VickySilver

OK, I confess to looking back at this post. What craziness! This would be poor quality even for the Chinese of some years ago... Well, a bit of fun on a Sunday is always good. Manganese is a metal that to my knowledge is essentially NEVER found alloyed with silver. Also, this coin at 28.2 +/- gms is an avoirdupois ounce of 50%. This looks like a transfer die made from the possible Aussie obv. and GB rev. Letters typically become sloppy and detail mushes just as is seen on this piece. 17.3 gms makes it possibly white metal or??

=BAD Counterfeit to my eyes, and poorly done with mushiness to devices and lettering, edges, denticles, etc.

Rims look good, mild chatter about the cheek and brow. American standards MS62, GEF on the RIght side of the Pond. Probably mainly bag marks. I have found the rims very good to look at, esp. the outside edge for any contact and how smooth is it for marks across it. The vulnerable areas were described. As per usual the reverse is relatively proof-like with field mirroring and a bit of detail contrast.

I will try to put together some research as well as give some date by date observations but you will have to give me a bit of time. I have the LA Lawrence catalogue around somewhere and the Norweb sales had some commentary. Norweb was pretty much a vacuum cleaner when it came to many of the 20th C. proofs and rarities among other things but I am not even convinced that all of hers were proof, even those that had been set aside in set form with the minor coins in proof. As an aside, see the forward of the Norweb Canadian sale for a detailed and circuitous discussion of proof vs. specimen vs. currency, and also the Spencer articles around 1982 or so in (?) The Numismatist...Promise more to come....

I would really like to see pictures posted here - OK, I am in the Peck ranks and do not want to sort throught the CGS site. I must say that I have been collecting only about 20 years but started with Wreaths and went from there. In point of fact (I hate that expression), the main problems with currency versus proof are these: currency strikes were limited as all here are likely to know to 932-7300+. These are very limited runs but complicated slightly by the fact that the planchet hardness is generally thought to be greater on an 0.500 alloy versus the usual earlier 0.925. Obverse hair detail is not much help since there is not much to start with. The ear is occasionallysomewhat poor in detail and strike sharpness is sometimes compromised at the corner of the brow and mustache & sometimes beard. Reverse detail of Wreath is sometimes of use: the cross surmounting the orb loses central deatil and the stamen(s) of the roses can lose detail as major "Look-See" areas. There is very poor cameo contrast on non-1935 strikes in proof, moreso on the currency. There tends to be a Proof-Like appearance of the whole surface, fields, devices and lettering. Edge and milling sharpness can generally help a little bit but even currency strikes that I have seen can have sharpness to these and "finning" of the edges. 0.500 alloy is conducive to very ugly brownish (or worse) toning that obscures many of the above listed features. Allegedly there were 5-10 dedicated proofs struck for each of the non-1927 proof years, but I have NOT been able to find any definitive source that can state with assuredness the exact numbers. Just the major TPGs have certified quite a few, perhaps even more than this 5-10 figure for some of the dates (CGS, PCGS, NGC). OK, I will have mercy on those of you reading this and give my general opinion: I think that proofs are NOT readily identifiable, and that even though association and context can be helpful that possibly nobody can state with certainty what is proof and what is not, only that a particular specimen may have more "proof" attributes. There is a spectrum of currency strikes and quality that push many of these into near prooflike status, and many of the proofs of this period (even non-crowns) are very poor in terms of strike and contrast between device and field, and normal edge attributes - knife edge, sharp milling, etc. are rather poor when compare to earlier or later proofs. I do not claim to be an end-all authority but have studied these for many years, and believe I have seen proofs of all dates including the matte 1927, and even specimen 1927s with bevelled edge from the Pretoria hord. I have also seen very proof-like currency strikes that were very near, but not quite reaching proof status. I have seen complete proof sets that have been together since minting both farthing through crown, and also threepence through crown as well. I think it is easier to exclude coins as proofs than to include with these Wreaths. I am inclined to reject most, even certified examples, as proofs. More later if anybody is interested.

As much as I like pennies, I have to confess I have not even checked this type on my '41s....Will look and see. Congratulations on a nice coin!

Not to divert but I was thrilled to pick up a fully struck 1917 6d, a coin not generally appreciated in that state. Also a bit off but finding 1919H pennies with fully struck up obv hair quite a treat. Also the 1918H.

I believe the lion's nose can show up weak from a weak strike and will have to reference this if I can shortly (OK, by Tuesday then LOL).

Can you show a picture of the possible coin in question? I agree with Peck that other than the 1927 dated proof, you are fairly safe in assuming currency strike. I would be glad to give an opinion as I have seen all dates in proof; these are not like modern proofs as Peck has said, and many if not most of the currency pieces have a proof like appearance due to the low mintage and short die life. I have seen "proofs" certified by major TPG (third party graders) that are almost certainly NOT. There are many interesting sub-points to this discussion, and I for one would be glad to help - these are the coins that got me started collecting British, after all.

Yes, the estimates are "out the window" with some very high as well; so they have no value. My problem is as per just posted is that the grade estimates of better preserved recent milled are not on. I have bought from them in the past, obviously without seeing the lots. This tempered my bid amounts and on receipt of winnings proved to be largely correct. My general surmise is "Caveat emptor" so just be careful. Not much in this sale for me but there did appear to be a very nice 1871 halfpenny with admittedly poor photo details.

The vast majority of extant pieces are in the fair to VF range and get considerably more expensive above that as was stated. I'm going to hold on the figure I quoted, obviously it's appearance "in hand" is tantamount.

I have seen aVF sell for about 600 pounds in the USA and bought one some cpl years ago at that price myself.

Milled better handled IMO by TPGs Lowtide not withstanding. Early milled half pennies not included. LOL

VF35 would likely put it in the 1200 USD range. IMO no great diff between any of the 1850s - overdate or not. Overdates are IMO not bringing huge premiums as was alluded to in my earlier post.

Not impossible feat at the mint as I have seen legit double obv and rev strikes from this era. At the moment Northeast Numismatics in the USA have a 69s era florin for sale on their site. This one here shown not however.

Not superclear image. IMO the overdate will not exceed greatly the value of non-overdate be it 50/49 or possibly 50/46. I think faint "overage" of Victorian smaller silver much more common overall than commonly supposed. Still, any 1850 shilling commands a bit of respect. An American slab grade of 35 is supposed to be an higher level of VF, not VG.

Or not. There are quite a few on "the other side of the Pond" that absolutely abhor this type of thing. May these coins sadly die their natural death in short order....

Hmmm, a lot of "patterns" are actually struck OUTSIDE the mint, and others of questionable origin (i.e. Bonomi so called 1837 patterns, Spink Jubilee crowns & 6ds, etc., the Moore patterns, the Smith patterns, etc. etc.).

Can we rephrase the question: which do we like the best?

Yikes, I used to like the E7 florin, and still do to some degree but DO NOT BLOW up either Britannia's face or [heaven forbid] the body - centerfold or model material she is not. I actually think the gold half ounce Britannia with similar design is nice, a bit too large in one ounce gold or the silver....

All true, the best one can manage is generally a list. Krause is pretty good for 20th. C pre-decimal, and could be a starting point; they actually had a number of illustrations some years back but dropped them. Still, much better than Spink or Davies or (old) Coincraft or ESC.

I believe that both PCGS and NGC have "edge" revealing holders now standard.

Absolutely NOT the same as the other slabbers - PCGS and NGC who have occ. their own shortcomings but not the same "ilk" .

Ditto. Please post dates, and especially good quality pictures. A few of us may actually know a thing or two...

Wait, wait, that is the virgin Mary in side view. If it was a McDonald's chicken nugget might bring that price after all!