Peckris 2

yes, a very clear 1865/3 - nice one

On the other hand, £1 is a fair price for a reasonable repro.

I think it's often a feature in Victorian silver?

It's a good point. I have double florins and two JH crowns where the fields look highly reflective, but not polished, and the designs and legends aren’t (not cameo but definitely not very reflective like the fields). It does make you wonder how they have maintained that state.

From Goddards own site: How Silver Dip Works: 1. Chemical Reaction: As tarnished silver jewellery is immersed in a silver dip solution, a chemical reaction occurs. Thiourea or potassium thiocyanate in the solution reacts with the silver sulphide, which is broken down into one component, silver, and one component, sulphur. 2. Dissolving tarnish: The silver sulphide dissolves into the solution as the chemical reaction proceeds, leaving behind a transparent, untarnished silver sheet. During this process, the tarnishing process is reversed, revealing the shiny silver surface underneath. No mention of 'etching'?

That's the one feature I don't take seriously - the farthing legends are so small, and the serifs so pronounced, that effects like you're seeing on the H are almost inevitable. The bifurcation on the other hand is a very definite effect of something happening on the die.

I've just looked, and my example definitely has the bifurcation near the I so it's clearly the same die.

Interesting. The date on yours is almost identical to mine. However, the non-wonky underlying '1' (yes clearly double punched on yours) is not - or barely - evident on mine, whereas the doubled 8 is, so is the 'twin tailed' 6, and the width of the numerals. It would seem to be the same reverse die.

That's not 'dipping' in the commercial sense - I've not tried it myself but if it works then go for it.

If you did dip, I have a golden rule: 1. use Goddards, and a clean container 2. dip FOR ONLY 10 SECONDS 3. remove, rinse thoroughly, and dab dry with a clean towel If that doesn't cure the problem, or at least only partly, don't be tempted to dip again.

If even half of what's in Spare is true, then it's The Family - or rather the structure around them - that's terrible, not so much the Sussexes.

At least the toning is even - could be a lot worse.

I've seen this in my copy of Spink 1925 - it could simply be a printing error, as there isn't a listing for 1853 without a stop after the date.

Yes, I q----- ---ree. He's much --issed. (Some------ is --ong with my m-------phone)

Can I respectfully differ - unless I'm mistaken that looks like a standard 1897, i.e. 'low tide'.

one too many gins, from that portrait

I use a Mac (Preview app) so can't add anything for Windows or Android users.

Currently listening to Caravan's 'Nine Feet Underground' - always good for most things

Depends on your precise definition of 'point' - yours definitely curves strongly.

現在の価格 translates to "current price" which may be Japan auction speak for "starting bid". Yes, that's way too low, but I wonder why it's being auctioned over there anyway?

Yeah, I don't believe it's a genuine Mint error, not even for a nanosecond.

I probably paid way over the odds last year for mine from Noonans, though it did fill the last remaining top grade gap in that series. Yes, I'd also like the 1925 but as you say you rarely see them.

I'd say this belongs in Ancient, not Hammered.

That's true especially of the scarcer currency items e.g. from the proof set years 1950 and 1951. The brass 3d currency items from those years are much more sought after than the proofs and so have a much higher nominal value in UNC.

Very good find! This is my best example, bought from Colin Cooke for £39 in the 90s: