VickySilver

I just made a fairly interesting buy off of ebay. As readers know I like to collect coins of the British Colonial Caribbean and related as a sideline to my late pre-decimal GB series. As I have nearly finished the FM series of mint set and currency unc. coins, I turned to those coins later struck (post-1985) by the Royal Mint and taking up the earlier designs struck by the FM. Anyway, it is very difficult if not possible to locate some of the dollar and 2 dollar coins struck in unc. and copper nickel content - some were not truly known or published to my knowledge. I got the 1996 Bahamas 7 coin mint set struck by the RM lately and this is apparently very scarce. I then wanted to fill in a 1992 Bahamas 7 coin set and these evidently came in a pack with envelope commemorating the Quincentennial (1492-1992). I found one at a good price and as I opened it today, instead of the expected 1992 coins I had a 7 coin set ALL dated 1991! These are not supposed to be in such packaging and not even really known to exist. The dollar coins all have the conch on the reverse and QE II on the obverse. I have seen no other sets with the 1991 dated coins and all others dated 1992. Now, I am NOT having luck with the $2 flamingo coins in uncirculated (with the proofs being somewhat available) as these were not in the sets and I have not seen them singly. Here is what I have seen after a careful look, and varies from Krause and NGC and even varies from Schon and en.numista: Dollars (conch): 1989, 1991 (now confirmed), 1992, 1996, 2000 Two Dollars (flamingos): 1989 (not confirmed), 1991 silver (not confirmed in Copper Nickel), (1992, 1996, 2000 all not confirmed) In addition the following Franklin Mint matte unc. coins are quite rare I would surmise: Dollars Conch (all matte): 1975 (not seen), 1976, 1977 (probably more rare than suggested mintage) Two Dollars Flamingos (all matte): 1975, 1976, 1977 (all very scarce and IMO difficult) These are not valuable but fun for me at least to collect. Do let me know if you have a line to any of the individual coins or sets that may include any of the coins not confirmed or noted dates.

LOL. Yes, that is true. Another thing is that decent GB coins in my area are crazily priced these days and so nice to get less expensive bits.

Ah, not to divert but I was in Nicosia in 67-68 Sleepy and went to the Nicosia Middle School near Makarios' palace. That is why I keep a sometime interest in Cypriot coins prior to 1963 - can't afford many but do have a very choice 1907 9P. The bronze is just too crazy....

This auction posted today (and I was late since I was at work). I had wanted to bid on the Spink-acquired date sets that were graded, esp. the 1930 and 1935 sets that had some very highly graded material: These posted as follows NOT including the commissions, etc.: 1930 set in silver NOT including crown: 2500 USD. !!!! 1935 set in silver with 1935 CURRENCY crown: 800 USD !!!! IMO these were big prices that I believe the grading/slabbing affected.

I will look and see. That was a purchase from the "real" Spink in the '90s. That will be in the Safe Deposit so perhaps Saturday. For many years it was the only graded at PCGS, but there is now another as well.

Well, I thought the auction was to begin at 1 PM EST. Where I got that I don't know....I think I remember when Spink offered these year sets and seem to recall them going for a bit above market but that they were overall superior sets. I agree with the above that the 1/2 C. drove the 1930 set, although more than I paid for the very scarce proof of that year. I must say that 2500 IMO is over the top. I might have gone 1500-1800 range. On the 1935, that was an exceptional crown but max value should likely have been in the 600-800 range, with the others of negligible value. So I would not have been there above 800 whatsoever in any case. I must stress that the currency crown without wear is quite rare (as an example, one key area just as with the Wreaths is the cheekbone of George and also his brow, mustache, jaw and ear; also for some reason there seems to be a large field area on the reverse that takes hits as does St. George's shield and sword, etc.). Good on you that won lots!

You may not have to pay any commission at all - IMO tell them you are trying to find the right venue & can they give you either no commission or, say a - 5% or so - I have gotten this on some better lots before at "big" auction houses (on this side of the Atlantic).

Certainly circumstance motive difficult to ascertain at this point; not always clear what the RM is up to even 140 years later!

Yikes, that is a lot to bury in that one. I did not see this one up close, but not sure that it is up to the Gerald Jackson specimen (which I believe had been obtained from Spink at some point). I toyed with the idea of getting that specimen but in the end heard via the grapevine that there would be blood in the fight so to speak so contented myself with his excellent 1869....

Wow, surprisingly decent bust of KG5 there..

It was slowing up around here. Richard's site is so wonderful BTW.

Good thinking "outside the box". Richard's has a very thick base on the "2". I tried playing with the image to see the "2" on the one I presented and will try to post it from my iPhone as I can't from the laptop.

I don't believe so but I would imagine it possible. The overall metal by recall was a bit streaky - like a bad alloy mixture and can be seen in this photo just a bit right across the middle of the coin and also the metal flaw to the right of the "2".

Here is one: Sorry this is an old enlargement photograph - however I remember not seeing any evidence of adjustments. This one was a bit like one or two others I have seen

Peck, I think you missed the point about evidence - a small population makes it difficult to make judgements other than there is a small population. That would not of necessity prove anything. We have no idea if there were different dies trialed and especially if in scant numbers, if more were struck and then destroyed, lost (or ? whatever). Obviously many alternative hypotheses may be advanced. What would be the point of a die trial in any case? We can only infer. Why, if the hypothesis of trials is advanced, can it be excluded that more than one die combination was trialed? Numbers extant alone would not be proof of either motive or event.

Upcoming DNW sale has some Brit copper, was hoping for a 19H improvement but alas not to be...The 1926ME looks quite passable for anybody interested. I am not involved with this sale in any way. The 1862 proof florin is mildly interesting but has an abundance of what appears to be cabinet friction, esp. the obverse..

The thing is, if there is no mintmark there is no mintmark which is my point about the 1922 "Plain" cent with no D mintmark. We are virtually certain all 1922 cents were struck at Denver and all were struck by dies that probably originally had "D"s on them (although that point can not be proven of a certainty), just that one or two dies were struck by dies with the "D" filled or worn off or possibly not applied to begin with I suppose. These are readily accepted and bring strong prices. I also am not convinced by the converse: only one die set was used to strike coins sans "H". That seemingly would be impossible to prove, and given the paucity of "no H" specimens of the "correct" die type that it makes it doubly hard to prove. Rather, I would think logic dictates that the accepted die type is indeed "no H" but would not exclude that other no "H" coins might have been legitimately struck by another die combination(s). And metallurgic matching would not necessarily exclude the latter as of course the possibility and even likelihood is that other "no H" coins would come from different batches of metal. BTW, are all accepted "no H" coins matched metallurgically? And so if a coin leaves the mint with "no H" that it is "no H", and horror of horrors would be so whether struck at London or Heaton. Now that is rather a sacrilegious statement! If it takes a microscope to present even ambiguous attribution of an "H", that seems excessive as conclusive exclusion would IMO require unambiguous exclusion.

Nice work. My Apple does touchups that I don't trust! LOL. The left upright seems to possibly show with a dumbbell surmount.... What is the consensus, would it be possible to accept a specimen as no "H" if no trace is visible? I would logically think so even at the risk of alienating the "pigeonholers".

I can't make out definitively an "H" or residua in the two pictures. I will try to find pictures if I can.

Peck, I have in the past seen a couple of specimens in VF(ish) condition that had absolutely no sign of "H", even under 5x magnification. To find even the anointed type in VF is as you know a very rare occurrence.

You know, that is dogma, but I really am not all that sure of it - However, I must bow to the true experts here. Personally I do not understand why another die or set of dies might not have been employed for a few. Also, in that there are very "weak H" coins out there would it not be possible that there are some where there is absolutely no sign even under magnification of an "H"? As readers know, this is precisely what happened with some of the 1922 D cents from the USA where there were weak and then also absent mint marks that are collected as 1922 "Plain" specimens....

Yes, I like those 1918KN coins and hard to pick if I had to. I want to find a 1919H that looks as good - LOL. I would think the MS64 Jub. 1893 6d would be a good deal scarcer than virtually any of the gold [crazies] as well....

Spink is interesting, but IMO mostly not in a good way these days. Still, one has to watch their offerings as occasionally something can be had quite reasonably as you have pointed out with excellent examples. Believe it or not, occasionally Heritage can be a source if you keep "your eyes peeled". I believe my 192A was the same coin that had been sold somewhat earlier for nearly twice as much. Overall, very hard to find much in the way of bargains these days but entertaining to look. I guess compared to proof or high grade gold, some of the pennies and small silver have relatively escaped. In the latter series, a coin such as the 1893 Jub. 6d in top condition probably would not go for great money even though vastly scarcer than the Una gold....

Mine (I found) was ex-Spink 62 sale and slabbed NGC ex-Waterbird. Graded VG10, possibly under graded IMO. No spot there....That was a sneaky steal that I had no right to come away with by recall....LOL