VickySilver

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

Hah, now I have to remember where it even is! I will check and hopefully find it later today. LOL

Was that the one I purchased (I think mine cost a bit more though)? I forgot the date and venue.....Is dementia around the corner? I hope not...

And only 99p for a 1933 mint set less the crown!

Let's not go there with the Indian system of Annas, etc. in addition to the aforementioned rupees....

Yay, team. Maybe so??

Richard, was that you that secured the Jackson 1882? He really had some lovely coins (I got his 1869 that was quite wonderful).

Well, I got nada but found some things interesting. First: George V silver is nearly dead and saw a (?) VF 1936 Wreath go for about 160. Many others did terribly - I did not see these in hand but some of the early 20s florins and HCs are pretty tough when well struck and attractive unmeshed with. Second: I was surprised at the OMS (off metal strike) 1960 3d going for 600 pounds plus the "juice" as it was rather worn down to Fine or so. I got three mint state OMS 3ds from the 60s for about 300 USD apiece from Heritage of all places a couple of years ago, slabbed at that........ Third: Maybe just me but prices seemed relatively soft overall.

Yes, I believe the American market for quality is in effect for many Brit coins, including the 1912 HC. I am getting progressively blown apart at auction and purchases are becoming fewer and farther apart sadly.