time that you or anyone else can come to us with overwhelming evidence which -to date- is not the case.

This is my copy of the coin. Cheers everyone! Happy discussion.

A Collector

Since you seem to feel that data will back up your argument -       Your opinion seems to be that it should, mine (and the general Numista policy for the UK catalogue) is that it shouldn't until such time that you or anyone else can come to us with overwhelming evidence which -to date- is not the case.

Come to us? Who exactly is “us”? Are some members of some fraternity of which I am excluded? You have contributed absolutely nothing in your 4 years of membership.  Now it has come to this, preemptive exclusion. Just look at the NEW paragraph in the comments of the subject coin the 1935 Commemorative Crown which was not there prior to this thread but is conspicuously not included in similar Crowns. Why would this new paragraph even be included  for this year only while not mentioning something worthy such as “ The 1935 Commemorative Crown was the very first Commemorative Crown ever issued by the Royal Mint”? Can you UK coin scholars explain why this is excluded but the randomness of the edge lettering is suddenly of great importance and must be mentioned only after the inquiry ? Sometimes I regret attempting to contribute to this site as others go out of their way to offer their shallow opinions while contributing nothing and then actively go out of their way to sabotage efforts to contribute by others. You got what you wanted, I am done. Congratulations.

“Edge lettering Orientation”

N#10337

Thanks to those who did attempt to actually make an effort judgement free.

@HarryG

I genuinely do not understand what your problem has been here. A question was raised - should this coin be split into “A” & “B” positions? We have then discussed that, within the UK catalogue at least, that if a coin does not have a specific up/down then the catalogue is not split into “A” & “B”. It has been confirmed by the RMM, which are about the best professional body for such UK-based queries, that the coin does not have a specific up/down therefore the catalogue should not be split up.

As I said in a previous post, my opinion is that unless a coin has a right way up that there is no need to mention that it can be either way up. I.e. It is simply an assumed fact. However, I also do not directly oppose an adding of that note either - if nothing else, it prevents the question coming up again.

Quite frankly, it can be added onto every coin where this is a possibility so far as I'm concerned.

For what it is worth:
1 - “Us” happens to refer to the Numista family as a whole. It's not some special little group, it's everyone. A person does research, comes to the forums to present their case, people will share their opinions on the research and then, if the research is agreed by a majority to be of sufficient interest, a change to the catalogue can be made.

2 - Personally, I agree with you that interesting bits of trivia - such as the 1935 was the first commemorative crown - should be included. However, it seems the general policy for Numista is to provide direct facts specifically tied to the coin rather than trivia about the coin or what the coin represents. I enjoy looking into what's represented on coins and there's loads of random trivia that I could add, but I acknowledge that this goes against the generally accepted, if unspoken, policy.

3 - I did read your previous post before you deleted it. I do not know how three people and a shop (Okay, a jewellers that dabbles in precious metal coins rather than a true coin shop) in the UK having a fairly common UK coin having five coins between them is somehow controversial - “absurd” I believe was your exact word. You asked for more data for your research, I went out of my way to get it only to be accused of lying. I do not know whether it's some personal animosity (though I hope not) or simply because it was contrary to your limited collected data. I have nothing to gain by lying.

4 - Whilst I may not have actively contributed to Numista's catalogue, I do try to help people as and where I can through the forums and/or direct messages. There's precious little I can add to the catalogue - the UK section is already superbly well written, and UK (and predecessors) coins are extremely well researched on a global scale. As I said earlier, the depth of my knowledge is based on what the coins represent and trivia that arises from it. For example, the Golden Guinea £2 (2013) was the first UK coin to celebrate an earlier coin. Three parts of Magna Carta (2015 £2) are still statute law in the UK, and one part in New Zealand too. Despite being an iconic phrase of the London Underground (Opened 1863), the phrase “Mind the Gap” (edge inscription 2013 £2) was only introduced in 1968. I would be delighted to add such trivia, but unless there was a majority interest by the Numista community, I'm not going to.

5 - I do not understand exactly how I'm sabotaging your efforts. I said in an earlier post I wouldn't stand in your way, and even provided additional data to assist your efforts. Beyond that, all I said was that until such time that someone can provide extensive data or other research that would prove that the RMM was mistaken (E.g. It was always meant to be “A” but “B” was created by accident. “B” is believed to be about 10% of all coins in existence), that no changes are required in order to keep the UK catalogue consistent with coins without a specific orientation.

And finally, this isn't a “battle” which was designed to be a win/lose situation. I'm not really sure where you got that opinion from. Everyone wants for the catalogue to have the best information in it, but it also needs to be user friendly. I am sure every user appreciates every update/correction which improves that experience. It appears that excessive & unnecessary (until proven otherwise) fragmentation is supposed to be avoided, I suspect it's for user friendly approach for the more casual collector.

You may reply or not, but I have no intentions of being drawn into this further. You've said your piece, I've said mine. I'm going to walk away from this discussion. Have a lovely day.

Who keeps you from adding titbits like you've listed to pages? I also know of no ‘unwritten’ law not to, it's just the fact that most people don't bother to add such things.

As long as it is relevant, short and to the point I don't see anyone standing in your way. What I am personally against, and sadly I see it to often are pages that are clearly filled with copied 1-to-1 text blocks from some website and you get the whole advertisement spiel with all the bells included and whistles in what could have been an interesting few sentences.

A Collector

@HarryG

I genuinely do not understand what your problem has been here. A question was raised - should this coin be split into “A” & “B” positions? We have then discussed that, within the UK catalogue at least, that if a coin does not have a specific up/down then the catalogue is not split into “A” & “B”. It has been confirmed by the RMM, which are about the best professional body for such UK-based queries, that the coin does not have a specific up/down therefore the catalogue should not be split up.

 

As I said in a previous post, my opinion is that unless a coin has a right way up that there is no need to mention that it can be either way up. I.e. It is simply an assumed fact. However, I also do not directly oppose an adding of that note either - if nothing else, it prevents the question coming up again.

Quite frankly, it can be added onto every coin where this is a possibility so far as I'm concerned.

 

For what it is worth:
1 - “Us” happens to refer to the Numista family as a whole. It's not some special little group, it's everyone. A person does research, comes to the forums to present their case, people will share their opinions on the research and then, if the research is agreed by a majority to be of sufficient interest, a change to the catalogue can be made.

 

2 - Personally, I agree with you that interesting bits of trivia - such as the 1935 was the first commemorative crown - should be included. However, it seems the general policy for Numista is to provide direct facts specifically tied to the coin rather than trivia about the coin or what the coin represents. I enjoy looking into what's represented on coins and there's loads of random trivia that I could add, but I acknowledge that this goes against the generally accepted, if unspoken, policy.

 

3 - I did read your previous post before you deleted it. I do not know how three people and a shop (Okay, a jewellers that dabbles in precious metal coins rather than a true coin shop) in the UK having a fairly common UK coin having five coins between them is somehow controversial - “absurd” I believe was your exact word. You asked for more data for your research, I went out of my way to get it only to be accused of lying. I do not know whether it's some personal animosity (though I hope not) or simply because it was contrary to your limited collected data. I have nothing to gain by lying.

4 - Whilst I may not have actively contributed to Numista's catalogue, I do try to help people as and where I can through the forums and/or direct messages. There's precious little I can add to the catalogue - the UK section is already superbly well written, and UK (and predecessors) coins are extremely well researched on a global scale. As I said earlier, the depth of my knowledge is based on what the coins represent and trivia that arises from it. For example, the Golden Guinea £2 (2013) was the first UK coin to celebrate an earlier coin. Three parts of Magna Carta (2015 £2) are still statute law in the UK, and one part in New Zealand too. Despite being an iconic phrase of the London Underground (Opened 1863), the phrase “Mind the Gap” (edge inscription 2013 £2) was only introduced in 1968. I would be delighted to add such trivia, but unless there was a majority interest by the Numista community, I'm not going to.

 

5 - I do not understand exactly how I'm sabotaging your efforts. I said in an earlier post I wouldn't stand in your way, and even provided additional data to assist your efforts. Beyond that, all I said was that until such time that someone can provide extensive data or other research that would prove that the RMM was mistaken (E.g. It was always meant to be “A” but “B” was created by accident. “B” is believed to be about 10% of all coins in existence), that no changes are required in order to keep the UK catalogue consistent with coins without a specific orientation.

 

And finally, this isn't a “battle” which was designed to be a win/lose situation. I'm not really sure where you got that opinion from. Everyone wants for the catalogue to have the best information in it, but it also needs to be user friendly. I am sure every user appreciates every update/correction which improves that experience. It appears that excessive & unnecessary (until proven otherwise) fragmentation is supposed to be avoided, I suspect it's for user friendly approach for the more casual collector.

 

You may reply or not, but I have no intentions of being drawn into this further. You've said your piece, I've said mine. I'm going to walk away from this discussion. Have a lovely day.

I for one would love your tidbits on the UK catalogue. We have to remember we are writing history just because maybe a lot of people know it today doesn't mean people will know it tomorrow. 

Radrick007 is always happy to include these interesting things as long as it relates to the coin page you are on. 

So go ahead @acollector and write away! 

I hope the A B options for the UK coins are not validated.

radrick007

However, this is entirely random due to the coin manufacturing process so can't really be called a variety. Recently had this response from the Royal Mint Museum - ‘It is indeed the case that edge lettering is conventionally applied prior to the strike. Edged blanks are not inserted into the press in any specific orientation, resulting in no specific or set orientation for the edge inscription in relation to the obverse or reverse.’

I myself agree too it should not be a variety based on the above mentioned reply that was given by the Royal Mint Museum itself unless there is concrete evidence or study to rebuke to Royal Mint Museum statement to suggest the edge inscription is suppose to read one way right either by read upright on obverse or upright on the reverse.