VickySilver

Hmmm, a couple of those sources have been questionable on occasion.... Best of luck. Post any pictures?

Does anybody know what Lot 2631 fetched (the 1951 plain edged crown)?

OK, I have to add this bit in as I have been collecting for a while myself and possibly have seen a coin or two. Although some coins are obvious as to their designation, some are IMO not. To put the cart before the horse, I would say that overall is that there is no clear borderline between many of the 19th C. proofs in silver and high quality specimen or even currency pieces. I know that complicates things a bit, but I have seen some come coins certified or offered in a major auction as proof that I would not accept as such and just the opposite as well. Another "corollary" set would be the currency/Maundy 3ds. What I have seen is individuals state that THEY would only accept a coin as proof if it demonstrated "X" quality. In no way does that fully exclude coins intended and apparently prepped as proofs by the mint itself. Why? No matter how seemingly rigid guidelines at the mint might be, I am not at all certain they were followed at all times. There are so many examples, but one would be the proof coinage of 1839 that was apparently struck and released under many circumstances over many years. Other issues could well be urgency of production: how soon sets or coins might be required for particular people or events. And what about other factors? Does a coin struck slowly with increased striking force with an early stage die produce equal or possibly even greater device detail, mirroring of fields, or crisp rims and milling compared with a coin struck twice or multiple times at a lower striking force? Because a coin is issued as part of a set, be it currency, specimen, or proof mean that it must match in quality or production its set mates? I have certainly seen sets that were apparently original with varied quality of coins within. I could go on and on....

Reverse looks very proofy, the obverse not. As I have posted elsewhere, this is a vintage for the Royal Mint that very prooflike silver was struck. I have seen some offered as proofs even from non-standard years that IMO are not. Not well-worded, but I feel a coin has to prove its proof status to be accepted as such. BTW, a nice coin there!

True, but sometimes an apparent pattern seems to mitigate toward the former. And I say this in the best possible way as with his help I have gotten some nearly impossible pieces at fair prices.

Most say 5x to 10x, erring toward the former.

How about Glens in the "good ole days"? Wow, that was conservative... Croydon, well, caveat emptor! Spink, I agree. Mark R. I like, but has recently shown some propensity to dip his silver (not in all cases). Steve H. & Baldwin I agree...

Ah yes, tried to get that off you! LOL I like the 1946 OMS trial strikes in copper nickel but can't seem to find even record of the florin and halfcrown. Anybody? Rob?

Very nice pictures, indeed. What I was trying to say in my earlier post is that some of the [IMO] polishing lines extend up into the lower relief portions of the devices such as on image 2. Also, it has probably erroneously been reported in various sources that polish lines should not be multidirectional - I think this not to be true and is seen particularly in the field of the image 12; those on the images 9 and 13 are not clear as I can not seem to make out whether these lines are raised or not. Image 11 also leaves me uncertain, but 10 seems to show die polish lines into the devicesThe ear prominences that are a bit rough are not wear but incompletely struck metal. There do appear to be some possible hairlines but none I can tell absolutely; I am still of the opinion as I see the photos that the vast majority are still die polish. It is interesting that some of these die polish lines remind me a bit of haymarking planchet adjustment marks made prior to striking on 17th and 18th C. issues.

You're getting sleepy..... LOL

I concur that the majority of the "hairlines" are die polish, even some on the DEVICES, and that many in the field are multi-directional. The coins have likely been dipped with light retoning but nothing out of the ordinary. What I do not see good evidence of is actual hairlines. It is unusual (maybe I have just not seen too many as close up as blowups of your photos) that the apparent hairlines go up on to the devices, but that is clearly the case. I don't see anything personally worrisome but at the end of the day you should be happy with your not inconsiderable purchase.

Yes, I have quite a few intentional and unintentional OMS (off metal strikes). The mint not only took 1967 liberally, but actually nearly all of the earlier 60s as well with 63-66 era also with many OMS. My favorite is either Secret Santa's 19KN penny or the 1920 specimen matte half penny from Nicholson.

Uhh, that would quad the price! Easily....

Well, better than "worst known". On some rare coins, esp. USA it probably holds a lot more meaning...Maybe some coins like the 1850 shilling or 1851 proof florin might come a bit closer.

Just the photo, but from it looks a lot like a PCGS66 if no hairlines....

YAY!!!

Mo' money, mo' money! Welcome to collecting!!! Seriously though, that is as nice as the crown in my collection that I looked at many pieces to get and the box looks in good nick as well with the gold line inside the box lid preserved and the linen (?) nicely preserved after 90 years. DO IT! Ha, ha and LOL...

That crown is a very nice one!

Yes, good thought there. I have some difficulty getting such. I have an another inquiry out to the Royal Mint submitted through their net site, now out several weeks with a promised response time of one month (yeah, right!). Actually, I was not only trying to find out about this set but also their habit of not being clear as to how many of their sets of this country and year and others as well were actually struck and DELIVERED. In other words, how many were released. I asked this bit because many reported mintages are actually the number authorised, not how many struck or released. Some coins with pointless commemoration like the 1980s Jamaica Tyco Brahe (the ?Danish astronomer) had mintages authorised up to 10,000 or so and yet I very much doubt that many were released. I would guess there were not a lot of fans of the [very ugly] later date Jamaica proof sets with droll National Heroes and dubious commemorative crowns such as the World Junior Track and Field (Athletics) Championships - so that an authorised max mintage of 500 may be very inaccurate as far as the numbers actually released. I had some luck in the past by contacting Bank of Jamaica directly, and had gotten from them sets well over 20 years old! I was also able to locate one of the rarities in the form of a 1999 set, which at first they said they did not have. They could tell me nothing of the 2002 sets, even though I have seen on eBay at least the mentioned crown offered separately.

Yes, nice bit there. I have seen some with very good hair and beard detail struck up well. I have one with almost a matte proof appearance that may have been a special strike and then there is the extraordinary example that listed on the PCGS site which is some sort of specimen: #512833 - that one looks to be considerably BETTER than 61.... Click on the image as it comes up for a very nice enlargement; I like to do that on their site and is a nice feature.

I think they may have gotten carried away by the reverse - from the in-slab and slightly less closeup photo it looks to have very nice lustre of a type sometimes known as "hard lustre". I really don't see wear on the obverse as much as bagmarking and a bit of softer strike in the usual areas. I think I could see it as a 63 if that self-same lustre is as good as it hints at. My understanding of the "plus" grade is that it is mainly based on aesthetics like lustre, and strike (which this seems IMO not to have).

Interesting as I was just looking over my shillings to see if there were possible upgrades and see Proolike strikes on most years from 1838-1849 & then some more in the 1850s as well. Also, the 1880s and right on through the Jubs - some of those that have been listed as Record proofs from non-standard years such as 1889-91 IMO are not fully proof; nor are they substantially different or better from some of the PLs I've seen.

Please save yourself some quid and duck buying from the LC sales site - those are high. The 1859 is not rare either but can come very nice and almost proof-like. I will go ahead and hold out for the obverse of the Young Head earlier issues and they IMO are a lot more pleasing than Vick with that crazy Jub crown or the sour and dour Widow Head. I'll concede the reverse of the earlier shillings as being a bit plain, even of higher relief than the later bits...

FWIW, I will go EF on this one and am "net" grading it because of the relatively bad cheek gash.

Oops, meant 1851 as the 1852 is one of the more common dates. Yikes!