VickySilver

Amen, will leave blanket unsupported statements and assertions at Peace without response for the season! Meanwhile, we can encourage actually learning as well and will say that though I am no supporter PCGS has supplied their definition to each numerical grade they "award" It might be entertaining enlightenment to see what VF, EF, AU are as well (say, as opposed to lower grade UNC), and why there are different numbers for uncirculated in the 60-70 range. Meanwhile, I have seen "good olde daye" Spink coins listed as GEF thar really were Uncirculated and without other than the most minor of bagmarks and no wear.

Well the final price - 227 - was consistent with a "no", but that was my choice anyway. It is possible to find quite PL silver and some copper of this era as well.

Or rather that the article touts the capacity of the two major TPGs to pick out dipped pieces = really more of a comparo re: the lesser or backyard TPGs to pick out specimens altered.

Supposedly original 1889 French definition: "bloom of the die"

And Spinks is gospel? Not! LOL on the '73 set - you may have to pay someone to take it...

Hmm, smarter use IMO...

Not sure how FDC coins have to be of proof strike. A coin with full mint bloom and without bag marks would be the virtual definition, but I think the "n' or "a" prefix has some validity as the minutest of marks missed by some are picked up by others with more acute observation powers or vision. Probably most "68" or "69" coins would fit this definition as well as the 70s, but of either proof or currency format. Azda's coin is rather nice but the rim dent or deflection would keep it out of that category, most def. post-minting. I have seen a matte proof 1953 with such an edge "deflection" that I think was caused by a soft hammer strike. Otherwise nice surfaces though. Interesting that as was pointed out in the Coincraft book, it seems that virtually all the matte proof 1902s were given an extra wipe by the workcrew before being packaged up in sets - how much does this bother others? As for me, I would rather not have them present but at least if they are more subdued, then a bit better. These marks are sometimes difficult to pick up in the wrong lighting, and I have also noted in the areas of what is perhaps micro abrasion to be slightly varied toning.

If authentic it would be valuable. Unfortunately, it is most likely a concoction which is generally made by hollowing out the obverse (heads side) of one coin, machining down and away the heads side of another and fitting the second coin within the first with a braze or gluing of the two pieces. There is generally a seem showing on the rim (although this can be worn away). Also the obverse half of one can be cut away and two halve showing the "tails" side glued/brazed together. Also, counterfits can be cast. These are then worn down by either real or simulated wear. These are the main methods, but others can be performed...

Yes, I concur as to value. But more importantly, and I hope it does not fuel the slab debate too greatly (but will take on whoever if it does), MS 61 is a technical uncirculated grade but may be low on eye appeal despite the PL status; and maybe the moreso because of it! Some "GEF" pieces are nicer even if they are at a technical deficit. Why? Because PL surfaces tend to highlight "bagmarks" . In general, and I have seen many coins, I have found that MS61 is generally a preservation state that is not too attractive - it is a bugaboo grade so to speak.

Wow, that tissue test is a bit simple there, and maybe simple-minded? Mostly the "drop test" should show a silver coin generating more of a ring with a higher pitched resonance than a copper-nickel or baser metal specimen which would be more of a lower pitched "clunk".

Outrageous IMO. I love late milled and will not begin to pursue! 20th C. meet Bunhead nuts! LOL. Does it really matter for a hill of beans? I know of a collector who collected by die number and DIE STATE! Well, to each their own...

Amen! I was not favoring the 2012 edition and felt many of the milled values to be off. What was your impression of Victorian copper and silver?

BTW, the vast bulk of Heritage coins are photographed THROUGH the slab, although they do show coin in slab as well.

Wow, silly me thought that was a slide case! And it MUST be a proof! All for 9.99, what a steal. Thing is that it might actually be a bit better preserved than some, but can not really tell from picture and the price needs to drop.

It does look to be a "Satin Specimen" as I like to call this issue. Definately more detail struck up although as has been pointed out the finish of the coin is not that obvious. I was curious in my previous response if it was some sort of different issue in proof or ?, now answered. Nice piece, and I for one do like these.

Yikes, I tried to get on the CGS site and they sent me on a spin.....Hmmm, techno challenged! Still would like to see the '65. PS - My 1951 is suspect as VIP even though bought as such.

Ouch! Some of us like "Churchies" even if there are too many laying about...

Divemaster (and to return the topic back to crowns!) - you said you have a VIP ?1965? Have you a picture. BTW, the Churchill thread on PCGS foreign threads has a picture of the central devices of my satin "Churchy" toward the end...

The VIP record proofs of "non-standard" years are a bit more interesting, or can be. Not many left for me, so am a contender on occasion for the 19th C. copper and silver bits. I would not recommend playing any large premium for a VIP of a standard year - 1937, 1950, 1951, 1953, or even 1927. I have a rare pattern 1927 crown but is so similar to the final that there might not be much interest in it either but I do like it.... Still, was a shocking amount that the 1965 pattern "initialled" Churchill at some 3800 pounds went for - got blown out on that one... BTW, JeffHouston has posted a picture of Churchill from a Satin Specimen on the PCGS forum & rather nice!

I am wondering what an "ordinary" Satin proof/specimen would go for now? I did not feel the estimate bad, but surprised that interest buoyed it up so high. Hate to say it Gary, but I also was in the hunt but was brushed aside by the bidding as it headed toward 3k. My recall is that Satins were generally going when they came up for 1200 or so, and in a related vein, DNW sold THE ONLY 1937 matte proof crown that I am aware of in private hands (ex-Norweb) for 3.2 k just a couple of years ago...

Wow, NEW RECORCD FOR CHURCHILL CROWNS - 3300 pounds plus the juice!!!!

Well, no I won't be there and had to figure out what to do so left two bids by email...

Wow, do you trust them to have it up. I have bid successfully day of sale via internet but by recall a couple of times I was "skunked" by being unable to attach on satisfactorily and thus unable to bid...

Honestly Azda, you really have proved a clown of the first order. I NEVER SAID THERE WERE MORE COINS SLABBED THAN UNSLABBED.And I gave you real world numbers of coins, something your Royal Laziness has not been able to do. Now if you choose to be a bullock (to use your very words(, so be it. Just because you haven't a clue, you try to change the argument. Slabs are far more common than you seem to realize, something I have pointed out to you and also invited you to check several sites to give you an idea of the scope. I do not think they are the end-all and have had definate disagreements with some of the attributions and grading. I also do not like the space they consume and think they may not have a good place for circulated or most hammered bits, or common pieces. If you would recall, there was a question about slabbing matte set holders and it is not done to my knowledge. Also, as far as cost, occasionally the slabbers have sales, and I got one email recently from PCGS that they were slabbing "economy" coins for $10 plus shipping and insurance - not too bad. Mostly I have seen these slabs on higher valued coins but they are obviously trying to reach a larger audience and "pump" the volume.

No actually Azda, you are rather the cretin, and have NOT responded to my examples and tried to reword what I have said. I have said that slabs are becoming more and more dominant within the marketplace and are a force to be reckoned with. True it is, and bray if you like... As far as ridiculous arguments by you that have been gunned down regard the ability to take pictures through slabs and that somehow slabs will go away or that there are numerous labelling or attribution errors, remain just that., ridiculous arguments. 25 million coins have been slabbed by them, possibly nearly that many by NGC. Before you open your trap again, maybe you should look at the PCGS British coin census. Or maybe do something on your own for a change. I am not going to count how many coins are in slabs, nor was that my point so evidently you are stuck without significant arguments. Please bring something useful and interesting to the table besides the "bollocks" label. The matte specimens are individually slabbed by both the two listed companies, and I have seen all save one set of 1927s. I also might ask you to find unslabbed 1922 specimen pennies, unslabbed gold 1922 florins, unslabbed 1924 specimen proof sets, and same for the 1930 proof VIP half crown. Actually the examples are so numerous that I will leave it up to you and your "bollocks" arse to check it out for yourself since I have cited the examples.