VickySilver

But this is a currency piece....

Nice add on that Dave. Looks a bit more palatable, though wonder if Taco Bell napkins were utilised?

Several others he has for sale have similar toning. Surprise, surprise...Wonder if he was the submitter (JB)?

Another factor is that the different proof coins are released in different formats: singly, in sets of different sizes (e.g. three coin sets, five, with other denominations, in different packaging). So while there may only be 350 released singly, there may be another 250 released in different combinations.

Paulus has a decent one there! The OP coin likely has little wear but sadly has had that wipe and some differential toning that, horror of horrors, IMO would dip lightly for about 5 seconds with the mandatory light detergent and then water rinse & tamp with cotton cloth.....Prob not quite as bad as its appearance as far as wear, and the toning detracts certainly.

May have been BOTH with the original mint wipe somewhat obscured by later rub. The obverse is much more obvious than reverse but plenty none the less.

Craigy, these were in previous postings, and the reason I say that is I just never seem to be able to post pictures without help. If you email me I can send them to you & you may either look and/or repost them. The '51 still has the material they use for blasting the matte finish adhering to the devices on reverse...

I have shown a few coin previously that I have severe doubts on the grading - see the 1920 specimen half crown previously posted (at 61) & a matte 1951 also at MS61. Can't see how they are within even 3 points conservatively of grade after seeing them in all lights and magnification up to 30x. I have seen '02 matte crowns at 64 and 5 with wipes clearly visible and 62s that had none under any light or magnification.

Although I am one of those somewhat on middle ground with regard to TPGs and their function in the market as well as personally in a collection, I find the grading of these mattes by the major TPGs nearly laughable as it seems depending on their mood of the day, or perhaps other factors (LOL), grading seems to be all over the map. To some extant, I have also seen this with the currency half crowns and especially the currency crowns of this date - well, also the gold...

Yes, classical wipe appearance on the shilling.

Yes. The proof gold of this year is even more problematic....Not that it matters but I like the shilling, half crown, and crowns of this set if nicely preserved & yours pleasant enough. The lion on rev. a bit regal (if perplexed) & Eddie looks the wise old dignified man (not the partier/bon vivant).

Rob, I have several 20th C. common coins from Norweb in the Salmon coloured envelopes, but also a 1940 proof set in the blue.

Rehash: half crown a Pf63, the shilling more a Pf62 IMO. The problem is that both major TPGs in USA appear to be a bit spread on these; how much to deduct for the wipe? I have seen them really ding a coin and others to not. It does not mean a coin is not attractive just because it is at the lower end of the scale however, and the buyer would be advised to look closely under good lighting. Those wipes did in most cases seem to affect more than just toning and have seen some very light abrasion with them under magnification.

Yes, similar to my experience as well - I think the conversions are a bit optimistic in favor of the CGS by a couple of points, sometimes more. I think I trotted out the 1935 specimen Jub crown graded CGS85 that was vastly inferior to the PCGS65 specimen. Others as well....

OK, I'll take the last one Rob. LOL.

Yes, good buy there! Haven't seen another.

Wow, good looking out. I tend to agree with Richard that from photos the numerals appear artefactual though.

Yes, do stay on the dealer. That is a pleasant coin but not so rare as you might have been led to believe. I am inclined to not even give credit to the varietal half crown proof which seems to show up relatively frequently and might have been worth that money to some. I really don't think it all that ethical what he did, trying to pass of such at that "value".

Yea, I saw that as well. Pass.....One day that might be a good value, but think seller possibly optimistic by about 200 or so.

That mixed lot above would likely find no takers (I think the Netherlands 1 G. is silver by recall).

I don't think I can substantially disagree as the BN has die rust strike characteristics on the obverse rather than actual wear and though the blowup is larger of it, the reverse possibly somewhat better struck than yours (e.g. lighthouse detail, center of breast chainmail area and ship hull). I think that yours is lovely though, and overall has a better obverse aesthetically. I liked especially the Gerald Jackson specimen of about 2-3 years ago which was only 64RB by recall.

On my iPhone I see reverse rim damage at 9 & 10 o'clock but the rest doesn't look too bad. Will have a look on laptop later this evening.

As most readers are likely aware, DNW had a sale today - which is still ongoing in fact. The rarer Vicky (well, Billy too) fared rather well with aggressive buying evidently by the Japanese contingent. The gold Willy 1836 went for 8.5k pounds, as did the finer of the 1837 Vicky proofs. The lesser of the 1837s still fetched 3200! Way out of my league and so bowed out. The 1842 & 1853 proofs went around 8 & 1200 by memory; there also was an 1838 proof at 1100 and a circulated grained edge 1838 that went near to 400 - I just found not see this as all the special given that there are some very proof-like appearing currencies available to the market on occasion. I was surprised that the 1852s did not do better at around 460 by memory. The 1853 two currency lot went for 700 - and I let it go also. Possibly the collector buy of the day was the 1857 lightly circulated specimen that went 1900, the THREE 1862s went for 1300-1800 which were prices I thought fairly reasonable (though I left them alone). All in all, definitely the best collection of groats I have ever seen.

Wonder if some of the OMS G5 half crowns for sale recently are counterfeit - they have awful detail, and have disagreed with statements such as: "detail weak due to harder metal of flans", or "excellent milling demonstrates Royal Mint product", etc. PS Any idea how much metal weight might be added with an average silver plate to a penny - I have one overweight by 0.16 gm.

These have been attributed to the Royal Mint and NOT KN.