1924 Denmark Krone

Hi fellow experts, I've just got this beauty from the bulk lot for £0.07. Any indication whether it would be a fake as it's a bit too good to be true?
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces5064.html

Be carefull if it is to good to be true.
Difficult to says if it is real.
Valuable coins are easely forged in China.
Is the provenance of the bulk trustworthy?
Coin seller or garage sale?
Try a magnet. Compare dimensions and weight.
Perhaps you are Lucky

Thanks for the reply. Weight, dimensions and magnet test all pass. It was in a mix of ~70 coins and banknotes from a local eBay seller.

The only worry is that my mind usually tells something isn't right when it seems too good to be true. I might just suck the grading fee up for the freedom of mind.

Few weeks ago, I got the 2 kroner one.

Yours looks genuine to me : same aspect, same details on the design, nothing alarming on the date...

In retrospect, 999,999 doesn't seem that rare....

And this isn't one of the typically forged coins (silver crowns) that come out of China, plus it looks quite good.

Chinese forgers would less likely be knowledgeable about obscure Danish coins, and prefer to make fake US dollars instead.

I have no reason to think it's fake. Many, MANY bulk dealers don't have the time or interest to research every single coin to see if it's particularly valuable. They pull out the obvious big silver coins and then just sell the rest of the collection as bulk. This is a plain looking aluminum-bronze coin; it's easy to see how it could fly under the radar.

I found the 1926 date of this coin in a bulk bin last summer and was pretty pleased about that, but yours is a much better find!

Well, I've never in my life found anything valuable or won a lottery or anything of that sort. So it was a bit hard to believe I could have found such valuable coin.

Looks right to me. I just picked mine up a couple of months ago, it is a grade nicer, but I paid quite a bit more.

Congrats on a great pick-up!

Congratulations, that's a $100 coin, not a bad return on investment eh? I don't see anything which would suggest it's a fake, especially as it's a relatively humble Fine grade.

Now for the hard part... do you keep it as one of the centerpieces of your collection, swap it for a bucketful of cheaper coins, or sell it and take your wifey out for a steak dinner?

@pnightingale, that's an easy part for me I'm definitely keeping this one. I'm really not into selling any of my coins, apart from duplicates maybe. That especially holds true for this coin as I'll always remember how I have acquired it.

I realize this is an old discussion, but I just came across it recently.

 

The coin in question is N#5064

 

Can anyone explain why the 1924 dated coin in this series is so expensive?

 

There are 13 dates in this series; four have higher mintages and eight have lower mintages. For all grades, the 1924 date is much more expensive than any of the other dates. The date with the lowest mintage in the series (1938; about half as many minted than in the 1924 mintage) has a VF value about 32 times lower than the VF value for the 1924 date. This pricing trend is also seen in the SCWC, Numismaster and NGC (which have even higher values for the 1924 date in all conditions).

 

It is interesting that the percent of Numista members who own an example of the 1924 dated coin is the lowest in the frequency column for this series, despite the fact that the mintage figure suggests that this date should be the fifth most common. I wonder if that ranking might be due to the cost of the coin being so high whatever its true rarity actually is. If the prices for the 1924 date are reasonable, then that date is significantly less common than its stated mintage would suggest.

If there were lots of the 1924 on the market the price would drop, before the days of the internet - Prices were worked out for the catalogues through coin dealerships and auctions, many would contribute to the SCWC with information about rarity, sales, prices, etc.. this is the reason the catalogue price is higher, because even though the mintage figure is quite high (or at least higher than other years) they were rarer. One can argue this could have been manipulated and that the price stunted the buying and selling, but this would have soon become obvious when thousands started flooding the market, which they obviously haven’t done - thus keeping the catalogue price high due to their rarity.

If only 3% of Numista members own this coin this only goes to enforce the fact it is rarer than other years with lower mintages, there are plenty of rich Numista members who would own this coin if they could or if it was readily available.

I myself have 16 and own no 1924s, I have one 1935 the 2nd lowest frequency and 9 1926s, the 2nd highest frequency.

 

Catalogue prices are compiled from hundreds of years of experience, thousands of hours of work and by people far more knowledgeable than many (myself included) coin collectors, they shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as fantasy just because a price doesn’t match a supposed large mintage as there are many reasons for this to be true. I am not an expert on this coin, but here are some simple explanations just from experience; the mintage figure is wrong, many were not released due to a fault, many were returned due to wear and melted (this seems the most likely, as they were the first year of release), or a large amount were stored and lost. Either way, evidence would suggest they are the rarest year, thus have the highest price, whether or not you agree with this price or are willing to pay it is up to you, if you were to find one for 7p then all the better for you because I don’t see the price suddenly changing to come inline with the other coins of later years.

I'm a Dane since nearly 80 years and during the 68 where I have collected coins, I never managed to get hold of one, so yes, it's scarce!

Sjoelund

I'm a Dane since nearly 80 years and during the 68 where I have collected coins, I never managed to get hold of one, so yes, it's scarce!

Oh wait I found 1 down my sofa, do you want it? 😂

Would love it😇

I recently came across another coin of this type (should be common, but apparently is quite scarce):

 

1 Kopeck - Alexander II / III / Nicholas II - Russian Empire (1547-1917) – Numista

 

In particular, the 1902 dated coin from this series. The SCWC, NGC and Numismaster all have high values for this coin in all grades ($200/F; $400/VF; $700/EF and $1000 in UNC) despite agreeing that its mintage was 20,000,000 pieces. 

 

Numista doesn't have much pricing information for this date, but its listed value for the VF grade ($16) is the highest VF value for any of the coins in this series, many of which have much lower mintage figures. In fact, this series began in 1867 and a mintage greater than 20,000,000 pieces wasn't reached until the 1896 date. 

 

Does anyone know why this particular date apparently is the rarest date of the entire series? There must be an interesting story here as well…

An interesting spot, I like to take every number with a pinch of salt… although I’m sure accurate, mistakes can happen.

 

Numista and NGC take their mintage figures from the SCWC (unless someone has found mintage figures from the Mint for example), which of course is where the SCWC would have got the mintage figures from in the first place, either that or from a government or national Bank. If a mistake happens it is often repeated until it becomes fact for all eternity, this is often the case with mistakes on maps (ruins, pathways, etc) or intentional with propaganda and stories.

 

The frequency figures of Nimista however don’t lie, and with 1.7% of members who own the coin in general owning the 1902 date it suggests a smaller mintage than 20 million. Comparatively other coins with a 1.5-2% ownership rate have a mintage of 6-7 million, the 1903 coin has a frequency of 18% which is over 10 times the 1902 coin, it has a mintage of 74.5 million. If we use that figure dividing 74.5 by 10 we have a mintage figure of ca. 7.5 million for 1902, this then falls in line with the 1.7% frequency of ownership.

 

So my theory is the mintage figure was mistakenly recorded, and has been continuously repeated ever since. This then explains the higher price, because with that mintage figure the coins should be seen 3 times as much as they actually are in reality. This then becomes an oddity of a date (key date in American) and drives interest and demand pushing up the price, whether this is true or not is pure speculation, however one thing is for certain - this date is rarer than the 20 million mintage figure suggests.

Looks fine to me. Maybe the seller treated it as any other date, which would maybe justify the bulk price.