VickySilver

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.

No, not specifically a commemorative.

Okay, funny. These were issued to circulation, and am trying to figure out the commemoration? None is expressed and was simply the first year of reign, not so indicated that I can see. Other than mild abrasion, it is actually quite nice. I don't see major rim issues and the "ding" at 8 o'clock on the obverse on blowup looks to be ??plastic or some such on the coin.

Let me know when like quality shows up at 30 quid, I’m a buyer. These come with unfortunate bag marks on almost all occasions.

No on the grading unless you are just curious. About 40 USD per coin.

That looks to be a rather exceptional currency piece that probably would have been a good buy at 3x the price

I’ll venture additional opinion - this coin in the OP is very near to uncirculated as far as wear, and this after blowing the coin up - it is nearly free from circulation signs in the devices, fields and rims. Certainly not of the posted MS64 coon’s quality, but very nice. So it IMO would net grade down slightly on tone and soft strike, and that is why I hazarded the EF45 grade. I do strongly urge others to magnify the coin as I did and not be fooled by the soft strike but to look to see signs of wear such as marks, nicks, gouge in miniature , etc.

Hmmmm - not sure I agree as we did leave out the margins. Many times I look at edge detail to help in deciding points such as this and obverse rom detail is quite good, the reverse not as sharp. Loss of central detail articulation on reverse is IMO more related to strike . And the fields are really just too good to grade this as any sort of VF. I would venture the EF45 grade based on the pictures.

BTW, the census at NGC is likely wrong as they have SIX 1882 “ no H” pennies listed - and only ONE “H”. When I inquired they told me that their numbers were correct and I had no idea of what I was talking! Quite rude and likely wrong with no evidence of checking.

Not much to contribute, but did get a worn 1928 6d in 1968 whilst passing through as a lad..

I agree that there is a bit of dogma in the approach to this date and somewhat slavish mentality about there being only one obverse. I just don't see how that can be proved, though I do agree that many purported "no H" examples on close inspection appear to be "weak H" or possibly moved metal. I have seen a couple that looked good to me under scope - as far as the lack of "H" mintmark. And if the die was filled or worn? So what, if it doesn't appear that metal has been (re)moved then it is a "no H" much like the USA 1922 "no D" cent coin...

Please show the 1919H . I really like this date when especially well struck!

Ditto on the "H" minted coins. At least to me, the metal alloy is many times off and especially on the 1919s, as well as the mushy strikes that they are famous for. I finally got a 19H that I can live with. Will have a look-see at the most recent auction...

True, except that there may be surface alloy problems with metals that are more reactive I would think.

The thing about it is that the "origin" of the verdigris appears to be a more solid oxidation spot with a halo around it that is expanding. Naturally I did not have the privilege of viewing prior to purchase. I don't believe it had been slabbed all that long prior to purchase however. And now I have a bunch of these Specimen 1935 Rockers. I guess because I like the design and that at one time the specimens were going for very little more than currency. I am still looking for an absolute pristine currency, and the one with the garbled edge (dropped?) motto.

Thanks, Richard for the assist! I remember the 1853 pennies in proof used to go for peanuts as nobody was interested. What did theirs go for? For some reason I can't get excited by the 1841s, though the '59 ok. They seem to get recycled in the wash and come up for sale more often than I would think....

Wish I could post, but was pleased to win the 1964 OMS strike penny in copper-nickel at the Heritage auction today & so have the 1964-67 run in OMS. Well, no gold though! My only penny purchase in at least two years!

I agree with Jelida mostly, but will note that the obverses of many including the OP coin do suffer from strike and at least to me seem to have more issues with marks and wear. I really like well struck and toned or marvelously lustred silver from the era 1920-1926 (why I jumped on those "duck tailed" specimens when Rasmussen had them a couple of years ago. I think I got someone to post my specimen 1924 from a couple of years ago, but may send it out if you are interested. PM me.

I think this is of the type that is referred to as 45/3. Whether it actually is or not is another question, though I am inclined to agree that yours is.

Looks to be a bit of friction on high points on obverse, but over a mushy strike although some nice looking underlying lustre, particularly on reverse that almost makes it look to be of better metal than 0.500. I'd put it in AU55 category.

I'll stand by my opinion that the "marks" in the field are that, except that they originate from the blank or planchet marring and not fully struck out. The oxidation spot at the cheek in lower right has nada to do with the other issue of course. I will still vote proof, not optimally struck.

I think that a written note from them would do worlds if it could be directly tied to a specific coin. Their opinion would be near the top I would imagine and especially for milled predecimal coinage.

Rob, I totally agree. I think it is "caveat emptor" when it comes to proofs (or for that matter most coins).

And I think that proof strikes are not always optimal, as well as recognising that the blanks prior to striking are not always polished and there can be areas of the coin (admittedly usually the devices) that may not be fully struck. When there are areas of poor strike/weak strike, details of the original blank including scratches, etc. may not be obliterated... So we may be talking proof coins that are not prepped or struck in the "completed" fashion, and this may be what occurred in the examples shown.

Yes, these were my coins that I sent in to be graded/slabbed. Actually included the "duck tailed milling" proof specimen shilling, florin, half crown of 1920. I think they may have also sent my 1937 silver farthing model reverse as well. I think also a couple of pattern Vicky half sovs.