Rob

Sending it back is the right decision if it appears to have been dipped. An abused proof will never be collectable when there are perfect or nearly so examples about.

Most of the issues post 1816 are prooflike in many instances and here the letters are the key. The 1887s have to have razor sharp milling - almost to the point where it cuts the fingers although the double florin rims are wider for the proof and it goes without saying that the rim/edge angle is usually perfect. Excess metal is only occasionally found on the rims of proofs. Most years of the Victorian shillings exist with prooflike fields where you need to examine the edge and lettering usually to confirm it is just a normal type. There is also the additional problem whereby during years in which large quantities of proofs were made for public consumption it appears the overall standard of striking was lowered for the sets, presumably so that not too many were rejected. When only a handful of proofs are struck in any one year there is little wear to the dies. This does not apply if you are making thousands of each denomination.

I know him too having bought in the past. I just wish people would be accurate. It's not difficult deciding what is a proof or not. The letters, fields and edges all have specific qualities not present in normal currency pieces. They don't have to be perfect to be recognisable as a proof, but in the hand it is usually obvious.

This guy appears on the face of it to know what he's doing - sometimes. The problem is that he comes up with things like this. How can you describe a coin as choice UNC, yet in the following sentence say this could be a proof. If you can identify and describe a choice UNC coin, then you should also know what a proof looks like and should be prepared to say so - not to insinuate and so mislead. The same knowledge should also enable you to differentiate between proof and prooflike etc. I guess that not quite choice is a phrase people will see, absorb and mentally consign the coin to the bin. Or perhaps it's just imitating others, after all, 90% of all coins listed on eBay are high grade or choice. Can we have a list of good and bad sellers on eBay without legal ramifications? A one off could be just that, but serial offenders need to be pointed out somehow.

So it should be. All of my VIP proofs have fields where I can see what's happening in the garden in the reflection. However, some of the set pieces are in a similar state of preservation, so this alone cannot determine whether a piece is a VIP or not. The question I still have is - Is the bust sandblasted to give a frosted appearance? The proof crowns were issued as part of a set (crown down to farthings) and although the bust has some opaqueness, it doesn't look to be to the same degree as a VIP proof which has an almost velvet like appearance. The surface of the head detail on a VIP doesn't even look vaguely polished. All of the proof sets for public consumption as issued do not have this. The image in your picture doesn't show this subdued image and still looks bright enough to be reflective to some extent - although clearly a proof.

Me too. The matt should not be reflective. The picture I posted showing the frosted bust has zero relectivity. If the bust is reflective it has been cleaned or it isn't a VIP at all.

6 months ago I had no choice because she bought one of the Weyl patterns off Colin Cooke while it was listed when I had a last minute bid lined up. Cost me £75 more than it should have done when she relisted it for a higher price, but when you know its probably unique and not in the metal as described you have to bite your lip and pay up, blacklisted or not. The description was copied verbatim. Actually, that also applied to Nicholson, Colin Cooke, Glendinings and the vendor at the sale on 15/12/1993 so perhaps that's a bit unfair. For the record, it was in tin and not aluminium. This metal is unrecorded for the Weyl patterns.

Pictures are always too dark. Everything is practically mint state irrespective of grade and any technical questions asked in the past have always elicited the reply "How can you tell?"

Which reverse is it? Picture if possible please

Is the one pictured supposed to be a VIP proof?

Yes please

And I should add that the ease with which you can sandblast a coin is why you should be sceptical about the extremely rare matt proofs which were made by the mint for photographic purposes, but whose output has been surpassed by others many times over judging by the number that appear on eBay.

This is a VIP shilling obverse but all the other denominations are similarly designed. The head only is frosted by sandblasting, the fields are mirrors. It would be reasonable to assume that the crown is as the rest.

I was unsure as a result of the pictures which rarely give a true picture. The right coin will always be worth the money, even a premium in the right condition.

Accurately graded

And?

It's a medal commemorating the unveiling of the Bavaria statue (reverse) in Munich which was erected by Ludwig 1st (obverse).

I don't know how long they were legal tender for, but suggest they were probably withdrawn fairly soon after the introduction of the bun heads. Admittedly they are rare, but I've never seen a very worn 1860/59 - all have been VF or a bit better. These are invariably pictured in auction catalogues and sales lists whatever the grade and in all probability were collectable in 1860. Most 1858s and 9s tend to be in good grade for all denominations too so I suspect they were withdrawn asap. You see damaged ones, but not badly worn examples that often. Also they stopped making the groat in the 1850s. 1855 is the last date in the series although it is not unknown for the mint to produce coins dated for previous years in subsequent years and this they may have done. This would have required an increase in copper/bronze output too. I don't have any small silver mintage figures, but any reduction in output could be taken up by base metal output. The output dated 1861 may therefore have been produced over a few years given the caveat above.

Sorry, I've only got 2 George 1st farthings. A mistrike and an R/sideways R.

Reduced bartering and token replacement? Over this period in time there was a large continuing large influx into the cities with the increasing industrial base and those people had to be paid. Silver denominations would have been too valuable for doing the family shopping, so base metal currency demand would have increased. Promisory tokens were abundant from the end of the 1700s but had to be replaced and so I assume this was to cater for a society which was increasingly cash dependant not having the facility to produce their own food. Just a thought.

Does it say anything about the die axis? P964 (silver plate) and P965 (gilt) in the BM come from the Banks bequest in 1818 which puts them firmly in Soho. P966 (Brown Gilt) was acquired in 1870 from Freudenthal which overlaps Taylor who started restrikes in about 1862 but as with the previous 2 has an inverted die axis. All of the bronzed pieces (6 or 7) - P967 and the solitary copper - P968 I have seen have been en medaille. Significantly, the BM did not acquire its pieces until 1926 in the Weightman bequest. I have practically as struck examples of a 965 and 968 which show considerable differences thus eliminating wear as a contributory factor, die axis aside. The globe and drapery have considerable loss of detail on the copper piece with only the top right portion showing the same good detail as on the earlier pieces. The remaining rust spots and striations in this area and elsewhere confirm it is the same pair of dies. The tip of the paddle in the exergue touches the line on the early pieces, but on the copper has a clear gap with weakness where the design has been filled in or more likely polished away. I have not yet found an as struck example of a bronzed piece to compare. Given Taylor's desire of producing "varieties" by various concoctions, it would be easiest to invert the die axis before modifying the dies. The edge reading is of good quality for both pieces. Therefore, is there any mention of a bronzed or copper piece with an inverted die axis or a silver plated or gilt version en medaille? My gut feeling is that the bonzed and copper must be either very late Soho or Taylor restrikes despite Peck's assertion that Taylor was not succesful with the RENDER etc collar. The lettering is not perfectly parallel to the edges either, although no letters are defective.

Let's try this one again. There must be someone out there who collects these things. All I want to know is which variety has which die axis as some are upright and some inverted. Also, some show design weakness which could be a later striking as this weakness coincides with a change in die axis (upright).

I've just read this, and 2 minutes later been paid with one. I therefore think they are common. Actually I don't bother looking normally.

In BU I think I remeber Colin Cooke saying there were only 2 mint state 1827s known. The 1843 in similar grade is almost as rare, probably similar to the 1849. I'm only talking full lustre here. In low grade i'm not sure, but 1827 aside, most of the other dates occur with roughly the same frequency on ebay which is probably a good indicator of rarity as a lot of sellers are lay people in numismatic terms. Probably 43, 46 and 49 are the rarest. You see more higher grade 56s than the other dates although a good one is quite rare.

Correct. Most people in this world are honest.