higher mintage, higher value?!

I picked up two lots of coins recently, one had a South African 1892 2½ shillings, and the other had an 1893 2½ shillings.

I looked up the values and saw that only 16,000 of the 1892 coins were minted and 135,000 of the 1893 coins were minted, yet the 1893 is worth $255 in VF while the 1892 is worth only $65.

Is there any reason why the 1893 coin is worth almost 4 times the 1892 despite having almost 10 times as many minted?

My opinion of NGC's reliability on the value of anything worth more than roughly 10 euros is shrinking by the day. I bought my 1893 for something like £35, and even looking on Ebay for 1893 ZAR halfcrowns I see them being sold at around 90 euro, not $225 USD!

That being said though, it does seem that 1893 coins are valued more than 1892 (even if the distance between the two is not as extreme as what NGC would suggest). I can't say why the 16,000 mintage date is worth less than the 130,000 but after some investigating this seems to be a theme with some other ZAR denominations; a 1892 low mintage having a catalogue value less than the higher mintage 1893 and thereafter dates.

The only thing I can think of is that the 1892 were kept by collectors and then the subsequent years all circulated heavily (There's a big gap between the last Kruger coin in 1897 and the first pound sterling coin in the 1920s) so although there were fewer of the 1892 minted there are more available in VF and above.

This is just speculation, can anyone confirm if something like this is the case?

It's also possible those mintage numbers are inaccurate, or that 1892 coins minted in 1893 were included in 1893 figures.

So many variables at play here

These coins remind me of a controversial song about the Second Boer War about General Koos de la Rey:

https://youtu.be/nlHqKJyo3GQ

The song itself is actually not controversial, just a bit of nostalgic heroism. But the issue that it is somewhat sensitive because of its ethnic nationalism. For me it's more of a historical cultural thing.

Quote: "jokinen"​It's also possible those mintage numbers are inaccurate, or that 1892 coins minted in 1893 were included in 1893 figures.​

If I'm not mistaken the 1892 ZAR coins were actually minted at Berlin, before the Boers could get the Pretoria mint up and running with imported machinery the following year. So it's probably at least a likely explanation! (alongside record-keeping mistakes)

For reference, Union coins started in 1923, the South Africans were using British coins in the interim, but probably changed to their own when British ones were debased to 50% in 1920. South African coins to 1950 were 80% silver, the same as Australia.

I used to have some worn Boer coins and remember coins from 1892 to 1898 (Pennies), the rarest I thought was Crown issued in limited numbers and some of the "Pond" gold coins.

Quote: "Moneytane" South African coins to 1950 were 80% silver, the same as Australia.
​

​Aussie coins were sterling to 1946 then 50% silver from then. You're probably thinking of Canada who had 80% silver coins

What is the survivor rate for each date?