Rob

Or stored in less than desirable conditions.

Looking at the contact marks it has circulated, so the proof surfaces have been lost.

They can pay for their own honeymoon. A month trekking in the Himalayas in the autumn is a bit too much. Anyway, I have number two to sort out soon.

I was in Devon this weekend. My eldest got married, so a farmhouse and barns was hired for a few days for the ceremony and celebrations. Just short of a hundred guests including a couple dozen from as far away as New Zealand and a good time was had by all. Seriously hot though. I can report that the M5 was freer than expected today.

Over £50! Frankly amazed. The attached went for less than 3x this, but didn't exactly fly off the shelf.

Use the Maundy sets for reference. They are 925 silver and the portrait agrees with the 1970 issue. Although there is a slight difference in colour between Ag and Cu-Ni, it isn't mind blowing, so any pre 1970 proofs will do if they have frosting.

It's cleanly struck and a full found coin, which is in its favour, but with the caveat that the surfaces are a bit wanting. The resolution isn't good enough to say whether it is deposits or corrosion and the portrait is a bit flat. You should be able to get one with a decent portrait for not a lot of money. I doubt you would have to go very far into three figures for a well struck full coin. Even on ebay you see decent examples on a buy it now for less, mainly due to the fact they are not the most popular denomination. It's the perennial problem of halves of anything being unpopular with collectors.

Makes use of their spare space. Rents in London are expensive, so any income from unused footage will help.

I certainly wouldn't want that as a proof, and I'm not convinced either. I have Norweb's 1853 proof copper halfpenny which has the stops all well struck up - see attached. A quick perusal of a few 1853 proof halfpennies listed show the dies don't match the bronzed proofs either. The SNC for Jan 2014 had an article by Peter Duff discussing the bronzed pieces.

If you copy and paste a link to it, then you don't have to worry about images. Go to the item and copy the address bar, then paste it into a reply on this thread.

They aren't common, but it would be difficult to justify spending £40 for something that is no better than fair on the obverse. I've only had three in the last 12 years including one in quite reasonable grade last year, but it had been cleaned and was never going to win a beauty contest. It took quite a while to shift this, despite its rarity and the fact it was priced well under book to take the faults into account. Being a single year type for the reign will help demand, but you rarely see them in a desirable condition which is the key to getting a good price and widening the circle of people looking for one. There is some demand there, but suspect it has to either be dirt cheap, or in top grade.

That'll be $56 for the coin and $300 for the label, then.

Looks like a broken die where the indent on the foot has been lost.

It's too good for a PO1 designation. If it was a PO1, it for some reason becomes very collectable. There are people who strive for ever greater depths, and I don't mean divers.

Or for all the crap, a good dose of the Sex Pistols. Something to Pogo to and capable of distributing the dross far and wide

This might just be possible under an FOI request, as could a list of recipients. There aren't any security and minimal commercial confidentiality reasons to deny producing such a list - unless of course, there isn't one. They might not wish to reveal the identity of foreign governments using the mint's services. I was brought up on the understanding as Peck says, i.e. that the non-set years were called VIP proofs because their restricted numbers dictated a very restricted number of recipients. These people may or may not have been VIPs (whatever that actually means), but clearly were not given to all and sundry. Suitable candidates for receiving proofs would be certain cabinet politicians such as those directly responsible for the coinage; the designers, though clearly they wouldn't need subsequent examples to the first set received; the Royal collection; foreign dignitaries or anyone of similar stature you could think of. The list is not very long. A politician or former politician with an interest in coins might be able to shed some light on this.

As I said. The TPGs have introduced another designation to get the financial juices flowing. I can see that a Cameo attribution can reasonably be claimed for a frosted bust, but to subdivide this without making some objective measurement is just a marketing ploy to expand the number chasers' remit. Given the TPGs don't address this issue in any scientific way, it would help if people stopped being obsessed with something to which there is no correct answer. The RM don't recognise the term 'VIP'. This whole issue is being driven by people who want to capitalise big time on the better frosted examples of common sets. Rhetorical question possibly, but why aren't there many people claiming the same 'VIP' attribution for all denominations? I can probably find half a dozen frosted bust 1953 proof halfpennies for example, all of which are now unquestionably VIPs and worth a million quid in consequence. When these common year examples are selling for the same price as the non-set years, which might only have one or two known and only rarely into double figures, then we can safely say the market has lost the plot and someone will shortly be burnt. It's a circus.

Don't like maybes. So much speculation. It shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of anyone who thinks they have a heavily frosted 1977 proof to test the silver content against the regular one. Nobody can use the excuse that the regulars are hard to come by, and there is no shortage of microscopes fitted with EDX. BM, RM, the local uni,... I'm not sure why people are so exercised over this naming, other than the smell of filthy lucre. Heaven forbid you get one that looks like a 'VIP' but isn't accorded the title. The world will end.

Try North (vol.1) for a reasonably comprehensive list of moneyers for each reign at a particular mint. As for individual numbers of type by a certain moneyer you will have to refer to specialist volumes or articles regarding said mint.

That's what I assumed. There wouldn't be any reason for Briot to cut a James I legend. The next bit doesn't make sense? Needing a drink I can relate to.

OK, so using an old angel design die from James? I assume that side has no B?

I was referring to the less than clear lozenge after the S in the first post, which could be a knackered B. The image isn't clear enough on my screen to say what it is. I said not 1612-1619 because they made 11s weights for the contemporary angels, so anything made between these years would reflect the upturn in valuation. There is one in a thread on here somewhere. However, I would question a B signed weight being contemporary with the 1612 revaluation as Briot was engraver at the mint in Paris from 1605 to 1625 and he only appeared in this country during the reign of Charles I. I concur it is probable that they were made for 1/4 angels from Elizabeth's reign or earlier. Presumably, although 1/4 angels were not produced in the 17th century, there were sufficient numbers held by the public to warrant a weight being produced.

Is the damaged mark to the right of the S in the OP a B? The quarter angel is 2s6d, not 2s9d, so not 1612-1619 when the gold was revalued upwards by 10%.

At a guess, 10 to 30 quid if genuine as it's a bit battered. The lack of Monarch might be an issue unless already known without this.

It's a coin weight for an angel. These were valued at 10 shillings from 1551 to 1611 and then from 1620 to Charles I, so without a regnal indicator or pyx mark could be any of five reigns. The lozenges, might suggest Edward VI as these were used on his coinage (pre-1551), but not to my knowledge on Mary's, Elizabeth's or James'. They were used on Charles I's angels, but those I've seen previously had C R in big friendly letters. Edited to add that the shape of the lozenges is in the style of Ed. 6 posthumous coinage and the pre-fine issue coins as opposed to Briot/Rawlins.