VickySilver

Looks buffed/polished to me. I think legit though.

Ah, a few pirates breaking the thread. May I join? IMO, the Regnal LVII 1893 is pretty scarce as are a coupe of others.... I just like seeing fully struck and unmucked with crowns of any date. I still lack a few and have been lazy. Seems like I do better with Vicky shillings and 6ds.

Yes. Garbage. The obverse badly done, the reverse a bit better. A quick cue: check the hair and braid "detail" - very crude!

Yikes, I feel relatively experienced in this wreath series and have conferred in earlier days with many of the experts and when I see such offerings I cringe. I don't blame Heritage, but rather PCGS. What say you (item 30870): Pr

Here is an encapsulated 1928 proof that was bought as part of an original 1928 Six Coin Silver Proof Set in a Spink auction late 1990s:

Pretty much. This appears to be a proof-like relatively ordinary coin here. The PCGS shot is a glamour version....The rims indeed are not all that sharp, but the big issue is the obverse portrait which is softly struck and has massive marks to the cheek and jaw areas (at least for a "65") whether or not one agrees to it not being a proof. Unfortunately the 1932s and 1934s which have the lowest mintage also have a greater percentage of Proof-Like currency strikes. My grade is Uncirculated 63 (Proof Like), and not proof or even specimen. Actually my point was for potential buyers to beware of Wreaths other than 1927 offered as proof.

Guesses? An unloved series but unimpeachable (like that one?) rarity. I would have to think that 50k would not be out of the question. Right up my wheelhouse as far as the coin, not the price!

Could be my eyes, but I still on looking several times very little sign of wear but with plenty - or lack thereof - soft strike (a common malady in the larger E7 florins and half crowns). There is a huge fingerprint overlaying most of the obverse. Actually there are very few bag marks. In support of this, look first at the reverse and you say not only a decent strike, but critical areas such as the three angles of the shield are very nice indeed and the surmounting crown also relatively nice but for the bottom portion at shield which is softly struck as is normal. The edges are quite decent as well, what look like ticks on this and other Eddie half crowns and florins are in fact most likely bag damage to the planchet after upsetting the edge which occurs before striking - many mistake this for post strike handling damage. The rim from 5 to 8 o'clock on the obverse is nearly pristine, even accounting for the pre-strike rim damage (we call the pre-strike planchet preparation "upsetting" on this side of the Atlantic). I would imagine that even the relatively obverse will look better in hand. What I am saying is that I see how they might get a legitimate "63" on this coin, and that it is downgraded already as a result of the soft strike. I still would not like the coin. Interesting that this is a 1908 dated coin - I have had trouble locating a decent 1908 florin and even shilling, and especially for reasons given above for soft obverse strike and have several examples that I am always somewhat dissatisfied by as a result. I think the obverse dies were used excessively by this time and that the dated side fared somewhat better and required at least the yearly change.

Not a coin that I would want, however if top MS grade - 70 - reflects how close the coin is to the state in which it left the dies, then it could be a "technical" 63 in that there is little actual wear. In other words, not far how off it left the dies. Again, best seen in hand with the above caveat which is why the coin should be purchased and not the holder even if it may be accurate.

I never thought of it as such, although higher grade ones don't seem to be around much...Certainly not on the order of the "biggies" like 48/6, 50, 51, 54, 63, 63/1, etc.

Oooops, sorry for the ugly paste there...

Well, you could go for the 1911 Canadian Dollar that would run about 500k + quid!

Yes, I remember that sale and have saved the catalog even though I don't collect halfpennies especially. I did manage to get the nickel 1920 pattern, and I think either the 1869 or 1871?? I like it as a reference.

Interesting that there is no crown and had not seen the before. I remember letting that lot go as it seemed the price too dear.

Yes, and those marks appear to be in relief and so die changes regardless of the specific cause (but clashing IMO).

I really like overall the 1920-1922 half crowns when well struck. Some are extremely so with even a matte proof like appearance in the case of the 1920 and '21. Please have a look at the PCGS census and the PCGS # 512833 e.g. XXX.XX/12345678 Need Help? Verify Sponsored Ads (1920 1/2 Cr Satin) (Proof) 1 / 1 (1920 1/2 Cr Satin) (Proof) PCGS PR61

Yes, thanks Sleepy for posting your pictures. Not VIP. I have three or four proof 1953s, but even the one that is ex-Norweb (set) is the ordinary one as are the others. Richard has a stellar example there - was that ex-Spink SNC? I just missed one "back in the day".

Can you post pictures of the crown or penny, even if it be the more common type? I actually have a 1953 penny in proof ex-Norweb, but sadly is the more common type as well even if especially choice.

As long as we pay the prices, they will do it; for the same reason I refuse to pay more than a certain amount for a loaf of bread at the grocers. I can think of one dealer in the USA that took off on his own from Northeast and follows this policy that Tony speaks of ALL the time - but maybe MORE than double.

Do they all contain that penny? And if a, say, shilling is pulled out can it be identified as "VIP"? As to the second, I believe I can relatively conclusively say "No".

The grading services will require both obverse and reverse to have excellent frosting of devices.

No doubt there will be other opinions, but Phill I can tell you that one thing about the RM: they are not consistent. By that I mean that there seem to be some sets that are well and thoughtfully put together by them as VIP, but others seemingly original that are not as of good a quality. Then there is each individual coin, wherein factors such as how early on in the life of a die it was struck and if a particular specimen was given just a bit more care by the operators. Also, no doubt coins that may have been intended as VIP may have found their way into "ordinary" sets. I have talked with my good friend Steve H. many times in the past about such phenomena as RM proofs of silver and copper 20th C. are a focus of mine, and we (if I may speak for him) are of the opinion that it is not always possible to differentiate on individual merit alone if a particular coin is an ordinary proof or a VIP proof particularly if a specimen that may be the former is of early and good strike with plenty of extra field reflectivity, milling crispness and frosted devices; the latter phenomenon is referred to by some as DMPL, or deep mirror proof like. This may represent a buying opportunity as individual coins come up that are under appreciated as to their quality. A related problem however is that many of the crowns in particular are actually these DMPL coins that are slabbed and sold as VIP, when they may not be. I would caution against paying fancy prices for these. BTW, I personally do not like the term "VIP", and perhaps it is the liberal in me...

I have seen coins under graded for sale by Ebay dealers and definitely in auction (non-eBay format). Some are not so clear from photographs and so occasionally will take a risk if the outlay is not great, though I admit this is not as frequent as formerly. My favorite two examples are: - the Glens 1839 currency 2/6 from year 2000 which they graded as EF, and was clearly better (and I agree with its current slabbing) at PCGS 64 - that is the colourful one on their census site. - Ebay purchase in year 2003 of 1838 sovereign that looked even from sub-standard pictures to be something either polished, or more likely a proof. Turned out it was a milled edge proof and type previously unknown according to Steve Hill. This I traded for well over TEN times purchase price. Another way that coins are advertised as lower condition than some might think they truly are is from individual (as per Rob's discussion) or regional differences in opinion or grading technique. I find that there are general differences in grading here in the US from the UK, and then there to be at least two groupings of graders in the UK (classical conservative grading, and the newer somewhat laughable "liberal" grading that is so often seen in Ebay examples cited here - but also at auction and at some of the "outted" dealers that have been mentioned on these boards. But back to the OP point: dealers in the US, and now increasingly in the UK employ the technique of grading lower on buying than on selling. Perhaps it is only natural, and my point is not to be accusatory but rather to broach the phenomenon (again). For the buying collector, IMO it is wise to factor all this in. Other corollaries might be such as developing a rapoire (sp?) with a couple of dealers that they may represent you at auction, or that you know consistently the grading standards of. I suppose I am with OP in that I try not to pay out the nose if possible and don't like it when it seems excessive advantage is being taken, so it boils down to what is reasonable but not excessive and what that may be to any particular individual.

I don't have an end-all appreciation for provenance, but appreciate coins that were, say, ex-Norweb and have a few. I don't necessarily value them above other similar coins with no provenance - or at least one preserved.

Yes, nice coin though it is the matte variety that is quite scarce for 1976 - original montage of 300 and evidently dumped into a bag and? Not really seen or heard of again.