Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jwither

1934 circulation strike farthing

Recommended Posts

jwither

Anyone else notice this coin (MS-63) in the NGC census?  I noticed it several months ago.  Has anyone seen it and of so, does it look like a circulation strike?

I ask as first:

One: It's the first and only one to my knowledge.  Catalogs list a very low number which I cannot remember since I confuse the 1933 and 1934 but I think it's 28.

Two: NGC has five 1936 listed whereas according to mintage records, there should only be three.

Three: NGC also lists a 1926 farthing but this time as a "fine".  It is unrecorded in any catalog I have and though I haven't been able to inspect it in person, I assume it's actually an impaired proof; one which circulated to reach that level of wear.  I mentioned this once in an eBay listing when selling one of my coins and exchanged a few messages with the owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri
On 9/18/2019 at 11:39 PM, jwither said:

Anyone else notice this coin (MS-63) in the NGC census?  I noticed it several months ago.  Has anyone seen it and of so, does it look like a circulation strike?

I ask as first:

One: It's the first and only one to my knowledge.  Catalogs list a very low number which I cannot remember since I confuse the 1933 and 1934 but I think it's 28.

Two: NGC has five 1936 listed whereas according to mintage records, there should only be three.

Three: NGC also lists a 1926 farthing but this time as a "fine".  It is unrecorded in any catalog I have and though I haven't been able to inspect it in person, I assume it's actually an impaired proof; one which circulated to reach that level of wear.  I mentioned this once in an eBay listing when selling one of my coins and exchanged a few messages with the owner.

The 1926 Farting in F is a proof that got into circulation - no doubt about that.

The 1934 MS is a first as far as I know

Not all old-time South African catalogers agree with the well known figures provided by Hern et al regarding the number of Farthings coins (PF vs. MS) struck in the years we are talking about..

Nicholas (1979) - South African Coins and their values - are of the opinion that no non-proof farthings were struck in the years 1933, 1934, and 1936.

Personally I think that the Mint struck a few Farthings in those years (on normal (non proof) planchets) to test the dies, machinery or whatever, and those examples were kept and later graded as MS coins

But I have no proof of that (pardon the pun)

Pierre

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither

I don't have it with me but I noticed mintage discrepancies between the 1950 Kaplan you gave me and all other catalogs I have.

I am skeptical of the attribution of the graded Union circulation strikes for these never seen coins.  By this I Include this coin, the 1936 farthing, 1931 3D, 1931 2/- and maybe even some of the 1931 2/6.  NGC has made it's share of errors and I'd never buy one without a personal inspection and maybe an informed second opinion. 

Even aside from the financial haircut the buyer risks (which is potentially substantial), it would be a huge disappointment to think you have an essentially impossible to find coin and then discover it's really a proof mislabeled due to "mechanical error". 

Not saying it happened with this coin but I would want confirmation before I bought one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri
On 9/27/2019 at 10:33 PM, jwither said:

By this I Include this coin, the 1936 farthing, 1931 3D, 1931 2/- and maybe even some of the 1931 2/6.  NGC has made it's share of errors and I'd never buy one without a personal inspection and maybe an informed second opinion. 

I totally agree - the 1931 Union silver series begs for some serious research - I think most of the non -proof issues graded by NGC are actually circulated proofs.  

A while ago I sold a 1949 Shilling (only issued as proofs) in VF condition - go figure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
testrarossa
2 hours ago, Pierre_Henri said:

A while ago I sold a 1949 Shilling (only issued as proofs) in VF condition - go figure!

Was it in a NGC holder? Here’s a screen shot from SANGS population report regarding 1949 shilling. See they graded 8 in MS. Now if SA graders don’t know what chance does the USA have 🤔

3FE7FFE3-0AE7-4565-8018-A02969B27298.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GROOVIE COINS

Excuse me if I stumble about in the dark here, but I was under the impression that proofs only came along in the later years and that earlier coins were classified as specimens. The difference being specimens were generally first strikes, struck multiple times, as opposed to proofs which had their dies treated to enhance the frosting. I've asked the question before and admit that I've not researched the topic since, but at which point did a specimen die become a business strike or were they entirely separate dies?

Today we seem to cover everything under the same umbrella (proofs), though sometimes specimen classification pops up again as we saw with the early strikes of the premium uncirculated 2017 silver kurgers. 

My point is if specimens are indeed from the same dies then there would have been a transition and coins from that transition could have been harder to differentiate, hence the reason so many found their way into circulation.

regards Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
18 hours ago, GROOVIE COINS said:

Excuse me if I stumble about in the dark here, but I was under the impression that proofs only came along in the later years and that earlier coins were classified as specimens. The difference being specimens were generally first strikes, struck multiple times, as opposed to proofs which had their dies treated to enhance the frosting. I've asked the question before and admit that I've not researched the topic since, but at which point did a specimen die become a business strike or were they entirely separate dies?

Today we seem to cover everything under the same umbrella (proofs), though sometimes specimen classification pops up again as we saw with the early strikes of the premium uncirculated 2017 silver kurgers. 

My point is if specimens are indeed from the same dies then there would have been a transition and coins from that transition could have been harder to differentiate, hence the reason so many found their way into circulation.

regards Robert

Outside the coins in my last post here, the only questionable coins (to me) as proof versus SP are some of the "pattern" pennies: the Cape of Good Hope, Griquatown, OFS and 1874 ZAR.  I have never inspected these coins personally but I can see that errors exist here.  However, if it does, I don't see that it matters since none were struck for circulation anyway.

Otherwise, the only other "specimen" to my knowledge is the single 1928 6D.  There are also a low number of proof-like recorded in the NGC census: 1892 1D (the most important one), 1894 2/-, 1935 1/2D and 1936 2/-.  I used to own one of the 1892 1D and it probably looks similar to the recorded SP strikes but I can't confirm.  Other proofs such as the 1892 ZAR and earlier KGV (of which I have owned a few) are correctly attributed.  None of these coins were frosted (this is a modern practice) but are mirrored.

I am not familiar with the surface finish of the more recent RSA coinage.  I presume it's similar to those elsewhere which exists solely as a MARKETING GIMMICK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri
On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 3:16 AM, jwither said:

Outside the coins in my last post here, the only questionable coins (to me) as proof versus SP are some of the "pattern" pennies: the Cape of Good Hope, Griquatown, OFS and 1874 ZAR.  I have never inspected these coins personally but I can see that errors exist here.  However, if it does, I don't see that it matters since none were struck for circulation anyway.

Interesting observation:- Hern (page 393) states ...

"Since these were salesman samples, most were produced in a prooflike finish but I refer to them as uncirculated pieces. However pieces graded and slabbed in the USA, are graded as proof (so) use the UNC prices for these". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
5 hours ago, Pierre_Henri said:

Interesting observation:- Hern (page 393) states ...

"Since these were salesman samples, most were produced in a prooflike finish but I refer to them as uncirculated pieces. However pieces graded and slabbed in the USA, are graded as proof (so) use the UNC prices for these". 

 

Thanks, makes sense.  Based upon this quote, I'd say these should be "specimens" instead of proofs though I have seen both labels on NGC holders.

Edited by jwither

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cold Sea
On 9/29/2019 at 10:38 PM, testrarossa said:
On 9/29/2019 at 7:59 PM, Pierre_Henri said:

A while ago I sold a 1949 Shilling (only issued as proofs) in VF condition - go figure!

Was it in a NGC holder? Here’s a screen shot from SANGS population report regarding 1949 shilling. See they graded 8 in MS. Now if SA graders don’t know what chance does the USA have 

You may be right testarossa. Only if you as a buyer studied the coin before you purchased it would you have realised the grading error. I am under correction here but I suppose the coin Pierre sold should have been graded PR 30 or something like that. I don't believe that graders know all the details about the coins they grade, and graded this coin as they saw it. I wonder whether the owner knew, and if he did, should it have been sent back for a regrade?

Edited by Cold Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither
4 hours ago, Cold Sea said:

You may be right testarossa. Only if you as a buyer studied the coin before you purchased it would you have realised the grading error. I am under correction here but I suppose the coin Pierre sold should have been graded PR 30 or something like that. I don't believe that graders know all the details about the coins they grade, and graded this coin as they saw it. I wonder whether the owner knew, and if he did, should it have been sent back for a regrade?

You are correct.  It should have been graded PR-30 given that no circulation strikes were made.  NGC classifies this mistake as a "mechanical error".  You are also probably correct that no one at NGC checked to confirm no circulation strikes are reported.  Not sure about their internal procedures on this aspect but examples like this should never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri
On 10/7/2019 at 6:34 PM, Cold Sea said:

 I am under correction here but I suppose the coin Pierre sold should have been graded PR 30 or something like that. 

The grading of Proof coins numerically by NGC that shows some wear, are actually not that far fetched.

There are,  for example (regarding say Shillings), 6 coins graded PF58 and 4 coins graded PF55 - maybe not wear per se - but still less than 60. 

So grading proof coins (like the 1949 shilling we are talking about) as say PF30 would actually be a good idea.

Hern has done that for years cataloging (for example) the 1949 1/- in XF , VF and F precisely for that reason (that some may have got into circulation)

Regards

Pierre

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GROOVIE COINS
19 hours ago, Pierre_Henri said:

The grading of Proof coins numerically by NGC that shows some wear, are actually not that far fetched.

There are,  for example (regarding say Shillings), 6 coins graded PF58 and 4 coins graded PF55 - maybe not wear per se - but still less than 60. 

So grading proof coins (like the 1949 shilling we are talking about) as say PF30 would actually be a good idea.

Hern has done that for years cataloging (for example) the 1949 1/- in XF , VF and F precisely for that reason (that some may have got into circulation)

Regards

Pierre

 

  

There's no way of really knowing, so wouldn't VF30 be more accurate with a side note on the label? I say there is no way of knowing because one should evaluate the primary source (the actual coin) first and then the secondary source (historical record).

With a 45 - 60 grade one could still make out the mirror fields around the devices, but worn down to 30 and below, I doubt there would be any tell tale sign of the method of striking i.e. proof.

Regards Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri
2 hours ago, GROOVIE COINS said:

There's no way of really knowing, so wouldn't VF30 be more accurate with a side note on the label? I say there is no way of knowing because one should evaluate the primary source (the actual coin) first and then the secondary source (historical record).

With a 45 - 60 grade one could still make out the mirror fields around the devices, but worn down to 30 and below, I doubt there would be any tell tale sign of the method of striking i.e. proof.

Regards Robert

No, for the year 1949 no non-proof Shillings were struck, so it could only be a proof coin worn down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...