VickySilver

Note that just this last week, DNW sold a Seychelles pattern/trial informal set of two coins with 1977 date and J. Mancham obverse. These were never thought to have been issued as he was overthrown as PM and coins all switched to an obverse that features the Republic coat of arms. Relatively common is a collector silver crown in the 25R denomination that was contracted out evidently before the overthrow, but these are relatively unknown with the only internet searchable results are similar two coin lots sold by DNW in 2014 and 2015 - all six coins are different specimens so not the same lot being re-offerred. These coins appear much as the KN specimen pieces that have come on market in the last several years but have not yet been able to locate the minting source of these coins.

Almost looks burnt, surface altered post-mint IMO.

Acetone first. Then 1/2 strength ammonia with quick soap and water surface treatment to follow and then quick rinse with tamp dry. Always tamp dry with a high nap white cotton towel. NO RUBBING! It might take a quick dip in actual EZ-est or some other similar dip with the same light soap and water, and then more water rinse with tamping.

Those at DNW hopefully affordable. The Heritage lesser so I'd imagine.

This medal reminds me of the RM treatment of the 1902 matte proofs - a good wipe or two to shine it up! LOL. Well, other than a few contact marks that is a solid GEF piece there. One possibility is to dip it and then retone on window sill or in brown paper napkin with sun exposure that will lightly sulfur tone it to a golden brown and then maybe a bit of colour which you can monitor by checking periodically.

gVF a fair guess IMO. Decent detail but see things like the orb atop the crown on reverse and the top of ear on obverse It looks like a bit of cameo wear (only slight) as the surfaces of central lettering on reverse looks to have mild wear just as does the hair & mustache and beard details on obverse. Almost as though it had been put in a bowl with other coins for a short while AFTER the main black toning had taken place.

Looks the real deal to me. And those lines don't look to be scrapes from photos, but rather toning streaks. Don't think many of us would shoot you for a dip. Have to check the weight bit... Addendum: weight is correct as well.

Ok, I confess that I still like the 1970 set - perhaps a bit sentimental!

Yikes, that would be your coin? Pictures please, kind Sir! Have you posted it before? Can't remember!

Can't answer the first bits, as to the value that would be IMO no added & perhaps a tenner or so. You'd need a better level of preservation and even a mint specimen would not be much if any added value to the 100-150 in that better grade.

"I" over "I". This is how they appear. There are many more lettering variants on earlier Victorian small silver inc. 3ds and Maundy sets...

Yes, I agree in general although a few issues thought scarce have since proved not and vice versa. Glad to have that as a reference.

I love a nice Vick obverse, regardless of the date. The second-to-last of Non-mort looks to have been hit with fingerprint IMO with subsequent attempt at cleaning or light dip. Parts of the obverse fields have some proof like qualities.

Yes, and the centers of the flowers (stamen). The details in G5's hair just is not there on any of the three and as you say they've been knocked about. If you compare them to the 1936 I posted up here, you may see the differences.

I just had a look at the upcoming Goldberg's catalogue, and was quite disappointed by the overall offerings, but more than this really have to question the three "VIP Record Proof" Wreaths dated 1928, 1932, and 1936. The latter looks perhaps the best, but the obverse of KG5 is very poorly struck in all three, the rims/edges just not there for proofs, and the reverse wreath details (i.e. stamens and flower details esp.) quite poor, at least to the accepted proofs that I have seen. I vote against all three, what say you dear readers? You may want to look at the Proof 65 1927 just prior in this auction or the 1936 I had posted [with help] earlier on these boards.

I don't have anything in for Atlas, and doubtlessly there are some pieces in his stock that are relative bargains (and good for you Jaggy in finding one). However, a decent price here or there does not really buck the basics, and that is they are grossly priced upwards by IMO 100% in most cases. In my series, I find that I am able to get pieces MUCH cheaper by going the auction route even though I likely am competing with him - and he does seem to go full retail plus for coins, then to boost them as I've mentioned. What I do find interesting is that his stock at least seems to be increasing with time - not totally unexpected with such high prices. I wonder how this works in the long run, though suspect he is able to balance this by being in the right place at the right time with plenty of cash. Thank God I got much of my collection prior to the market being pulled.

OK, I watched the Heritage Auction thoroughly and probably need help in posting pics, etc. but here is what I saw: - Saturday auction saw (Lot 30849) 1845 Halfcrown in PCGS63 sell for 1527 USD - Today saw (Lot 32651) 1845 Halfcrown in NGC62 sell for 1057 USD My commentary is that I looked at these two lots on HA site and noted that the first had original somewhat ugly toning and was not fully struck on obverse or reverse, with the hair and brow line weak and marks to sensitive area such as NOSE! The second coin was probably dipped at one point, lustre OK with MUCH better strike in these sensitive areas without as much crucial area marks. I believe that the second represented a better buy if such can be said, although with the recent runup of many coin prices it is hard to determine what is fair and what is not. Proof gold of the 19th through mid-20th C. is off the charts as far as price increases, I think it was the 1826 ?? proof set that went for 280 K USD and the 1893 for above 65k! Yikes. Anyway, buyer beware and shop the actual coin and not the slab as has been said many times on these boards.

Yes, this is Atlas - he at least doubles the price he pays & then lets buyers "offer" him down a couple percentages. My goodness, he is "creative" on the pricing schema but does take offers. Never bought anything from him. He does seem to have a very high budget for auction purchases and is running up many of the non-gold items both in USA and UK. Evidently it is the Japanese that are collectively running up the 19th C. proof sets and gold, esp. 19th C.

Peter, LOL on that commentary. However, before lobbing a stone too far in the glass house, please check in with those infernal "hypervarietal" penny boys in goode olde UK! I like these cabinets as well, but don't know where I'd put one....

Interesting, I bought an Isle of Man 1974 sov last week and just noticed that eBay reports it "sold at 280 pounds". Truth is that I submitted an offer of 248 that was taken. So what actually are REAL sale prices?

49er - Can you please post pictures of the 1905 shilling once in hand? Thanks

Oops, that was a late night ERROR. Don't know what I was thinking of, as those are the designations for Prooflke and Deep Mirror Prooflike. I think light cameo is Cam[eo] and more heavily frosted is Deep Cam[eo]. Sorry!

LOL Well, they have P01, or AG1 for poor 1 by recollection. Cameo and deep cameo have designation in that there should be newsprint reflected from 6 and 9 inches, respectively.

Perhaps part of the problem is that there are no convenient "pigeon holes" and that they are something of a spectrum. I guess I just like to look at cameo/device frostiness (?) as an individual characteristic of a coin. I believe they do impart some value if giving the coin a nicer appearance & would guess the example I showed would bring a premium over a non-cameo piece & that Terry's coin would as well. My understanding is that this is entirely a property of die preparation and subsequent wear & that a simple explanation would be either pickling or sandblasting the die surface and then polishing the high points which of course would strike as the field into the flans. Subsequent wear would to some degree polish the recessed devices and they would tend to lose both detail and the ability to impart a cameo device to the flans. Simple pickling with acid would not necessarily give as pleasant a cameo as later methods. As was pointed out, George V & VI pieces usually lack a cameo (we did show a 1936 Wreath crown with nice cameo). and these I know.

Wow, thanks. I was lucky to get this from Spink in the "grande olde dayes". Vick's hair looks to be re-engraved almost as post mint damage & horrifically clashed.