VickySilver

Yes, I concur with that bit. Also such dates as 1858, many in the mid-1870s. As per the shilling post, you better duck if you want a top 1854 or 1863!

Think I'd stick to the Young Heads, the Jubs and Widows just don't do anything for most people (well, me at least). The earlier Young Heads appear much more crisply executed - which they were - and are a lot more attractive. I suppose it comes down to a matter of budget, but some years are not all that dear: 1842, 1864, 1866, etc. Attractive and well preserved examples are out there. Might have to don a suit of armour to compete for the 1848/6s and 1850, 52, 54, 63, etc. in top grade.

I should think that would be of value at bullion....Not that scarce. Still if good gold, you can't argue with that!

??Real but polished, esp. the obverse.

Hmm, PM me for a better offer. LOL, but true. OK, the obverse on this coin (date) comes absolutely terrible, so just a bit of wear on a bad strike/worn die is gonna drop it in grade. I might even go gVF as a grade because of this particular coin and its traits - that would be more of a technical grade in terms of actual wear.

This has been reviewed before though your answer will appear shortly no doubt. My recollection was that if legitimate that it was a filled die. Oops see that SS beat me to it just now.

And do you know that I have had coins rejected with the most minuscule of planchet defects, not strike or wear deficiencies as well as other such.... Yes, please do look at the coin itself; I think the holders are pretty good but not impervious to nasty environments of moisture and chemicals.

Ach! That's a beauty! PW - can you post the verd pennies? I think oftentimes the pinpoint type of verd is the result of human spittle flecks (yuck!) or worse yet, sneeze flecks...These are just as hard to remove once the excrescence is "popped" off as there is basically oxidation of the underlying metal alloy. As others no doubt have, I have seen many otherwise lovely copper/bronze coins spoiled by such.

Agreed. I do think that if grease-filled that some of these lettering "errors" might improve with successive strikes rather than increase as presumably the heat and contact of striking would gradually lessen the grease filling the lettering...

OK, will repeat: the '94 dipped. Who was the culprit? I don't presume to guess. I'll stick to my guns on this - that is dipped, based on the photos. That is not the right appearance for 120+ year old silver even if wrapped in the finest Queen's silks (or I should imagine!). Still will likely slab at CGS, and my guess is 75/78 or in the generally more accepted grading schema: ~62. Too much "action" for a "63".

Yes, bit of clanky conversation between the occupants! Never quite sure how this tends to concentrate on the obverse but guess the rims are not protecting...

Still looking for this set - rumoured but not confirmed by either Royal Mint or the Bank of Jamaica. It is my recall that the RM had a collector's bulletein and wonder if it might have been pictured in that at some juncture. On many occasions they are not all that timely and may not even have issued this set (if they ever did) as late as midway or so into 2003...

Dippity dip on the last. I really like the first coin's reverse but as has been stated, lots of bag chatter on the obv. That would probably go 55 at the TPGs...

Hmm, not my experience, although not sure what contaminants you've run into! Another method is to flood a white cotton high nap (and very clean) towel with acetone and tamp the surface....I guess writing procedures down on the internet is one thing, the doing another. A bit far away, but PM me if you are ever on this side of the pond and see if I can arrange a demo. I will confess to having quite a bit of chemistry along the way, so the use of solvents a bit of second nature. The dangerous method I would NOT recommend is electrolysis - and I don't mean hair removal. I've had good results, and disastrous results; the best was a proof 1936 penny that came out superbly, the worst an unfortunate currency1886 half crown that was spoiled.

OK, I admit, I clean proofs with acetone and dish detergent (not at the same time) but use the best grade acetone - never a rub or smear and rinse liberally with aforementioned mild dish detergent and then much more water and tamp dry with very good results, if I can self-report. However, I would on first instinct NOT TOUCH a proof and am very careful on a coin by coin basis which I might use these techniques on. I have had very good results if using sense on this...

IMO, fake!! Real ones in uncirculated still bring about 4k quid, sometimes more & sometimes less.

Dipped. This coin by photo has actually IMO lost some of its original lustre even though bright. Has a bit of a bleached appearance which overlapping may do - not just remove toning....

NOT! He has got to be kidding. An interesting combo, but errors just don't bring that even in the US of A. I can see that as a max 2k quid coin that I would go maybe to 500 on.

Likely cleaned/dipped without obvious hairlines which usually means market-acceptable. Pleasant appearing coin there.

I just bought an upgrade MS64 1882 for about 500 pounds, and it was a nice specimen... Anyway, the later Young Head 2/6 are overpriced IMO in Spink (1874-1887), even for nicer specimens; sometimes I think they just put an automatic ratchet on the prices of certain cons. Anyway, Let Peace Reign gentleman.

Postscript: I did manage to secure the 1853 groat from the recent Heritage sale but yet to have it in hand. Graded NGC45 but actually looks a bit nicer, if slightly toned, and comparable to the nicer "currency" Placsom coin above. Yay! The pattern of Mr. Fass would be exceedingly rare & I think two of those have shown in the last 10 years or so - at times that I just couldn't compete. Interesting to see what competition for such a coin would lead to price wise.

I'd like to see some more details, though the 1839 pleasant.

Wow! A beautiful coin. I've left these alone entirely (along with the 1 1/2d, and the 2d)....

Weigh the halfpenny please. I believe it should be just under 5.7 gm (maybe 5.5 or so with some wear) and not much less; less would mean likely smoothing down of the reverse with metal loss.

Also have seen such baked with aluminium foil!