VickySilver

Dip it, please! I don't think there is a lot to lose.

I never could quite sync up on this coin - when I did have the money (and they were a lot cheaper), none were available. And now 2 selling in such a short period. I guess this is Tyrant territory nowadays....

Yes, please keep us posted. I have an 1845 1/2 d that I am leaving alone (someone else had failed a cleaning test but it has retoned) but would like to practice!

I wonder if the Verdcare (sp?) would work. You've not much to lose. I wouldn't toss it until I had the replacement...LOL

Wow, that is interesting. Perhaps it had something to do with some of the experimentation about future coins and alloys that Rob mentioned about in his conversation with Graham Dyer? No obvious relevance that I can make out.

I rather like Viking themed coins, and the Isle of Man has some albeit not always of the finest design or engraving. The question is about the KM182 Viking on Horse which is known in copper nickel. Some catalogues have listed this as also being struck in gold and platinum but I have NEVER seen these. Has anybody seen or know of any other details or specifics?

That's an interesting point as they use one characteristic to measure another - amount of reflectivity versus amount of frosting contrast on the devices! I believe I had seen reflection of a pencil used. I am really OK with the three basic designations of proof, cameo and deep cameo (or ultra). There no doubt is some quibbling about coins on the border. I have shown my own 1839 half crown that is deep cameo (but where I have issues about what the grade is designated), and that one is clear as is the Adams 1961 penny. A separate number for amount of contrasting would be fought just as hard. But most collectors know that this is all subjective, the number or frosting amount depends on the judgement of the viewer.

The 1854 florin is fairly nice and a legitimate VF, amongst the better seen.

Yes, referred to as "blanching". Most green oxidation such as Sword showed seems to have a PVC component and in my experience there is a good chance of removal with the blot method of acetone with the high nap white cotton towel.

My 1915 does not have that. It looks like not fully struck up and maybe grease on die or similar.

Well, perhaps we are crossed on terms. The "C" does seem to be incised and even in taking the first closeup picture of reverse, from the picture it appears that the margin or edge of the wing-like shape looks to be as well with discolouration on the inside of the wing being what looks to be the residue. The obverse shape(s) really IMO appear to be localized collections of residue and/or oxidations of that residue. Many dilute dips can do that sort of thing if allowed to dry or desiccate. Still, you have the coin in hand, not us. Interesting, this series was the core of my collection at one point. The 1929 and 1934 dates are the only ones not struck in proof..

I think it might be incised possibly very lightly, including the C, and cleaned with a bit of the residual left. Does it look like the margins of the "wings" are recessed even minimally into the coin. My first thought was just the fluid left behind as per Sword.

Not to enter into this fray, but I wonder if the oxidation that occurs in PVC holders that is green in colour and sometimes called "green slime" is technically verdigris - this occurs on copper and silver, not gold that I've seen.

As far as a joke, I wouldn't say so. Please see my previous notes - on many occasions, if not most, the TPGs grade according to state of preservation with respect to how the coins left the dies. In other words, if softly struck but without wear or distracting marks, a relatively high grade may be achieved. One great example would be from this same date: the 1917 sixpence. I have seen even highly graded specimens that are flat on lion's snout and not well struck details in G's beard and hair even make the exalted MS67 level. A coin such as this, and a recent ?Heritage auction had TWO at that level is IMO inferior to what otherwise would be an MS65 but exceptionally well struck.

I just yesterday got my winning eBay coin after using eBay bucks for a very nice price. I don't know where the other bidders were but was happy to get it for less than 400 quid equivalent. This is PCGS coin number 225223 (not the cert number). Please help post pics if you can. The PCGS picture is not as pleasant as the coin in hand, I am delighted to report, and it seems to not show the rub and ticks shown in the picture. Not a gift, but nice price. I am not sure if it is nicer than the AU58 coin which is also pictured, that one an ex-Spink coin; I don't think I can keep both at this point!

I have seen some variation in the strike/poss. age of die but not too sure what else. I think I am not as patient for details as I once was, so may have missed. I know that the coin listed as PCGS64 is nicer than mine for sure, and better struck as well (wonder who has that one?).

Good observations and knowledge shared Jag!

Not that I am aware of, basically the overdate - I have not seen a "normal" second 8 in the digit. What seemed different to you ? His is a relatively nice specimen but perhaps a bit optimistic on the grading.

Yes, I think NGC often gives a "technically" influenced grade. In other words, if a coin is perfect to how it left the die and no handling or bagging that it will rate highly even if softly struck. I'm in the boat where I think presentation that includes originality, and lack of damage are important, but that if G has flat hair & details and shield is blah flat that I will pass. I took some time about 15 years ago or so to assemble the best set I could 1911-1936 and was very choosy in that way. I took the lot and set them up in a Capitol holder which I thought (and still do) was quite impressive. Not rare coins, but pleasant to look at.

Sword, thanks for the pictures. Zoo, I have looked with a magnifier and think the apparent lettering issues are related to toning - although I must admit eyes are not as sharp as I'd like.

Good question - I am not sure anyone knows the answer as records are quite scarce for especially the specimen sets (as opposed to the proof sets which were only a bit spotty). I do know that up until 1984, the FM would advertise in the various numismatic papers and journals and would send out fliers to those on their mailing list that had purchased sets in previous years; even though I was in college I used to get specimen sets in those days which were about 30.00 USD per set as opposed to the proof sets which mostly included at least silver crowns and cost much more. As they were in some difficulty for whatever reason after a sale of the parent company, interest and sales petered out in the years after 1981. There also was the expose on the 60 Minutes TV show in 1978 that turned some away....

Yes, that's the coin with VERY poor pictures - and I got the 82.50 or so in eBay bucks! Cert # 85749898

Will get it in about 3-4 hours when I can check.

Too many decimal OMS coins out there. I agree with the price being off by a factor of 10. A predecimal half crown would be best, and prior to the 60s better yet.

I've not been able to shake loose the other 2002 set, and the buyer of this one says that he also got the very rare 1984 Jamaica specimen set! I have not seen that and only one rumoured, perhaps in Russia. I am wondering if the Franklin Mint somehow had a European dealer or depot for some of their later offerings which never made it to the states. I never saw 1984 specimen sets of any of their client countries, and then got the Belize set about 1 1/2 years ago. Their coins of all nations - which include specimen quality coins - offered in the 1990s in huge cardboard format, complete with usually one stamp from the host country is a source for some otherwise VERY scarce coins. I wonder if they just had some coin laying around and through them in. Most of the coins in these sets however are NOT FM issue, so one must look carefully.