VickySilver

Not proof IMO, the edges just not right and appearance not there. I don't think there is a huge price differential anyway.

Wow, we left that bit out, that is exactly right do the simple first ALWAYS.

The acid is over the whole die and then the high points/field polished leaving a bit of cameo to the recessed die spaces. So called matte coins are stuck as per "usual" VIP and then sandblasted. I have a couple of coins with sandblasting medium still adhering.

That groat has been scrubbed without mercy! I think that might be at best 150 quid. The 1852 groat is a bit overrated IMO - I have three and had to leave quite a few around. The proofs of 1857 and 1862, not to mention 1837 and 1838 are quite rare as you probably know!

Whole 1958 sets are bringing close to 10k pounds - or even above! That's a nice 6d there!

Try the old trick on a coin of similar metal (CuNi): household ammonia in 1:1 with water. Immersion or the aforesaid Q-tip (bud) tamping with this solution can remove much of the accumulated cra-. I have found this to work rather well although not perfect - usually get improvement. CuNi is much harder to work with than sterling silver!

Wow, sorry to have missed that as I have ALL of the others since 1969. But I now have word of another, the owner reluctant to sell (ie won't sell it). Mick, did you buy it? Ooops, I just saw that you asked if I bought it! LOL! No, I wish. Unwilling, thanks for posting that as I hadn't seen the set offered before. The RM and the BoJ are both clowns when it comes to information on this or almost any other set. The former may not even know how many were actually net sold to collectors, the latter doesn't seem to know their A-- from a hole in the ground. They still have on offer since issue the 1992 and 1993 sets with same mintage limits at 45 USD per. The designs are so ugly that only crazy collectors like me even are interested. As a sidelight, after much pleading to look at stock BoJ was able to find me a 1999 set which is likely equally rare with nobody really caring either.

That is machined in. A cavity made in the 2p with the 1/2p inserted, and you can see the milling marks around the inserted 1/2p.

OK, I've tried to respond twice and these have been lost in the internet ether... As the RM has suggested in the above letter, there is probably no good way to prove origin or intent of and for a particular coin or set. Although no doubt some coins were struck under special circumstances, there is a lot of variability in the actual proof coins themselves. Not only the time and conditions of when they were struck, but also how much care went into the production of a particular die(s) or planchet, and many other variables. It surprises me not that there is NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER. Some coins are clearly superior to others of a particular denomination or date, and most generally agree on the best of specimens that there is something "better" about them. Should such a particular coin or coins be considered ex post facto be determined to be a VIP Record specimen? IMO, I don't think so. To me the major variables in determining how special is a special (LOL) with a particular coin are: - planchet quality - "freshness" of strike or how early a coin was struck along with articulation of device details, lettering, details, lettering, denticles, rims, etc. - strike pressure or quality of strike. Not the same thing which can be further discussed - wear or marks post strike (not actually a mark of "special" status) but affecting its presentation - amount and quality of cameo contrast Naturally, I have seen individual coins that are clearly superior to others. Whether they are a more ordinary specimen struck with all of the above factors maximized, or a special originally designated VIP matters not, at least to me. The designation of such a coin or coins as VIP can then be seen to be arbitrary. With regards to a particular specimen, these are worthy of a premium compared to more pedestrian examples but the question is how much? I believe I recall one 1953 set bringing 10k sterling or thereabouts and I just can not see that....

I think the bottom of the three marked areas IS die clash as the marks appear raised, and agree the others may be delaminations but still do not IMO appear to be bag marks directly with there being either clash or peelback at QE 2 ear - that can not be a bag mark in any sort of way. This coin has plenty of other small bagmarks as well as what appears to be plenty of die polish lines throughout.

The 1957 half crown shown above has clash marks from the dies coming together without planchet in between leaving details of obv. on rev. and vice versa.These are NOT primarily bagmarks.

Honestly, and this comes from a fairly avid collector of Victorian silver currency issues, the die numbers probably don't matter a whole lot in the overall scheme of things - more of a curiosity thing I would say. Maybe you could do the research!

Yes, they are rather playing with us. Let's see, extra care in the engraving (though a bit plain in subject matter on this), cameo devices, sharp and raised defined edges and struck with firm "exactitude". That is pretty much proof to me also.

I definitely agree and put in the gVF at very best on this reverse. I've seen them to be quite liberal on grading previously.

Not sure, I got a copy from the ANA Library - really one of the very best articles on the subject I have ever seen with plenty of data. I might be able to photo these and send to email addy.

Yikes! These discussions are endless; I ended up by coming to the conclusion that it is not possible to "pigeonhole" currency, specimen, proof. Occasionally there are some borderline matte coins that I just can not accept as matte proof - I have seen a couple even slabbed by major TPGs. The Bower's Catalogue of Norweb Canadian collection had an extensive writeup on this. Also, see the Spencer Journal of American Numismatic Association articles with the best being December 1983 - this is an excellent article well worthy of Rob P. (Spencer, Harry E.: Proof-Record Coins Struck by the Royal Mint). Somebody ought to scan it and leave it on this site IMO - I am just too technically challenged although if someone sends email might be able to manage next week.

The liked the rims/denticles and the overall lustre - IMO these are nice, but not deserving the 65. I don't think I would be all that unhappy with a 63 but the date is certainly not special. This series in general has languished and even the proofs (save the 1927 matte) just don't seem to bring very much. Perhaps the uninspiring shields reverse. A bit of a word - they sometimes are using more technical grading in that if a coin left the dies relatively poorly struck but the coin perfectly preserved that way could theoretically reach an even higher grade. This coin has some other issues that limit grade IMO.

Should be sterling...

No, I meant MY SPECIMEN. Ex-Spink auction 1990s.

QE2 washed out of cameo. Def. prooflike, poss. proof - needs to be seen in hand. This has a silver tint/tone to it.

Excellent! I was that way for a while with the Rocking Horse & have I think 11 or so of those. I actually LIKE the Churchill crown in excellent preservation such as this specimen. Don't shoot me please.

Loss of detail is important when it comes to plating and the SG, if accurate, would def. mitigate against a full silver content; tin tends to look quite different and rather "crummy" when circulated and 115 years old! I would tend to favour exactly what was in my first post. Sorry I can't see a fortune in it for you though!

These both appear plated. I am careful in my choice of words, but assertions have no place; I do not believe you can state the 1/2d is NOT plated. I am somewhat of a specialist in both Victorian and E7 silver, but also love off metal strikes (OMS). The farthing is within tolerance on weight, the halfpenny is about 0.5 gm heavy compared to standard. However, the coin DOES appear heavily plated in the photograph with loss of detail secondary to this - a bit of blurring that I have seen often with heavier plating. I will add that heavy plating may be "resistant" to non-penetrating assays/tests, including chemical, scratching, XRF. Specific gravity will pick it up & would anticipate with some likelihood that this 1/2d will register as near copper, but slightly higher. By quick memory, bronze is somewhere around 8.8-8.9 and sterling silver about 10.36-10.39.

With Fortune's Grace, it should be able to tone to an acceptable brown given the tone apparnetly having been stripped off.

I like these as well at that price. I think I have non-packaged 2013 & '14 examples - I suspect some dates may be a bit scarcer than others.