VickySilver

Bernie's my man....OK, guilty!

I can't fathom a thinking person voting for Trump, who in my opinion has come completely unhinged. I do understand that Hilary seems a bit stiff and not necessarily likable, but Trump is erratic to say the least and still has yet to unveil any concrete plans to us poor slobs to mention being very erratic and completely off the rails with his commentary about Mexicans, Muslims, Women, etc. - how in the world has not 1% of this crap gotten him disqualified in the minds of sentient individuals. This latest bit about questioning the validity of voting and poling is yet another example of shear lunacy (and that's putting it nicely) and interesting in light of the Republican advantages gained by, ahem, articulating this very process - like Florida?? I mean really, what does he even stand for? I'm not convinced that even he knows. Quite amusing at times, and definitely not someone to be taken seriously except that he is running for president. It seemed for a while like if he could pull his act together that he would have a chance to be elected. Shooting himself repeatedly in the foot has not really helped IMO, but even more amusing is how anyone could even vote for him - based on what? If he was consistently Right Wing, that might be dislikable to some (i.e. me), but at least voters would have an idea of what he is about. I really want somebody to point out to me what he really is for the average person in America (USA); this is something that I imagine a supporter would have to speculate on since there is nothing consistent. Loose cannon? I'd say so. Really, I've had enough of him but I guess we hopefully only have another month or so of him??

Yea, best to keep it under that hat for a bit, just in case. I could recently scarce contain my excitement on winning a bit from eBay that was evidently recognised but certainly not appreciated for the unique item that it is.

I suppose not really adding much than a seconding. This is the type of thing that happens as a progression of reaction due to residuals on the surface of the coin & most likely culprit being incomplete dipping wherein either dip residual is allowed to act OR that material the dip was to remove was not itself completely removed and is reacting anew on the surface. Another alternative is that the environment may still be penetrating the slab in the form of moisture or gasses. I do not suspect the polymer plastic of the slab itself - this is a very hard material that seems to lack the plasticiser we see in the PVC-laden flips. It breaks with very "hard" delineated fractures.

Wow, really love that golden lustre when found - I just bought a 1912 farthing that has it (for a princely total of USD 3.25).

I have always rather liked the Isle of Man Viking series of coins, especially the gold viking on horseback. The 1987 is a rather curious rendition with a somewhat goofy facial expression on the viking as opposed to the earlier 1973-83 gold series. Just wonder if anyone has ever seen or heard of the gold or platinum versions - I suspect they would sell near to bullion if found! I got the piedfort silver and regular silver versions of this (authorised mintage of the silver piedfort was 4950 but would guess its about 1/10 that actually struck).

Bit much information there, I should say. Don't recall coins being collected in that manner previously....

OK, I admit, I liked the "before" better...

One of the things I find interesting is the basic orientation of the Royal Mint vis-a-vis this coin in comparison with the U.S. Treasury and their attitude toward the 20 Dollar gold piece of 1933. The RM could find no evidence of it being stolen so it must be OK, whereas the US has stated because there are no records of the gold piece being issued that it must be stolen - even though all weights and counts were correct at the time, and that there was technically a window that these could be exchanged for.... And how about the various VIP proofs such as the 1952 half crown where no records available as to how or circumstances of it leaving the mint. What do readers think that the 1954 penny would make in an auction today; or the 1952 penny or the mentioned half crown??

Followed a couple of lots at St. J today: 1838 Halfcrown 1700 pounds plus 20% = 2040 1854 Shilling 4400 pounds plus 20% = 5280 What think readers? I think the former possibly about right, with a bit of gain. The latter is close to what I had predicted & about the equivalent of the NGC64 that sold earlier in the year.

Cathrine, good work there on the 1871. I think this illustrates the value of being there in-person, so doubly good really. This coin reminds me from the pics, of the Rt. Honorable Gerald Jackson's pennies from this era.

No, had to drop my son off at school as we are on a 5 hr time difference from GMT. I want to try the chat out, maybe on the weekend. Any highlights?

These are going high, took a look this morning and tried without success on a few lots. I have three "nice" 1871 pennies, including two with much lustre, but I liked the one for sale at DNW today. Unfortunately, not in hand and nobody to view for me so dropped out as the bidding hit 1700 which is over 2k with the juice! I thought that possibly the 1869 went for low at 2k - I have a better so passed.

Excellent! Very nice to have finds that are good buys and with eye appeal. I sometimes get extra coins of dates or varieties I already have because I like the individual coin!

No that is the strike, not the dip.There is a bit of ?friction on Britannia's bust - or is that just variable toning... BTW, if the price was right it is indeed a handsome coin.

Nice bit there! You look to have good taste; I always think it right to pay just that little bit extra for an attractive piece. As to the original topic, I recently bought a PCGS65CAM[eo] 1937 crown even though I had an under graded "64" because it was just that little bit better that I liked. As to the '82H: I don't think it's been messed with other than possibly being dipped in something similar to the "MS70" copper dip which leaves coins with a bit of a bluey/purple tone. One of the proof copper 1860 farthings has been treated in this way....

Nick is spot on; to clarify, the dies are "pickled" by acid exposure after devices and lettering are engraved & as these are recessed they are protected from the polish applied to the higher field surfaces on the die & with progressive strikes the cameo effect is progressively lost. As copper-nickel is harder, the 0.500 coins such as the OP tend to wear a bit faster than earlier .925 bits & then the later 1950, '51, '53 issues that have no silver are even harder so with the passage of time (perhaps not such precise mint work on dies??), the cameo effect is lost earlier and earlier - if that makes sense. An interesting bit is how one separates VIP proof strikes from the deeper cameo ordinary strikes, as they are supposedly worth a substantial premium. In short, I have collected 20th C. proofs for many years and am not always certain of the difference. In hand, I THINK that I can tell the difference but there are certainly some borderline coins. This problem is analogous to that with the Victorian currency vs. Maundy threepences...

Yes, as per Jelida. But also I have seen just a haze, not oily, that seems amenable to removal. Then of course there is the PVC slimy green that only damages the metal after longer exposure. Please see my posted CGS85!!!!!! Specimen 1935 Rocking Horse with what looks to be bright green verd attacking the surface.

I sometimes think "verd" is a strong term as occasionally it is only a light veneer of oxidation which even soap and water, or the infamous acetone may be able to remove. Maybe its being picky, but IMO verd has oxidized into the underlying metal which has suffered irredeemable loss.

Neil, congratulations on the appointment & am sure all here wish you the best with this new endeavour. Now a bit more of a corporate world I should imagine, as per the suit and tie comments above. Well, given that Baldwins have moved, the basement fantasy a bit gone but perhaps some coins are still stuck in the back of drawers somewhere??That basement was always one of my biggest fantasies & pleaded on several occasions to even walk down the stairs into it.

Looks not unreasonable (like that assessment?). A bit like a couple I have; can't remember, but there is a name for the effect seen where details start to, well, mush out and toward the defect. The apparent radius of smaller clips should tend to be INCREASED slightly as per the clip at 4 o'clock as the center is deflected slightly more outward than the apices at either end - if that makes sense. I vote that its the real deal with only nominal value. If pressed, I'd say maybe 10 quid or so if the crud and fingermarks cleaned up with a bit of acetone (i'm not a buyer!).

Well, that might be a tad optimistic. I got the last off metal strike from London coins that graded out at PCGS65 and was about 250 quid by recollection. Also bought an OMS 1981 penny OVERSTRUCK on a 1956 6d where the original date is legible under the overstrike for about 400....If truly copper-nickel I would guess about 100 or so might be the best to expect with a dealer offering half that. I'm not a dealer at all, and collect these avidly but like others want a top condition piece...

Really nice if early strike crowns with cameo contrast, the same going for the coins making up the 1950 set, especially the penny.

Hi Wendy! And welcome!! With regards to your questions: are you sure those are Maundy threepences (as silver 3ds were struck for circulation). With these as well as your other coins, condition or preservation is everything, not to mention date or variety. If you can post pictures (and I am awful at this), that would be most helpful. All the best, Eric

Wow, those are some pictures, all of them. But Dave, really nice '02 half crown and '45 crown that sustained the blowup to pie plate size!