VickySilver

Soon (hopefully) to follow courtesy of Dave are a few of the proofs. The 1936 which shows modest cameo is the best Wreath proof of any date I have seen, but I threw in the mattes of 1926, 1927 and even 1937 - well, only got the obverse on that one as I was in a rush at the bank. I do not recall ever seeing the crowns to come in boxes; I got the REP 1935 in cello that came with the other proofs of that year but was not in a package. The 1926 Wood Pattern did come in a box quite similar to that the cardboard case that 1927 sets were issued in along with the other patterns that were given to the widow of the designer, Wood, evidently by Paget.

Thanks, Brad...That one is above my pay grade. I actually had the money many years ago, but none were on offer, so I don't think I'll ever get that one.

I had it custom made about 10-12 years ago; I like their presentation and really for me, so no slabs. Those are hand held iPhone pictures so kinda grab bag. I sold away another currency set that was about equal, these just a bit better. As as far as wear, to me the key areas aren't a lot different than strike with the cheekbone, mustache, brow edge and ear top being key - the obverse the decider. Lower margin of Crown seems to attract hits as well...

This is a matter of some debate amongst those who are interested. Some are loathe to call the best proof and at one time called them specimen. Few are frosted, though on the proofs the field and devices are not quite IMO of the same finish. The edges are squared and the device details crisper. I once tried to describe this and point out examples: the cross on the orb itself (really more of an inverted "T" should be fully detailed and clear (NOT the cross that surmounts the orb), the flower stamens should all be clear and separate. On the obverse, the moustache, eyebrow corner, beard, and ear lobe all the way round should be crisp with excellent detail. There are other bits, but these are important and key areas. The denticles and edge milling should be sharp and defined. Simply a reflective field is just not good enough, and I think viewers (and graders sometimes) can be deceived. Actually hard to capture in but a few words.

Proofs are all locked up in bank, matte and Peace (1926) I will try to show. That darned "Tokyo-A" collector was somehow able to beat me to the 1926 Wreath model obverse pattern & the family, I believe, is holding it still. That I'm sure would be above 25k pounds - so lost likely forevermore. ?‍♀️

Two lil probs: coins in safe deposit box piss A-- camera skills will see what I can do though

I'd feel differently if it was into THE DIE, but in reality is post minting damage that IMHO just not significant enough. Good for a dealer if he has a next buyer on the hook.

Wow, nice pictures there. On the 1849, the colour appears to be metal oxidation - too late for organic solvent rescue. I agree, have to leave it alone but at least you tried. The second piece almost appears as though some liquid dropped on surface with secondary oxidation.

Looks CuNi, not silver to me, and struck on a thinner and/or smaller flans. I love the off-metal strikes but I think this not. Now if you can only find a 1946 florin struck in copper-nickel!

NO RUB, please.

I have never been shy about good acetone and a quick tamp down. Problem is that the skin oil is,as I understand it, breaks down by bacterial action with organic acids that oxidize the surface metal. Still worth it as some of the oil and metallic compounds that are generated can be removed, some even after longer exposures....the metal underneath is usually not terribly altered.

Ah, let me hide! LOL! Well, difficult call from the pictures but I suspect some of the conjecture is spot on in that there are obvious alloy mixture phenomena which can be seen on some of the "blotchiness" on the obverse bust, but I have seen such (not necessarily PURPLE) marks be referred to as "palm prints", or basically skin oil. I do hear you Cliff on the artefact nature of the purple appearance. The thought is that differential local alloy mixtures may oxidize selectively and provide subtle colour differences on surface metal. Corrosion arising from deeper metal as is seen in the most severe cases in ancient fourrees (sp?) would be more aggressive & probably not as likely IMO a cause of the reverse appearance. Uh, well, more later...

That crosslet '64 pulled an outrageous price IMO, and really would not want it at the same price as a superior specimen without tonnage figures SCRATCHED into it. Really, so what. I fail to see the significance of it, but I suppose to each his own. Obviously there was more than one interested in it.

I'll go EF on the OP and agree that there is a bit of softness on reverse but really like the obverse quality. Bit of toning unfortunate but not terrible. The MS63 that Azda posted is mine and better in hand - IMO undergraded and gotten several years ago from St James after a bit of bidding struggle. PCGS photo makes coin look darker than it is and artificially toned which it's not.

Got pipped on the nicer 1842 halfcrown, would likely have gone higher if merited and could have seen it. Im like jaggy, waiting on DNW in any case.

Well, count me amongst the old fogies as I collect pennies and shillings in this way. I try to get at least GEF. I do try for the MAJOR varieties such as plain and crosslet 4 on the 1864s.

Thanks there, Sword. It was a bit easier in the "Olde Dayes" & was lucky enough to have Steve Hill when he may have just been starting at Spink to help me as well as access to SOME of the Pretorian Mint material courtesy of some occasionally roguish types who shall remain unnamed (though I never had a problem with them).

I have collected these Wreaths for over 20 years, and have a complete set of proofs, including matte & pattern Peace as well as "cherry-picked" currency examples that were selected for strike and presentation. I must say that I do not always agree with the TPG designations on these & have rejected most as not proof. It must be stated that there were few enough of the currency bits struck, so that the relative number of first strikes as a ratio to the total number struck is thus much higher than many issues. Many of these do not pass muster, even if the quality of the proofs is a bit more "specimen" in quality. Prior to about 2008, there were precious few alleged proofs of these Wreaths, and now there are such great numbers; I agree with the assessment that of these new arrivals that the 1932 and 1934s are overrepresented. IMO, of the true proofs that the 1929 and 1931s are perhaps the scarcest. I had two of the former and sold one at Spink 10 or more years ago...

Whitedb - that is indeed a very attractive penny. Kind of looks a bit like a matte, though think it not.

I second the sovereign designation as I collect half sovs & was initially excited at your report. The obverse entirely different! Still, rather have that bit of gold then not!

Speaking of which, I remember when Graham Dyer was looking at coins for them and remember turnaround times to be many months to years....

Once a proof, always a proof. The proof-only 1895 Philadelphia dollar is known only in proof but there are plenty of circulated specimens around. I just couldn't bid on that one...

I solidly collect "silver" from this era, including errors but would not be interested & I imagine the same emote from others.

Not too much excitement on that one - maybe a quid or so....

Yikes, not a lot there for me. A couple of proofs I may enter the fray on though.