VickySilver

Would it bother you if the US Mint were to begin trading in the classics, buying and selling in competition with other dealers? I guess we could make all the National Mints participate in the primary and secondary markets, manipulate it as they please with the backing of their governments. I would rather them stick to their own business of minting coins, and go ahead and make their monies from that enterprise.

Interestingly, even with the poor pictures, I think I can see an EF40 on this coin - HOWEVER it was very poorly struck. Please look at the rims and denticles as well as the fields (as best you can see). That would be a technical grade. I certainly would skip on it, that having been said.

Or E over R, wow, that is a nice catch there! I'm not a farthing nut but rather like this one; again, excellent spot there.

The PCGS one is die #88, have to find the NGC which is not with the rest??

Sorry, mine are in SDB but one each has been graded by NGC and PCG at AU55. Mine is pictured on the PCGS site when you look under population census; I got them so long ago I don't remember where they came from....

Hazard a guess as to price reached? I would have to guess that despite the results of the 1952 penny that this may go 200k??

Nice work Ashtonian. I have two 1879 London half sovs so will check on them later tonight for die numbers. What is the best you have seen, mine are both gEF...

1997 Baldwin 125th Anniv Sale: Price before commission 1952 Penny - 21k quid 1952 Halfcrown - 22k quid So how much would the proof 1952 2/6 go for?

LOL, Colin, good points. I don't see there being a new infusion either. I think the thing that got me about the 1952 penny is that there is only one, and I would have thought there would have been at least two old codgers that would go swing for that. Is the 1933 twice as valuable? Yikes! I had great hopes that someday my best pennies might be worth something, but not so much methinks.....

Gary that would be the 0.925. Lousy picture as it is slabbed as "cameo", which it appears not to be from picture.

Yikes, bit of a distraction there & here's to her bottom staying UP! I think supporting the original topic that it was interesting that the 1952 penny went only for 80k. I really thought that would be a 100k coin. What say you all?

I agree with all of the nonsense above, but at last had a look.... Lot 195 is an 1839 Half Crown, evidently currency & a bit mishandled to be sure - but quite a rare bit. Wonder what it will fetch?I already have a decent specimen so not for me. They have it wrong in that the finest specimen we are aware of is the ex-Glens 2000 auction specimen now slabbed as the PCGS 64 example on their census..

Wear, secondary, over toning (ie circulated, sat and toned, reentered circulation). IMO not cleaned though.

Keep us posted on any "scores"!

Yes, I am rather hoping that there are not too many hairlines [that I could not see]. At least they are much more honest than Spink was in that October sale last year - I forgot the vendor but I think he got the cleaning brush out on nearly his entire collection. Dummy me bought a couple of the coins based on Spinks poor pictures and descriptions & should really have sent them back... I will share pics of the Halfcrown if someone might help me when it arrives.

I ended up getting the 1874 shilling after looking at the one in my collection that was not nice enough. I also got the 1874 Halfcrown, but it may have hairlines that are not obvious on internet site - so it went cheap...

I guess I really don't understand why they wait so close to the auction to release information about the coins coming up in the sale.

Ah thanks for looking out fellas! I have three of those (LOL).....It is that darn whole 2002 set in proof - and the 1984 specimen set - these are the bugaboos....

LOL, yea the thrill of the hunt. I know they are out there somewhere. I am thinking maybe try to run an ad in. a Jamaican paper. Don't want them getting hold of my accounts information though.

Update: Nothing! These little suckers are very elusive. I did find an internet photo of the Jamaica Gleaner newspaper from I think October of 1984 where the proofs and uncirculated sets along with solo proof 10 dollar coins were offered. From a different source there were evidently the struck totals on the 1984 Jammy Proof set were 268, with only 67 individual 10 Dollar coins struck - no records of how many specimen sets though.

Perhaps that is true. I doubt that the RM ever was of the opinion that Wreath crowns would circulate, as an example since as has been pointed out, there really was no demand for them as commercial articles. However, they were struck to a circulating (or "currency") standard and this is quite clear. They were not struck as proofs or specimens as you say. However, striking a coin at accession does not at all necessarily mean that it is technically a commemorative in the usual or certainly in the modern festooned sense at all, but rather as I had written earlier struck as a physical demonstration the right of coinage and declaration of the sovereign status of the issuer.

My understanding, and judging from the RMs own emails is that they are now marketing coins from collector sources for sale, either directly or through auction. As has been pointed out this specimen appears to not be from their own sources.

Wow, very impressive that you press on with this. I have to confess that even though I very much like the Vicky half sovereign series, I have not recorded the die numbers as it was just beyond my interest level. Please continue with your enthusiastic studies!

Ah, thanks. Well, perhaps I do get a bit technical but will stand on my point. It changes not one whit by what ended up happening with coins that were struck as currency, and were NOT of specimen or proof status, not having been prepped or struck to that standard. They were intended as being struck for circulation and were struck and handled to that standard. To diverge slightly, then such a coin as the CURRENCY 1952 half crown is exactly that - it was prepared and struck as a circulating coin even if it really never did, except for possibly a couple of exchanges of the only specimen known. But back to the crowns: I have no doubt that most of the coins struck as currency type and NOT designated as commemoratives (but struck for the reasons already cited) were saved as momentos and so may have psychologically been kept as commemoratives of the event. So, to rephrase my carefully constructed discussion: the coins I cited WERE struck for circulation and were "currency" pieces. Whether or not they were actually spent or circulated is another point, and I NEVER suggested that they widely circulated. I do recall a Churchill commem or two being spent, and even in the case of the Wreath crowns with rather limited mintages we see any number of extant specimens that have wear that is not consistent with "pocket pieces" (although I have seen some of those as well). To repeat also, the coins cited were not commemoratives by strict definition and so please reread what I have said. So certainly not a huge issue, but in my opinion we might as well be correct in what we say or how we refer to these coins.

Technically that would not be correct, and as I said, other than being struck in the first year of the reign there is NO indication of it being a commemorative but rather a physical demonstration of the right to strike coinage. If we were referring to the 1951 Crown, then I would agree. Plenty of coins were struck for another COMMEMORITVE - the 1935 Jubilee. Incidentally, crowns WERE struck for circulation, this being the intended purpose for 1902, 1928-1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1951, 1953, 1960, 1965 in the predecimal series.