VickySilver

Followup: no news! LOL I believe this set had to have had a max of 50 sets, and probably less. I am a bit of an hoarder and probably would buy a second if it became available....

I had heard that as well - about the shell casings - but then recall that the research did not yield the WW I casings to be of that alloy (??), and that it was speculative. The British Museum have an interesting collection of different alloy strikes from the time that are designated for anyone interested. I have seen various reports that others may confirm or debunk and one alloy was cited as copper 60% and nickel 40%...

Mintage: reported 11 pieces This coin is of ordinary design but considered a mule as the reverse has the indicator “Ley 0.500”, which is Spanish for 0.500 silver. This coin is obviously copper nickel and not proof and was not issued in any specimen sets; this coin looks to have been in a bag with bag marks, but how big could a bag of 11 pieces be? LOL There are other 1982FM one balboa coins known but without the “Ley 0.500” reverse. They are also of uncirculated (U) quality but seem to all be from sets issued by Panama itself and not the FM. Mintage of these coins and sets appear to be 500, so they are scarce in their own right. The other Ley mule coins are: one Balboa: - 1975 and 1976 uncirculated “Ley 0.925” - no FM mark, issued by Royal Canadian mint 10k pieces in sets and singly five Balboas: - 1975 and 1976 uncirculated “Ley 0.925” sans FM mark, issued by RCM mint 10k pieces in sets and singly - 1982FM uncirculated (U) “Ley 0.500” in Bank of Panama sets, Mintage probably 200. - 1982FM Proof “Ley 0.925” issued in FM proof sets, in both 8 and 9 coin sets. IMO in my experience these are of about equal appearance and therefore likely similar Mintage to the ordinary “Ley 0.500” coins. Actual fineness of silver coins in all proof sets was 0.500. - Then there is the pattern 1983FM Proof 1/4 Balboa “Ley 0.500” that is seemingly unique and struck in copper nickel. This may have been a pattern for an 80th Anniversary of country founding that for whatever reason was never struck I am unable to download pictures so may ask again for assistance

Would be good to know... The "Classes" FM struck coins through 1985 but struck coins after that under much different management, examples being the BVI commems in 1992-93 and the Papua New Guinea 1995 100 Kina - I have never seen any writeup as to what was going in later stages, or what became of their collection of dies.

Okay, I confess to checking Spink's auctions even though I buy precious little these days from them. The latest fandango is their "Wootton" Sale. This thing is one of those date range sales that was supposed to open 7 June and then close 3 weeks later on the 28th. Well, it is the 12th today and is not accessible. But more than that is the content of their sales lately - so very disappointed at the offerings even in areas not in my focus. What the heck has happened? They still seem to get some marquee pieces here or there in the preposterous price range but not the collector coins that I (we) seem to prefer. Oh well, just a lament as they had helped out so much "back in the day" with getting the core of my collection launched. Sorry for the rant.....

No. That is a puzzler as in all my years have not seen any other instances of FM dies getting outside of that mint. Again, not first hand, but the probably secondary source (LH) somehow got hold of these as well as the US Mint sourced dies - I may have said that I know of the whereabouts of some FM and US mint dies. Much obviously is speculative given that the key protagonists have passed away - the collector Richard Stuart and dealer LH. Because of the intrigue, I want to query my friend again about some more information. I don't think LH's widow would be forthcoming, but I may see if I might ask some innocent questions (if possible!). I want to find someone in the area with XRF to test the possible residual metal in the referred 1/4 Balboa US mint dies as if there is trace gold that would tend to be a "smoking gun". That still does not answer as to how in the world the FM dies were obtained. In any case, certainly a bit of intrigue....

Not much else to go on, but the date suspect. This looks a bit like some of the Beirut 1970's struck coins that were of good metal but fabricated with some issues similar to what has been shown. Weight of coin? Gold purity was good and from what I have heard on occasion exceeding 22k.

I would assume not too many pairings on the 1893 Jub? BTW, check out the specimen shown on the PCGS website under "Pop Report" as it is pictured there.

More disappointment there for me at least.... Love the Einstein quote & sometimes find myself questioning my coin sanity!

Thanks! I will take a look as well...

Yea, the 1918H trails a bit, although in my experience in being VERY picky the 1919H struck in good metal, of good colour and excellent strike is harder than any of the others. If not as choosy and going down to the gVF sort of category, then I might agree with the above schema. Again, I seem to have found more than my share of KNs of both dates - they IMHO tend to be much better struck than the "H crew". The strike of Mike's 19H is really lovely. The TPGs are willing to technically grade softly struck pieces into the 63-65 range - so they may technically be close to as struck but just too soft and sometimes the metal being of poor colour. I suspect that a 19H if well struck and of the best quality could bring a big price, unfortunately moreso if slabbed high.

No doubt. But I really have been unhappy with the quality of the coins on sale of late as so many have been cleaned, wiped, etc. I really used to get so excited at every publication of the SNC and their auctions (I remember paying at the time what I thought were fancy prices and only wish those times could be had again).

Very nice there Sir. The real bugaboo is the 19H, which is rarely found with anywhere near decent strike as you well know.

I believe it was actually FM struck with supposed mintage of 11 as stated from the FM source. Don't know if I believe that or not. Interesting that you bring up the point as was discussing just this with another forum member. A certain dealer in the mid-Atlantic USA (initials LH) got hold of dies from the US mint and the FM (somehow). He may have been the source of a number of OMS strike Panama coins like the somewhat famous 1947 [150] Balboas gold coin and the 1953 and later silver and gold struck coins. Also the (in)famous 1982 piefort 0.400 fine gold strikes Also, even I got from his widow some US Mint and FM dies that were NOT cancelled (and some that were) which I have tried to save as well as possible. Some have blush of different colours in the device areas that look rather gold to my eyes. We were wondering if he had these struck...I would imagine quite a bit of money may have been made. It would be conspiracy talk but am of the belief that the late collector Richard Stuart may have known (LOL) something of this but he is now gone.

Glad that someone else has an interest in these. What you have doubtlessly seen cited in many sources is that mint workers were displeased by the dull appearance of the 1902 mattes just after striking and so sought to improve appearances by a swipe on the mint apron (I really have no idea of the veracity of this, but does somewhat explain the appearance of many hairlines 1902 mattes of all denominations). This seems to imply that the matte surface was due to planchet and/or die prep PRIOR to striking. Quite a few of the matte proofs struck AFTER 1902 have evidence of "sandblasting" post minting.Somewhere I have I believe it is the 1951 2/6 matte with residual blasting medium adherent to the devices and lettering on the reverse especially. The 1924 silver satin/matte specimens seem to be unique, and Steve Hill agrees, in that a plating was applied to the planchets PRIOR to striking (evidently some of the surface delaminating prior to and then subsequent to also minting & thus appearing a bit rude with commiserate low grades). Thus they really should probably not be considered matte, and making them quite different than the satin specimen 1965 Churchill Crowns, whose appearance IMHO is likely due to pre strike planchet preparation and likely die prep also. I tend to agree by most peoples' definitions that the 1935 Jubilee medals in large and small format would be considered matte proofs. I have not seen any crowns of that year of similar appearance - I am sure if found that they would go for a fancy sum. I have probably forgotten most of what I used to know about the mattes. Not that it matters but I do not believe the TPGs really care or understand any of this and have grades that are a bit willy-nilly. This would not matter except the prices fetched are very much driven by the grade on label which drives me up a tree. They are completely unamenable to any discussions and the graders remain anonymous.

Well, "matte" is generally attached as descriptor to a proof coin. However I can think of a couple of instances where it IS attached to specimen - although it is used in that instance somewhat interchangeably with "satin". These would be the 1920 satin specimen/proof (and sometimes then also termed "matte") shilling, florin and half crown - there are presumably but unseen 3d and 6d and have usually been also described as presenting with ducktail milling. 1922/1924 satin specimen/proof coins (sometimes called "matte") 1/4d through half crown with only the penny dated 1922 & the rest 1924 1942-1945 threepence through half crown silver - called (satin) specimen but not usually "matte" 1965 Churchill satin specimen crown (this is usually NOT referred to as "matte") As far as difference between specimen and proof, well, there seems to be changes in definition over time and differences between cataloguers and individuals but has always been my understanding much as Peck outlined; to the best of my knowledge there are no die studies linking the proof to specimen crowns of 1935. No known matte proofs of the crown, specimen or proof (the 1935 Jubilee medal DOES come in "matte" however). The 1902 set of coins have been termed "matte" and usually then described as proof, but at one time as "specimen".

Sword - not aware of a matte 1935??

Ah, grasshopper, none more truly spoke. Unfortunately, we have seen the market go crazy and lets not even go there with high grade specimens!

Looks like the wife or relative is still there? I know how much you love Numistacker....LOL

Nice then! My own is still in a 2x2 mylar as I got it from Baldwin in the good ole days. Maybe a 65 or? Bronzed.

I used to look but haven't seen anything for quite a bit so honestly didn't even glance. Glad at your success though; care to share?

Well, regardless, I love these Britannia groats. Sad to say I missed the 1837 that sold a while ago..... How late was the last run of 1839 sets? Yikes, I seem to have recalled they did some in the 1880s or so...... Well, Rob has answered to some degree.. Now Mr. T looks to be throwing a maths problem at us - LOL

I have an "ordinary" 1953 farthing but obviously has had special care and probably accurately graded as [Pf 67* RD Cameo] and it hits from across the room almost literally. However Obv. 2 Rev A As a collector of 20th century mainly silver VIP record proofs, I have learned possibly a couple of things, and one is that designation as VIP and/or Record Proof status is not at all a crystal clear proposition. Will not go there with the Wreaths as I am worn out on the topic but a reasonable working knowledge of these in the 1920-1966 range.

OK, I just got my 7th Edition ESC (2020) and have looked at it for a bit. Not sure if I agree with all of the designations and have found more deficits in the proof and pattern section of the 20th C. pre-decimal series. One thing I notice is a referral to "page 657" in several places and note that the volume ends at page 597, or at least in this copy. Also I noticed that there is not the reference section related to Provenance the way there was in 6th Edition pp. 583-647. That was hugely helpful, does anyone know if this was somehow left out or just what happened? Maybe my edition is somehow short of this...