VickySilver

I agree nice coin but just a bit dear for what you ended up with. If it was a big enough issue then I suppose LCA could be approached. I tend to be more passive and let the lesser bargains such as this pass and remember the good ones - maybe karma or ?? I have some fights occ. with the TPGs about "proofiness" of Vicky silver bits (eg an 1859 shilling bought as proof from Spink many years prior)....

Double, me either on 1949 post...

The OP coin does appear to be a proof, at least to me. However, I quite agree with your statement. I believe the "case for proofiness" has to be proved before being accepted In the Vicky silver series (LOL) there are many exceptional business strikes that have very prooflike appearance but IMO are not. And Peck's point about 20th C. "VIP" proofs are correct as well - I see examples of such with the 1951 and 1953 crowns and other coins from the sets of these years. Also, many TPG slabbed Wreaths in "proof" are IMO not at all, and these have been sold through at auction fairly frequently (I have posted my opinion on some of these several times on these boards as well).

True. No telling on motivation factors, but the coin just [possibly] irrationally irritates me. I would say though that 4k quid is no small change...

Run, Forrest, Run! I liked that line from Forrest Gump. This coin even on photos FAILS and really is the sort that irritates me beyond reason probably. It is right up my alley and the real thing would have held tremendous interest to me. A coin like this would have to come with pristine provenance to even be remotely considered and I feel sorry for the buyer....

In the better states of preservation only, in worn states not so. This one is supposedly CGS88 which may or not be the same as PCGS or NGC 67. I will have a look if it ever does make it here.

I think that is what they bring at auction and IMO somewhat of a bargain at that price point. I think that is why the 1937 crown went for so little, even at CGS 88 (I am still hoping on a currency).

Very nice ID there Lotad. Less detail in the leg and arm = Type I More detail in leg and arm = Type II I think even I can remember that!

Yes, and will try to post the halfpenny as well...

Yes, I have used that technique to not much avail. It is amusing that when attending live auctions, the auctioneer does what s/he can to beat these down. I do hope that the crown I won is a currency strike as that would be a steal, but even if proof not a bad price in any case. But I have too many already...LOL

I won both small lots at quite a bit less than bid max, however they were so small as to not be on the radar. I did get the OMS 1965 halfpenny but am concerned that is possible plated given its weight (despite CGS slabbing). Bruce, I think that piece is currency as well and if so would have to have been a steal at 75 Quid. I don't usually have that sort of luck....

Lot 1491 was listed as a proof 1937 crown - can't tell from the pictures, is it proof or currency?

It will tend to flatten out with the strike but it is curious how much detail is showing in the devices. No weight listed.... As much as we. pound on this point, weights are frequently left out on slabs and else wise and catalogue listings...

Ah, do tell about the last!

IMO there are just too many problems with this coin, and a few more: Look at the details in Ed's ear top - struck fully. Lettering struck fully Look at St. George' s sword arm - that detail loss does not look like incomplete strike Look at contour of horse's "bottom" where original has a slight indent but NOT the subject coin Look at dragon's head and "sickly" atrophic wings on the subject coin - it is all wrong. The dragon's head fully struck and the rest not. Look at lower margin of horse' s chest with sternum terminus and adjunct muscles wrong Etc, etc.

Update: NONE. LOL No more 2002 Jamaica (Jammy) sets to show up. More importantly, no 1984 FM Jamaica specimen uncirculated sets to show. Please see other posting on my 1984 FM Trinidad specimen set just gotten last week.

The rims belie circulation. This coin is suspect and even though in my area I would reject without some sort of proof that it is legitimate (ie. it is a stinker).

As an admitted addict to the Franklin Mint coins of the 70s and [moreso] the 80s, I have noted that these are very difficult to obtain on occasion. The 1976 coins were mainly released to collectors in proof format, but a scant few were sent to the Central Bank in Valetta. Original mintage of the matte UNCIRCULATED 50c was 150 specimens, and the matte UNCIRCULATED 25c was all of 300. These evidently were bagged up and distributed with coins of like design struck by the Royal Mint (of both previous and later years), and at least with the one each I have gotten were not saved in any special way. I believe that the smaller issues were struck to like numbers but have not seen them - one mil is a very small coin, even for Malta. Then there are the specimen sets that were struck between 1977 and 1982, with mintages in the 252-850 range in the case of the latter. Interestingly, it seems to be rather scarcer than the earlier sets even though the mintage is higher... There are no silver coins in this set, only aluminum, bronze and copper nickel, so maybe like the currency bits that the FM struck for other countries, they may have just languished in vaults, and destroyed or maybe still in those vaults. As it has been well over 30 years since they were issued, it is difficult to tell - only that these are scarce bits...

Ah, yes. Well I will try to send some pictures as it is sometimes tough to see. In hand the differences are quite obvious though. The only packaged matte unc sets are the FM issues through 1974. After that, none. THe 1974 sets of any of the standard FM coins are easily had and my not be a bad idea just for reference to add to your collection as they can be gotten for 30 USD or so, and the later mattes (not in sets to the best of my knowledge are of the same finish).Please do not be insulted, but thumbnail of the three finishes: Uncirculated - (M) matte: the coins have a uniform satiny finish over the whole coin, devices and fields and lettering (U) prooflike: the coins have a uniform semi-reflective finish over the whole coin, devices, fields and lettering Proof - (P) proof: the coins have reflective fields and contrasting frosty or satiny devices and lettering I apologise that my ability to send pictures is severely limited. If you PM me your email I can send many more images. BTW, FM matte are quite different than classical Royal Mint mattes, even though they do resemble each other just a bit.

The devices still appear faulty, obverse AND reverse.

I would be most interested if you would be able to photograph one, I am waiting to see an unequivocal matte after 1977 - not including some of the satiny coins like the 1984 Liberia & some of those later BVI issues that are not IMHO matte.

Wow, another White Whale landed, and with some difficulty. Besides the Jamaican coins and sets I have discussed elsewhere, I have for over 25 years been looking for the 1984 Franklin Mint Uncirculated Trinidad and Tobago 8 coin set. It is not listed in Krause or Schon although I had whiffs of its existence and had even turned up the 1984 50c in uncirculated separately. So a long story short, the set appeared, disappeared and just at the last moment appeared again and a friend was able to make the connection AT THE AIRPORT on leaving just at the last moment. So I have it in hand. I will try to post pictures as soon as I can... My friend's cousin used to work at the Central Bank In Port-Au-Spain and related that I was extremely lucky to get such a set as VERY few were seen at that time... Well, anyway, pictures to follow as I am able but meanwhile an exciting discovery....

Yes, mostly. The 1983 T&T Specimen set usually goes for above 300USD when it appears Who knows the mintage of even that one? My guess nobody.

Wow, that pattern needs to be examined by the RM/ Graham Dyer. I really do not care for the look of the King - very softly struck and the proportions of the horse's hindparts, etc. just not looking quite right. The purported mintmark looks off or at least upside down. Out of curiosity, what did it sell for?

There is a seller on ebay that has persisted in offering a "matte" Papua 10K of 1978 - it is NOT. That coin has much post-minting "damage" and has altered surfaces. I have found a few borderline coins that likely were original (U) prooflike coins that had toned/oxidized to make them look more matte in appearance. Many photos are hard to discern, esp. from ebay sellers.