Rob

At least the grade isn't too bad. i.e. it makes it a presentable piece of jewellery. I thought from the way you were describing it the mount had been removed to leave an unsightly blob as with the crown.

You might be rapidly approaching melt in the case of the groat. Polished doesn't help, but soldered and worn to boot isn't worth bothering about.

It might not be wise to read too much into the reverses because one is rev. M and the other rev. O, so there will be differences in any case. Freeman describes rev. O as similar to M but the lighthouse is slightly thinner, the masonry is weak at the top, the drapery over Britannia's left should is more distinct and the sandal now has straps.

For me the most striking difference is the quality of the letters. The 1879 has essentially perfect lettering whereas the 1876 doesn't. The 1879 also wins when it comes to the fields, though not as conclusively as with the letters. Both have sharp rims. The 1879 has an overall sharper quality about it.

And the reverses.

Here are a couple of coins photographed under the same lighting conditions. The lighter one uses a bare flash, the darker has used a piece of translucent plastic to diffuse the light. The one on the left is the contentious one, Freeman's own F329A which is the 1876H proof or specimen halfpenny depending on your view. The right hand one is Nicholson's 1879 proof. In the hand the 1876 is brilliant with full lustre whilst the 1879 has an olive/brown tone. The reverse die of the 1879 is markedly more concave than the other one.

It has long been a moot point. As a rule of thumb, I think you need to view proofs as things that are better than specimens and struck from highly polished dies. In the case of the 1937 sets, it may just be that they used the word specimen as in 'an example of' because this is the only year (I think) that this phrase is used. The 1935 crowns were issued in presentation cases alongside a general issue from the banks. The mintage of over 700,000 tells us that most can't have been boxed, otherwise we would be surrounded by empty boxes. Those in the boxes were presumably produced as a specific run using a fresh die pair, but are inferior to genuine proofs. If you look at the Victorian era cons, you have the same arguments trotted out where the Heaton mint bronzes from the 1870s have long been contentious. It is not questioned that they are a superior product, but when compared against a known proof they fall slightly short resulting in some such as Freeman calling them proofs while others condemn them as not being so. Somewhere on here is an image of a currency, common year proof and VIP proof shilling alongside each other for comparison. If someone can find it please linkify, o/w I'll have to repost it. Ta.

They have been seen before. There was an example of an 1827 halfpenny struck on leather in St. James's sale no.3 on 3/10/2005, lot 278. No idea why they were made though.

It might have looked good in the hand. What you see in a picture is often a lot worse than the same thing to the eye. The minute I use a flash I find it makes everything look severely abused. Very often there is no hairlining to be seen despite what the picture says..

I don't have a spare 1937 proof, otherwise I would. Someone must have a spare that is toned. A 6d or a 3d is only worth a tenner max in any case.

I think any coin should look its age. i.e. untampered with. I would always want a toned 200 year old coin over a dipped 'blast white' piece. There are very few reasons why old silver wouldn't tone and all involve keeping the coin in anaerobic conditions.

According to Withers, that is S1699 and N1331b. However, with Spink dividing R2 halfpennies into 4 references and Withers only using 2 of these (1698 & 1699) in the edition I have, it is necessary to do a bit of interpretation. Withers types 2, 3 4 & 5 aren't given a Spink ref. but do note that many have fishtail serifs which would imply S1700. The fishtails are also noted with type 1, but not 1B, 1C, 1D or 4(late). Types 2 onwards are noted as having a number of lettering styles which presumably equates to S1700A's short, stubby letters. There is no sub-division in Withers to take account of letter styles. Spink list 4 types and Withers 9, so it isn't surprising that there are conflicts.

You used to have to rely on the quoted grades. That was the main reason I decided to start selling because I felt I was sending too many things back due to overgrading and could do a better job. As for your 4 pictures, not knowing the coin in hand I don't know which gives the truest representation. Too my eye it is probably the one with the black background, though this can give the effect of brightening the coin based on my results and others I've seen.

Not knowing how to make a picture that flatters, it is fair to say that the coin always looks better in hand. Taking consistently good images is a black art and one which I wish I could master.

1b(iii)

Thank you.

Scone you illiterate b****r. How you pronounce it is another matter.

I have no idea where the term VIP first appeared, but would suggest it has long been in general use to describe those years where only a handful of sets were made (i.e excludes 1937, 1953 etc). I agree regarding the cameo effect as being merely a state of the die which subsequently degrades and suggest it could also apply to a regular common year set. There are undoubtedly special commemorative boxes even for the common proof years implying that these would likely go to the same sort of recipient as in the rare proof years given their rarity. I think it is yet another triumph of marketing over common sense. I look at a proof to see if it is nicely frosted or not, look at it closely for any reason to mark it down and then adjust the price accordingly. The number on the slab has no bearing on the price because an ex-slabbed coin (which it would inevitably become) loses any premium attached to the plastic. Edit to add - 'Ere. Who's that 7jaguars bloke.

No, I think you are reading too much into it. I've never heard of anyone complain they were deemed unacceptable. Business doesn't work like that. You may not like a particular customer as a person, but their money is the same as anyone else's, no better, no worse. I'm sure they would be more than happy to take £1500 from you.

New order with everything moving over to SG on the Strand?

Based in the financial district around Canary Wharf. Talks about investments. Says it all. More akin to wheeling and dealing on the stock exchange than taking a genuine interest in collecting as a hobby.

Welcome to the forum. I've got plenty of singles across the two denominations if you need any, proofs and BUs. Your anorak could have been nicked by any one of a number of very dubious forum members,

I've had that before a few times when signing up for the first time with an auctioneer. I just assumed it was normal. I was asked when I signed up for Spink whilst Spink Live was dysfunctional and there would clearly not have been a problem if I went directly to them. Maybe the questions are an optional extra that the saleroom offer, or maybe they use it to verify the card would be ok up to a certain amount. Maybe it is random as I was also asked when I signed up for St. James's on a previous occasion. I can see that they would want to eliminate time wasters because you can't re-run a lot after the event if room bidders came second and a few background checks never did any business harm.