Hungary 5 Pengo 1938

Hi all, 

I have a proof coin dated 1938 5 Pengő - Miklós Horthy (Death of St. Stephen) - Hungary – Numista but I cannot understand how should I attribute it correctly.

I can read 2 lines for this coin:

1938 BP PROOF

1938 BP PROOF - Restrike not marked

If both are BP what does it mean “not marked”?

Thanks for your help!

Dario

If you check out the NGC page, it is different from the Numista page in one small detail;

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/hungary-5-pengã¶-km-516-1938-cuid-1201273-duid-1413127

NGC have 600,000 circulation coins, Numista says they are proofs (which obviously 600,000 proofs is ridiculous), then has the PROOF coin, which was a restrike Proof - which wasn’t marked as a restrike.

So unless you have a coin that has amazing mirrored fields and frosty features (ie which looks like a Proof), you don‘t have a proof coin, just the normal circulation coin - which is wrongly attributed as a Proof on the Numista page. If you have a stunning Proof coin, it’s the restrike.

King

If you check out the NGC page, it is different from the Numista page in one small detail;

 

https://www.ngccoin.com/price-guide/world/hungary-5-pengã¶-km-516-1938-cuid-1201273-duid-1413127

 

NGC have 600,000 circulation coins, Numista says they are proofs (which obviously 600,000 proofs is ridiculous), then has the PROOF coin, which was a restrike Proof - which wasn’t marked as a restrike.

 

So unless you have a coin that has amazing mirrored fields and frosty features (ie which looks like a Proof), you don‘t have a proof coin, just the normal circulation coin - which is wrongly attributed as a Proof on the Numista page. If you have a stunning Proof coin, it’s the restrike.

Yes, general coins are not proof. 

In the 1960's Artex (an organization for foreign trade) issued restrikes of many coins and patterns, and various collector issues, mostly to sell abroad. Most of the time they are marked with rosetta, but some restrikes (like in this case) were issued without it. Likely some BU restrikes of this 5 pengő were also issued, but it is not certain.

You can distinguish restrike from general coin by how it looks. Here you can find more pictures:
https://www.artexveret.hu/pengo-artex-utanveret/ezust_szent-istvan_1938_jeloletlen_artex_utanveret_5_pengo.php#ugrik

I just came across the same issue reported by Darioelle, and I agree it needs attention.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this coin.

First, the fact that both lines in the valuation table are marked as “proof”. The SCWC does not mark the 600,000 mintage line as “proof”, only the unmarked restrike line (with an unlisted mintage). So, it is tempting to just edit the page to remove “proof” from the line with the 600,000 mintage, but - 

1. The majority of Numista members who own this coin claim to have the unmarked proof restrike, not the original 600,000 mintage version (which seems unlikely).

2. Grades are given in the valuation table for both versions of the coin (which Numista considers to be proofs). The unmarked restrike proof (which is a newer issue) has grades down to “F” (along with values) which I find very odd. The line with the 600,000 mintage (presumably the original circulating commemorative coin - not a proof - has conditions listed only down to "VF". I am not sure if I have ever seen a valuation table on a Numista page that gives values for heavily worn “proof” coins (except for this one).

3. Based upon (1) and (2) above, it is likely that many people have been entering the circulating commemorative version of this coin on the “proof restrike unmarked” line for some reason, so removing the “proof” comment from the line with the 600,000 mintage figure would not fix that.

I suggest that what needs to happen here is for the administrator of the site to completely re-do the valuation table for this coin (wiping out all existing data in the table). The new table would then have the 600,000 mintage coin being the original (non-proof) issue. Everyone who has indicated ownership of this coin would then be contacted and asked to re-enter their coin on the appropriate line in the table. I also suggest some pictures be put on this page to clearly show the difference between the proof and the non-proof versions. Photos from the auction results on the page could be used; for example, auction 182/lot 1737 and auction 171/lot 1577 appear to be the circulating (non-proof) version, and premium auction 175/lot 74 appears to be the proof version with mirror fields and frosted details. 

thoram2

I just came across the same issue reported by Darioelle, and I agree it needs attention.

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this coin.

 

First, the fact that both lines in the valuation table are marked as “proof”. The SCWC does not mark the 600,000 mintage line as “proof”, only the unmarked restrike line (with an unlisted mintage). So, it is tempting to just edit the page to remove “proof” from the line with the 600,000 mintage, but - 

 

1. The majority of Numista members who own this coin claim to have the unmarked proof restrike, not the original 600,000 mintage version (which seems unlikely).

 

2. Grades are given in the valuation table for both versions of the coin (which Numista considers to be proofs). The unmarked restrike proof (which is a newer issue) has grades down to “F” (along with values) which I find very odd. The line with the 600,000 mintage (presumably the original circulating commemorative coin - not a proof - has conditions listed only down to "VF". I am not sure if I have ever seen a valuation table on a Numista page that gives values for heavily worn “proof” coins (except for this one).

 

3. Based upon (1) and (2) above, it is likely that many people have been entering the circulating commemorative version of this coin on the “proof restrike unmarked” line for some reason, so removing the “proof” comment from the line with the 600,000 mintage figure would not fix that.

 

I suggest that what needs to happen here is for the administrator of the site to completely re-do the valuation table for this coin (wiping out all existing data in the table). The new table would then have the 600,000 mintage coin being the original (non-proof) issue. Everyone who has indicated ownership of this coin would then be contacted and asked to re-enter their coin on the appropriate line in the table. I also suggest some pictures be put on this page to clearly show the difference between the proof and the non-proof versions. Photos from the auction results on the page could be used; for example, auction 182/lot 1737 and auction 171/lot 1577 appear to be the circulating (non-proof) version, and premium auction 175/lot 74 appears to be the proof version with mirror fields and frosted details. 

Yes, that comment should be deleted. People obviously do enter it incorrectly, because only around 1000 restrikes were issued, and they rarely come up. While facebook groups are always full with the "general" issue coins. 

(Hungarian numismatic groups obviously. Don't think it's that common abroad)

I think the best thing we can do, besides deleting the yearline comment, is to add pictures of both in the comments. Unfortunately, I cannot provide pictures, as I don't have either type.

Funny story about this coin:

2 or 3 years ago people decided that this coin is a good investment for some reason. Everyone started to buy them up and the prices skyrocketed from 30-35 to 80-100 euro. (Bullion value of this coin at that time was around 12-13 euro, if I remember correctly)

After few months the bubble burst, and the prices went back to 45-50.

thoram2

I just came across the same issue reported by Darioelle, and I agree it needs attention.

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this coin.

 

First, the fact that both lines in the valuation table are marked as “proof”. The SCWC does not mark the 600,000 mintage line as “proof”, only the unmarked restrike line (with an unlisted mintage). So, it is tempting to just edit the page to remove “proof” from the line with the 600,000 mintage, but - 

 

1. The majority of Numista members who own this coin claim to have the unmarked proof restrike, not the original 600,000 mintage version (which seems unlikely).

 

2. Grades are given in the valuation table for both versions of the coin (which Numista considers to be proofs). The unmarked restrike proof (which is a newer issue) has grades down to “F” (along with values) which I find very odd. The line with the 600,000 mintage (presumably the original circulating commemorative coin - not a proof - has conditions listed only down to "VF". I am not sure if I have ever seen a valuation table on a Numista page that gives values for heavily worn “proof” coins (except for this one).

 

3. Based upon (1) and (2) above, it is likely that many people have been entering the circulating commemorative version of this coin on the “proof restrike unmarked” line for some reason, so removing the “proof” comment from the line with the 600,000 mintage figure would not fix that.

 

I suggest that what needs to happen here is for the administrator of the site to completely re-do the valuation table for this coin (wiping out all existing data in the table). The new table would then have the 600,000 mintage coin being the original (non-proof) issue. Everyone who has indicated ownership of this coin would then be contacted and asked to re-enter their coin on the appropriate line in the table. I also suggest some pictures be put on this page to clearly show the difference between the proof and the non-proof versions. Photos from the auction results on the page could be used; for example, auction 182/lot 1737 and auction 171/lot 1577 appear to be the circulating (non-proof) version, and premium auction 175/lot 74 appears to be the proof version with mirror fields and frosted details. 

I agree with you, this coin deserves more attention and a clear comment page to understand which coin is which… Is there someone owning both types that could provide some good compared pictures? 

I submitted the request to delete the comment.

Hopefully, someone will provide pictures of both.

I also added a bunch of other restrikes from pengő and forint systems

Regarding pictures of both coin types, there are lots of photos of this coin in the “Auctions” section of the coin page.

In my first post for this coin, I pointed out some auction coin photos that seem (to me) to show a non-proof coin, and a proof coin (with frosted designs and mirror fields).

If pictures from the “Auction” section of the Numista webpage for this coin are allowed to be used elsewhere on the webpage, then it might make sense to put pictures from that section of a proof version and non-proof version of the coin in the “comments" section of the webpage to show the difference.

They are allowed, but those scans are quite bad. They don't show the difference in finish well, and in some cases I cannot tell which is which.

A daylight photo would be prefferable.

Because even if I find a clearly restrike and a clearly “original” coins on Katz, it might still be misleading for inexperienced collectors

Katz also makes mistakes sometimes. When I was checking the photos they attributed some coins as restrikes, when they clearly were not

Done! There was a bug (probably) with the yearline, because of which I couldn't delete the comment. 

I've also added almost all other restrikes, except for some restrikes of patterns/non-issued coins. Might start working on that after I finish addition of all Hungarian sets, and correction of mintages

I can show you mine. I am sure its just a standard coin though, despite frosted fields.

Its a bit toned and worn, but shows only frosted images, but no mirrored or polished fields like you expect with proof coins. It came out of a bulk lot of silver, so not sure what I paid for it (About $30 2 or so years ago).

Yes that is a general strike. Frosting, and sometimes even mirror field is not very uncommon for them. Because of that sometimes it can be difficult to tell restrikes apart.

Here is an example of a restrike: