VickySilver

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.

Although hopefully more excusable, I more recently purchased a 1932 in MS66RB for about 140 USD....

I think the problem with this one is that even AFTER I had carefully designated the coins with references, they then made the error. I then photoed their own valuation tables with their own designations and THEN photoed each type of coin from actual examples and carefully explained in simple Queen's English what the concern was, and then they ignored all of that and sent it back to me in original slabs AND CHARGED ME FOR THE EFFORT. In basketball, that would draw a double technical foul with discharge from the game!

As per above, but I have seen a number of these and agree again with Rob in that it looks to have been cleaned in some way and then retained which gives the apparent surface of the coin a somewhat artificial look. As always, the caveat "seen best in hand" of course applies. I would avoid such just because better are available, if they can be afforded.

Yet I have caught them out on some coins that have designations on their own site, and they (plural supposedly) were not able to discriminate. Shameful really, and this after I pointed it out to them with pictures and citations.

All true. The Glens of the world are fewer and fewer. I don't know how to post this and I have once before (?), but this 1839 currency half crown was bought from them about 20 years ago as an EF. Maybe this is a case of them under grading in the past?? PCGS number: PCGS 121002

Good luck on that. Some are rather crazily priced as you point out. There are also the earlier "MODEL" coins whereon the obverse or reverse is struck with the opposite side blank save the MODEL designation. I believe Joanna Tinsley sale had quite a few. There are a number of trials issued in the 1960s as decimal coins were being anticipated, and then a number since then. There are also the MONETA types with Britannia sitting at a bench striking coins by hand... No real reference book dedicated to such that I am a ware.

I give more weight to the obverse. Pictures really hard to judge detail and can't really separate as per above. The orb below cross has an inverted "T" by memory on it that should be detailed on a fully struck up example. The bottom pic seems to show some edge wear or handling?? A big deal for me is also flower stamen detail and separation, but this is more a strike than a wear issue IMO. The biggest deal on obverse is G5's cheek, brow edge and mustache detail/wear/weakness to the right... I have seen many wreaths in slabs (P&N) that grade "64" or even 5 that I would drop to 62 range based on issues in these areas. Can't say I've seen enough wreaths, let alone '34s to guess LCGS grades though.

It does look as the lower obverse field has been (test?) scratched. I broke through plating by scratching the edge of one. I do have a number of OMS pennies and they tend to have similar weights as Rob says, but get a weight in any case. Some have. Even hard gouged that damaged genuine coins ! Uggh! Host blanks have occasionally been halfcrowns and vice-versa. Plated coins if done thinly can be deceiving but there is a certain flatness to the fields as on this coin as I think I see from the photos. Anyway, hard to tell from just the picture unfortunately. Likely best seen in hand by a reputable dealer - good luck!

PLEASE DO NOT RUB! Acetone will not remove oxidized fingerprints but will remove the grease and oils from skin/prints that have recently touched the surface. A quick exposure to acetone (I use Walmart over here in the States) of 100% purity is mandatory - not nail polish. You may see in other posts that people LEAVE coins in acetone; I do not suggest that, but rather use of the cotton bud or nap of the clean white cotton towel to tamp the surface of the coin. This method has never left any objectionable problems to even extremely valuable proofs like VIP Record proofs...

Clean with pure acetone by a simple immersion or by dabbing (NOT RUBBING) with cotton buds. Even a wash with mild dish detergent and then a liberal wash with a tamp down courtesy of a high nap white cotton towel is a good move for stabilizing the surface.

Nice price!!!

The specs according to law for a sovereign are to be within 0.051 gm, or roughly 0.26 gm for a L5. Do they have XRF machines nearby. I have seen one at a show but can't seem to find one hereabouts & they would be reasonable accurate on a non-plated piece.

As in Forrest Gump (the movie): "Run, Forrest, Run". That surely sounds to be a faker. To my recollection, the Lebanese fakes of '60s and '70s were of good gold however....