VickySilver

Yes, I'll vote for the second as well - the first looks to have the lustre "washed out" by dipping perhaps overzealously. This with the caveat that it is hard to picture slabbed coins. I have an absolutely gorgeous NGC64+ 1907 half crown and can not for the life of me get a decent picture in slab.

I, for one do like the better specimens of coins. I don't think they are worth the premium in many cases. The problem with the 1951 and 1953 crowns is that I believe much as has been stated above, that I can pluck a specimen from a set that is an early and apparently "more special" strike and this to be virtually indistinguishable from some offered as "VIP". This is true in a slightly different way with the 1928-36 specimen Wreath crowns. IMO the TPGs and many others don't get it right. Caveat emptor!

Ah but we still have the choice as buyers, and can use them as sellers. If we don't like what their judgement, we can pass or offer/sell accordingly. It is marketing certainly, and one can respect it or hate it or not. Appearance has always been a key in choosing a coin, and if an individual judges one coin superior to another and has also included all the other factors (such as price, relationship with a dealer or customer, etc.) then one can choose. I don't think anybody believes these TPGs are Gods, but rather tools that are sometimes useful, and maybe sometimes a source of irritation. They are not the final word.

And worlds better after your treatment, at least from the photos. I wish I could figure out how to downsize my resolution on iPhone to post on here.....

I don't know, I think it's just a case of trying to objectify the subjective. Many, including myself in many instances prefer a currency coin that is well struck with defined definition and marked contrast twixt fields and devices. Regardless if it is first off the dies or not, it would in many corners if not yours bring a premium. Unfortunately, many seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle and seem willing to pay for a trifling difference between a cameo and deep cameo or ultra cameo strike.

First, I have to say this IS NOT MINE! OK, I have a few old Spink Auction catalogues, but none as old as this. On the PCGS chatroom site there is a recent visitor that claims to have from his father's estate an 1848 Godless Gold Florin pattern that his dad obtained from a Spink 1974 LA Hilton Auction. Was there such a sale, and did it feature a gold pattern florin? I certainly give pause to calculate its value if genuine!

Nice job there Rob - who needs google (not productive) when we are fortunate enough to have you around!

I am not sure if the is the W&R coin? Well, he does need to get it ID'd with SG, weight, etc.

65 LOL

These at one time were quite inexpensive and then about 10 years ago began to slowly take off, first the sov and then the others. I got a P63UltraCameo 1887 half sov for USD 350 and then a 1937 P70Cam sovereign for about USD1150

Minor point: I believe one of the bluing culprits is the brand "MS70" for sale in the USA at one time.

Wow, I hate to ask what they got for the '49?? He got a bit mad when slightly dinged on another chatroom, but steer clear of them; they do seem to have a fancy purchasing budget (and a fancier idea of what to price said coins at on their retail list).

I agree, that is a bit over the top. I can see the 1000-1200 range, that's about it for now at least. A bit anticlimactic to see a set that looks like pretty much any other, save the variety. Still, glad to have one.

Probably not of interest to all on here, but was wondering if the RM will ever release actual mintages RELEASED of these in either the currency or the proof. Reported mintages are very confusing, first because as far as I can tell there are none for the "bullion" silver, platinum or gold; even with the proofs of these coins, there are issue and set limits but there seems to be no confirmations as to the number actually released into collector channels.

I happen to like the designs, save the latest Bull. The proofs are IMO a bit overpriced but the others at just above bullion are rather nice. I hope a few will sneak in as scarcer bits.

Yikes, Rob, are you now coming after the shillings? LOL...I like that 1853 best there.

Does not IMO appear to be of Royal Mint manufacture...

As a followup - if anybody cares, PCGS will not certify the scarcer gold versions as they are not in Krause's "Unusual Coins" yet??? This despite being published in the Spink Patina Sale of 2001.

I'd second that one. I just don't think in this internet age that such coins not in premium condition can hold value - or even have much!

I wouldn't touch these with a very long pole. IMO, there are just too many around both graded and ungraded with likely some very nice ones out "in the wild". Even more mystifying are the proof late Vicky gold from 1887 and '93. Yikes!

Heritage sold a nearly identical (under graded?) Proof64 for USD $9600 in January....Last year a "66" went for USD $39.9!

Very nice appearance there OZ!

I do try to rinse with a bit of liquid dish soap, rinse VERY well, and tamp dry after the dip bit...

Nice coin there but should be under "Items for Sale"

As per Forrest Gump: " Run, Forrest, Run". I don't get these huge prices for coins that are very different than supposedly lesser siblings. I have a proof 64 Cameo that, even though is my coin is within spitting distance at 5% of the price. IMO, these hyper grade with huge price tags are enormous risks for most collectors, excepting of course the Tyrant collector...