VickySilver

Excellent.It was a coin number and NOT the verification ID #. Thats confusing....There are no contacts other that very minimal matte loss at G6 upper lip, and those are planchet lines with variable toning seen at bust of G. Notice on reverse the "blasting material" still adhering to the central devices. That is an original coin which probably ought to be regraded by them and sent in by Heritage or the likes with possible conservation - this to bring the big bucks!

I think that I have seen so many copper and bronze issues that have been fingered (wow, that is now rude sounding with the Weinstein business) by hamfisted collectors and dealers that it has influenced me a bit.... IMO, the Millennium Sale pieces received the benefit(s) of the doubt shall we say and received pushes of 1-2 points. Here is one that the submitter was punished on (1951 matte proof half crown), PCGS #432498 - help on posting pictures please.... This coin received a 61! Wow, note as a side interest the original sandblasting material still adheres to the devices on reverse. A rare coin, this is IMO superior to the 1950 matte half crown sold by Goldbergs as a "65".

Fortunately the OP coins were not major investments so the "details" grade in the end not that significant. As far as "details" grade, I know of a proof 1838 Vick Sov that was rejected by PCGS as cleaned - it was IMO absolutely not, and this is a basic skill set that somehow eluded them. Some extremely respected UK experts examined it and I understand accepted it in trade, being glad to get it, agreeing with me about not only its rarity but the fact that it wasn't cleaned or significantly damaged. Subsequently, and these are only anecdotes, they rejected a beautiful 1849 currency shilling with die prep wipes NOT on coin, a proof 1859 shilling with supposed egg filing (chamfering done at mint), a 1863/1 shilling (which I kept but was accepted by the same dealers as being pristine with only the most minute of hairlines and "finest Known" {whatever that means}). I could go on and on, but the point is that they make crucial errors with some frequency. As Rob pointed out, a bigger issue with higher priced issues is that the grading subjectivity seems to occasionally be influence by the submitter... Overall, I still like the slabbing in that it protects the coins and though large make it relatively easy to store or present in an orderly fashion.

Hmmm, most 1869 “mint state” pennies are rather unsatisfying for one reason or another. I still like the Gerald Jackson specimen. 1875 H seems not as popular now but think similar rarity. The ‘64s are both quite tough in top grade. I just never felt the same about 1878.

That is surprising as I have a PCGS 1937 cameo65 Proof from the Terner sale that is “only” that same grade but would be an FDC Gem in anybody’s book. Grade inflation? i see this esp with the 1902 matte proofs

The Martini ad is on the inside of back cover of the set. Nada on front cover.

I think the coin may have some legs, but hard to determine prices. The RM really have even worse problems for those coins struck for foreign countries, both currency and so-called collector versions....

Yea, sometimes probably by demand but not so sure they are beyond manipulating "demand". Last year I wanted to get a kilogram silver so-called coin and so bought an Alderney kg with authorised mintage of what I recall was 250 but only 45 struck. But who really cares? In the case of Jamaica, I do though, and want to get the '84 FM entire specimen set and the 2002 proof set someday & don't care if no demand. I got the Belize 1984 specimen uncirculated 8 coin set about one year ago on eBay for the princely sum of 29.95 USD with free postage. Mind you, I followed the series since it got started, and this set was NEVER advertised at issue despite me being on the lookout for it & never saw hide nor hair of it until it magically appeared. Love getting coins like that, rare but affordable with a touch of mystery....

Nice bit, there - a Royal Mint issue. Available though. The coins of all Nations FM Jamaica includes specimen type unc. coins but only the 50c by recollection & certainly not the larger 5 & 10 dollar coins which are prohibitively rare in unc. and quite scarce in proof. Another puzzle about the later Royal Mint sets that began in 1985 and went through [presumably] 2002, but leaving out 1986. All but the '85 are listed as "Authorised Mintage 500". They are all fairly scarce, but some much moreso which to me suggests that even if authorised it does not mean that they were STRUCK AND THEN RELEASED in that quantity.

Yes, that is the '84 set but I don't think that is a valid site and don't think there has been an update for 5/6 years. He had some other very nice sets and coins from around the world but never responded to my inquiry. I question the listing even its original form as there were some mistakes in it. Shame though, because I'd jump on it otherwise. As one example he has a set of EIGHT sovereigns for 1200 USD!

Absolutely none gone through in sales except the individual crown in proof about two years ago. Never seen this set as I've said but I believe one collector in Jamaica has said he has seen one (but didn't have it) along with the nearly equally "unicorn" of the 1984 FM Specimen Unc. Mint set.

Liking Vicky silver as you might guess, this is an issue that is much more difficult & seems to be not an absolute entity. That is, opinions vary from one person to another and also over time. The best IMO one might hope for is a general consensus about a particular date or dates and condition. On reading that, I suppose not that helpful but it is a difficult one. Pricing volumes such as Spink give value that is only relative and on occasion a bit inaccurate but are at least an attempt to give an idea based on price which is naturally the intersection of the supply and demand curves.

Ouch! Don't like that one bit....Well, I'll look the other way as others get happy.

OK, I'll have to look at a couple...

Or even figure out the coin is a specimen strike.

I will see what I can do later this weekend. The '37 and '52 putative VIP crowns were NOT struck in finer pure silver or even sterling standard. Unfortunately the VIP proofs are not all struck with heavy cameo effect & some "ordinary" proofs do have it. The halfcrown you have just shone is probably properly termed Specimen and is typical of these coins in the 1942-44 era - although there are noted exceptions. I have what are likely specimen coins that are not proof of 1947 and 1951 in 6d and shilling denominations. Spencer wrote a very nice article in the J. of the ANA in about 1982 that described the process and his division schemes in some details. The Sale of the Norweb Canadian coins by Bowers and Merena 1996 also contained some discussion in the intro..... PS - the evident lines in the fields of the posted 1943 half crown are die prep polish lines & not wear. Then of course you could sell it with the latter impression to me if you'd like. LOL

Absolutely, save your money. But look for the nicer cameo specimens WITHOUT the ubiquitous hairlines in any case. I'm glad I figured that out before I popped for the "VIP" some years ago & didn't have to learn the hard lesson.

As it turns out, I have learned a few things over the years. This 1937 date, as well as the 1951 and 1953 Crowns come in "regular", "cameo", "deep cameo", and ??VIP Proof. I think that some received special treatment - aka VIP - at the mint, but at least as far as I can tell (and Steve Hill might back me up on this) there is no essential difference that someone could divide VIP and deep cameo (or even some plain old cameo). I am not at all sure that the TPGs are able to distinguish, and in the case of the Wreath Crowns IMO are not able to figure out what is proof and what is not. Even though I believe that I can generally tell, I will say there are some quite borderline cases that are tough calls. My suggestion: Don't get your panties in a bunch & lump the DCs in with the VIPs, provided you can agree they are DCs. THe coin in the OP should be about 500 USD and not more - about a year ago I bought a PCGS 65DC as well as the English REv shilling of that date for that in total. I also have a graded 64DC that is IMO superior to the graded 65DC, so please judge the coin in hand as best you can...

Maundy?

Well, no news to report and nothing has shown. I would have to guess even the solo crown has got to be VERY scarce. I hesitate to guess a number, but I would guess less than 50. This is about the number of single proof 1984 Jamaica proof $10 silver; the copper nickel PL version of that coin is probably 10-20 or less.

As above, IMO about 400-500. They are still 100 high on this price.

Despite my nomen, and having a bit of experience in the field, I must confess to not ever seeing or knowing certainly of this coin. I am lucky to have the proof, but have never seen this coin. It reminds me a bit of the 1854 half sovereign. The 1853 currency 3d is quite rare and almost always available from Maundy sets and NOT currency.

Wow, that second 3 looks pretty bad there, even under the encrustation.

Oh, ok, then you meant the earlier sale. I nearly went for a bid at your piece but let it go as I wanted the higher grade. Hard to believe disappointment at the prices, these are after all only lowly groats. I had mentally predicted them at 5k and 2-2.5k. Love 'em anyway. I wonder what such a price would mean for coins such as a truly uncirculated 1854 florin or the currency 1839 half crown in MS64? Or the 1893 Jubilee 6d in like grade?

That seems a reasonable price in today's market. Not a lot of these floating around. I bought a "version" of this in 2006 as the RM sold one to honour the Queen's 80th B-day on a necklace or key chain that was evidently a struck piece that recomprised this pattern. Was about 20-25 quid! LOL