VickySilver

I was rather disappointed at the state of several of my "winnings" as the coins obviously had been dipped but not mentioned in their descriptions and not obvious from the online pictures I saw - the 1858/9 and the more important 1863/1. Was also true of the 1878 that was part of a two coin lot. Will keep them, but surely demonstrates the importance of either seeing the lots in person or having a representative do so (my usual arrangements fell through). Additionally there were a couple bits that went a bit higher than estimated: the proof 1839s (esp. the "WW") and proof 1867. As a friend of mine rephrased: "shiny sells"! And guilty I was as well for even unwittingly buying a couple of shiny bits

I sometimes think that as well, not to mention the unknown to the observer consignor. These are supposed to be blind gradings but never altogether sure of that bit. The crown in question IMO does not have real wear but suffers from enough rub that I would have expected it to be "body bagged", especially on the reverse. In any case that is the net grading that is likely occurring .

Wow, you really did well. I certainly was not willing to fess up with a bid to beat that 1300 on the DNW piece in any case (I did get the 1863/1 shilling however).

Well, NO RESPONSE from the Royal Mint so no surprise. That was a waste writing them....

ESC has them at R3 which IMO may be a bit of a stretch. I do have one but the question just came to mind.

Jaggy, what did the other 1863 6d in MS65 go for?

Sorry, no answer here... Jaggy, what happened with the 1863 6d? My computer conked out its internet and so was not able to bid, though did get a couple of shillings...

Quite.

Don't really know the series but don't like the flatness on crown...Might still go F tho.

No, only on copper alloy with prolonged exposure. Notum: must be pure acetone as has been discussed elsewhere. Here we call them hardware stores (like Home Depot) and a quart is about USD7.00 or so.

Don't think I'd bother with the lower grade bits if there is not adherent surface contamination. You'll not make proofs out of VGs! LOL!

Don't look to remove all the patina, as much is oxidized surface and will not be affected by the acetone. I don't see that this has done a lot after the acetone as we have many times seen. I think you will not venture a lot to experiment yourself with acetone on lesser valued bits. You will not ruin them. Bright "red" copper may be affected by prolonged exposure to alcohol for complex chemical reasons. Obvious green, gunky, and greasy surfaces can be improved a lot as you will likely see and especially on higher silver content coins (0.835+).

Funny, I agree with that - you have a nice bit and then another comes along that seems just that little bit better. I really don't recommend looking at these under high power mag as the hairlines start to appear as canyons...They are IMO truly lovely.

Hi Paulus, Had a look over your set there. I would say about an average set, which is not to say unattractive. They look to have the usual wipe, esp. the shilling near the lion on reverse. IMO, probably the most important surface of all of these would be the Crown obverse, and then the Crown reverse - the former looks good on this site. The florin is rather attractive as well. Obviously I like proofs and so am a bit biased here (even a bad proof on a bad day is a good coin) so this is a bit price dependent - and not that I would expect you to share this bit. Proofs are also seemingly on the move, though the earlier Vicky (!!) bits a bit steeper; I lean toward thinking that the later Eddie and Georgie 5 plus maybe the George 6 Crowns may follow.

Thanks for posting! This is actually an ebay purchase that was about 25 USD by recollection. I still did not take credit for a currency 1853 on it, should I? Regardless, this overdate is far more rare than what seems to be inferred from Spink. PS I managed to secure the 1853 currency groat from the last major Heritage sale, and even with it in hand can not say with certainty that it is not a lightly circulated proof, though I lean toward that coin being currency.

Yikes! OK, I'm impressed. I haven't bought that many in 5 years. Have you a census of them that you can share with us?

Yes, like those as well. I have a bunch of patterns as well as the unintentional OMS.

Oh, OK, I am quite aggressive on buying predecimal OMS as you may have gathered. Good that they went to a good home!

Are coins still available?

Don't know about how many bargains on key coins, but possibly on jobber lots...

Uggh! Please don' t use the words "shiny" or "polish(ed)" when it comes to proof, or maybe any coins. "Shiny" at best is imprecise, and implies lack of knowledge of coins. "Polish(ed)" evokes thoughts of the surface of coin being worked over with a cloth or other such. Anyway, a pleasing coin to be sure and nicer than that I have in my by date penny collection.

Edges not there and not quite as crisp as necessary in devices (see B's breast for example). Not proof sadly.

Hi Martin, PM me with email and i'll send it - i am not able to post on these pages for some reason...

Well, I have one in the GEF range. Overdates I think are just not that exciting, no matter how rare. Another bit even more rare IMO is the 1843/54 groat that looks like a corrupted 1853. To the Vicky silver collector (hmmm, possibly not just me) these are not all that significant no matter the rarity. I have seen a number for sale in the VF range and though I have not counted, and can not rule out listings of the same coin, believe it not as rare as advertised in any case.

Ah, Peter, I am but a grasshopper...You are right, just not here to speak [too] badly of anyone.