VickySilver

I'm always amazed that coins like the 1917 6d when close to fully struck with full lion's nose, tail, etc. and then great hair detail on G5 don't attract more premiums when up for sale. I can PM pics but have shut down on being able to directly post....Dinosaur that I am. Keep the great pictures coming.

That 1915 is well struck to both methinks.

Brow ridge and hair detail not to keen on this one and like the points introduced IMO are a result of soft strike/worn dies. Although these are common malady issues for the war years primarily 1914-18 some specimens can be found that have surprisingly few. CGS does seem to have been a bit lenient on this one. Technical grading, BTW, would not "hit" a coins numerical grade for soft strike as that would be how it left the dies. So-called "market grading" would of course ding the numerical grade for soft strike; one problem is that there is year to year variance, and even likely die variance between coins.

Hey, I know that one! No, actually another specimen....At least CGS is a bit nicer to matte proofs when it comes to grading than the US TPGs! An exception occurred with the 1927 mattes that went through ? Superior or Heritage recently that did get SUPERGRADES but not nicer than other specimens of that date.

I second that - very, very nice penny there.

Wow, like your enthusiasm after 35 years! Not to pirate the thread, but the just-finished Heritage auction had a currency 1937 crown in NGC65 that appeared a bit pedestrian in my eyes for the grade and they had some '02 crowns earlier that just did not seem to match the grade; the American TPGs are very hard on these usually in my experience as they do not tolerate the "mint wipes" on the '02s or any cheek/eyebrow chatter on currency crown bits.

Yes indeed, that's my experience as well. The only thing I can say is that they are not at all consistent in grading of these 1902 mattes, not to mention those of later date "non-standard" years. One can only speculate as to the reasons because I can not say I agree at all with some of the grading on individual specimens. I have also seen some auctions such as Goldbergs that have numerous specimens of both the crown and the larger gold with what appear to be very liberal grading. On the other hand I did get one of the old ANACS graded matte pieces that was in fact far better than its "60" grade. 91 has got to be a sensational coin and would like to see well-lighted pictures in Hi Def of it....

Yes, it's those capsules I'd like to get a few of as I have some loose bits and they are not only large but evidently not commonly sized. I really like the central design on the 1984 coin that shows the Native guide just above Balboa's shoulder pointing out to the Pacific.

And I wanted to see "The Coinery" collections....

I guess if you get the number and the slab it might be off to Heritage? I was shocked at some of the prices fetched in the Central States auction just finished.

I had an 1871 that had considerably less in the way of hairlines and location of them "body bagged". I wouldn't be too sure....

Yikes, no promises on the plastic composition on the China capsules... I am looking for the 61 mm size for a few of those enormous Panama 20 Balboa bits (chunks?).

Out of curiosity, have you ever seen a 1966 or 1967 3d in Record Proof. I always see these listed but have not seen any in 25+ years; I am not certain they exist and Spencer in his 1982/83 articles in the J. of the American Numismatic Assoc. did not list them - these by the way should be standard reading for anybody interested in the VIP Record proof series of 1926-1970.....

PS - Annealing may also raise surface precious metal content if memory serves... I wonder what the control values were for XRF of other Wreath crown dates....

Quick note, and not to ambush the OP, but XRF can be a bit faulty and only reports composition of the SURFACE layer of metal and presupposes constant alloy content through the whole piece. I don't recall now if the RM utilised this practice but there is a process of "pickling" blanks/planchets by immersing them in acids of varied strength, and this leaches what are termed the "less noble" metals out and thereby increasing the precious metal (ie silver) content of the surfacemost alloy. So, a more destructive test might test the hypothesis of increased silver content of the 1934 crown issue....

Ah, only playing backup....

Chris - I'd buy at that level. Do you take Paypal or other payments from the states?

Why Peter, not altogether charitable in your responses these days. Guess there's some spunk in you! If you must, our friend PWA said: "gorged". I was unsure as to the reference & thought perhaps he had bought a few (and/or expensive) lots. So yes, English is our language and perhaps I do even have a bit of civilization or a degree or two or three with a mother that is now a retired English Professor....

Uhh, buying I take it? Cpl nice pieces there....

Ah, yes, tread lightly there grasshopper. There were very few overall Wreaths struck and PL specimens abound. Since many proofs of that era did not have cameo devices, they appear rather specimen-like. I have known this series for over 25 years and managed what I believe to be a complete set in proof incl. the 1927 matte (but sadly not the 1926 pattern reverse!). I have seen a number that were slabbed as proof and in fact, were not. Also, grading on these seem to be all over the map even on those that likely are proof. There are in many sources quoted to be 5-10 made of the 1928-1934 and the 1936 & I think it may be double that. I had tried to arrange a rarity scale in terms of which were least to most common of the proofs at one time; here goes my current estimates: 1930, 1929, 1931, 1936, 1934, 1932, 1933, 1928. You'll notice that the two scarcest currency dates, 1934 and 1932 seem to be more common as proof. I think that is because a number are in fact not and are early die stage currency strikes. BTW, George's cheek, brow ridge, and mustache corner are vulnerable to poor strike and frequent bag and handling marks as are the reverse flower stamens and the orb cross or inverted "T" - not the cross that surmounts it as much.

Although I have seen some NCG64 coins that are crazy nice!

Correct term is : matrix for singular, matrices plural. This is the en relief positive image that these show. I am lucky enough to have one of the reverse of the English 1937 shilling.

These are not recorded to my knowledge for either piece. The 1951 was stated in proof by ESC (I believe) and recently sold for - I think - 3600 quid!!!! I believe I have seen one other for sale and do not have one, sad to say. The matte proofs are perhaps more common than has been stated in catalogues such as ESC, Coincraft, and the like where it is commonly stated to be 1-2. I have seen enough sales to feel confident in stating there are likely above 5 in PRIVATE hands alone, let alone fixed collections such as the BM, Ashmolean, etc. I would feel more comfortable minteage was listed as "est. 10"

They look to be matrices....

I may at that. The window sill beckons as I'm really not a fan of "bright cleaning". I think these coins lose just that little bit of lustre with cleaning, even dipping - they do not have original mint appearance IMO, as has been stated, and reasons given many other times (please see Weimar White's book on Coin Chemistry).