VickySilver

Hmm, wonder what the tale of the secondary market would be???? Ouch!!!!

Adam, this is a coin right square in my area & would readily tell you that based on the photos that this is definitely a VF (perhaps a bit on the high side of that) and only slightly downgraded because of the edge hits. That would be very unfair to call it only F.

Yikes, please let's not go down this row....

Yes, I have tried to be diplomatic but definitely "caveat emptor". I many years ago got a very nice pattern model 1927 shilling for a quite decent price and got a couple of off metal strikes for a song. I still look but haven't been back since Laurie passed. Really just trying to alert our loyal forum members, if they needed it....

Thanks for that, wish I knew who it was that sold their collection through Spink (think it was SNC Jan '01) - hello, Rob? As much as Vick silver is my thing, I really think this and a couple of the 1918 & 1919 H &KN coins are amongst my collection favourites. Think I will have my photographer dad (he's 76) take a couple of good pictures of this 26ME though. Oh, how I miss the glory days of Spink SNC! They single-handedly were responsible for what I hope is a decent collection of currency Vick and better 20th C; for a while the DNW auctions were quite "the bomb" as well.

There are a lot of slabbed "bright" coins that must have been dipped, so that may be to their whim. A lot of those Gothics have a purple tone that makes me think they may have been stored with some kind of felt or other similar material & then they have some of the other colours. You should see some of the PCGS posts on colour progression (I don't remember crystallography to well from chemistry, but looks like they took some basic truths and ran with it & IMO their opinions a load of BS). A coin retoned 50 years ago would I think not be so obvious and would likely generally escape detection. However, I have seen some coins that appear suspicious for old cleaning and not retoned, I think just through experience. I still think based on picture presentation that the OP coin is likely legit though, and have seen a few.

Admittedly only from the pictures (thanks, Nordie!!), but I don't see a problem with that coin in particular as it appears to have relatively near normal toning or at least within the range of what one sees. I don't particularly have a problem with the TPG concept, but their grading is at times a bit inconsistent. It might give you that bit of extra value if it was to land in a PCGS holder with a numerical grade - how about PCGS of Europe and get a dealer to submit?

OK, can't fool you guys, this IS an ME. It slabbed [iMO very conservatively] at PCGS as 65RB. I looked at the NGC65 '26 ME that was sold I believe last year that did not hold a candle to it. I have been quite chuffed all these years as when I took delivery of the coin listed as "GEF" I knew it was the best I'd ever seen. complete with a better than seen in pictures strike and absolutely blazing lustre - I was even a bit disappointed at the 65 grade as it looked as they say a "lock 66, maybe 67". Well, just a slabbed grade... This coin encouraged me to obtain a couple of the nicer G5 bits so have them as well, and then fill out the currency series by date with the best I could find and leaving the "hypervarietals" to you lot! LOL>

Ha ha, yea might be after I pass on....Actually the coin is better struck through Brit's helm than it looks and nearly flawless - this was from the SNC about 2001 when a collection of late milled was sold. Gave up on trying to post so Coppers kind enough to pitch in. I know this is kid stuff to the penny aficionados, but take a guess - Old or Modified Effigy?

Pictures?

Hi Chingy, Yes, those are all the better dates. I have a very good run of 3d and groats but lack a couple in true currency - the big gap is the '53..

Rob I am able to sign in about 1/4 the way down the left side of the home page on PCGS site.

Hmmm, yes we did forget to mention that bit. Not called pot-metal for anything though, this alloy is total junk as far as collectors. I have a number of VIP proofs that don't look too bad, but let there be a fingerprint (or worse). However this is true even of silver - remove the oxidation and crud and no telling what you get as sometimes the "crud" is protecting the underlying metal a bit and then you have residual variegate toning.

Oops, meant upper left.....

Hmmm, I think there was a sign in on the upper right, which I noticed after initial problems like yours.... They need some of your sense over there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yea! LOL!! Doesn't give those neon metallic toners tho! I am not sure if those are silver Morgans and the like baked in the oven plus or minus aluminium foil...

OK, Rob you have me laughing over that bit about showers as I am of the same opinion. There was one collector who shall remain nameless that collected SOVEREIGNS by die state (and die number!!)....

Old tried and true American approach: get napkin from Taco Bell (which is loaded with sulfides, etc. ) and wrap up plus expose to increased heat....

CC's was better than this one, but much of the detail on this specimen is rather sharp. Definitely better than VF, but not EF overall with the unfortunate rim dings - a better picture always nice but I'd stick my neck out to GVF. The thing is, Brit milled coins of this vintage seem to be pulled a bit by that American phenomenon whereby just a bit of grade or toning improvement can occasionally translate to multiples in value increase. This date seems to be all over the map in sales as far as prices as with the higher values given in catalogues and the Auction sales prices, more seem to emerge from the recesses. Very nice ones as well - check the Heritage specimen in MS64 that recently sold....

Seconded. But FWIW, the reverse in your second set of pictures appears MUCH better. I am inclined to push it more in the positive direction (genuine), but this is a valuable coin and "in hand" inspection quite frankly would be required. Keep us posted as there appears to be a good chance that you have the real thing, which if so would imply a value of a couple of thousand pounds!

Let's see if I can walk through it later in the week - visiting a "friend with benefits" right now. I think the proof that has been bandied about may have been an 1841 (?). Rather like the nicer '39 proofs, for some reason somewhat better than the 1853 proofs...

Hmmm, very interesting. Except for what looks to be verdigris, that appear to be a nice looking specimen there - can't really make out the cleaning extent. These should be looked at in detail, perhaps a reputable dealer near to you. Any keys in there?

Agreed, some of the obverse beading looks a bit dodgy though the central Vicky device not too bad and fairly crisp. The reverse, though blurry just does not look quite right. Not prepared to condemn though. As I posted with the 3d post [that nobody seems to care about], I believe a coin like this has to be confirmed as the real thing as opposed to assuming good and then finding problems with it. I know that is a bit pessimistic, but hopefully safe in this day of increasingly improved counterfeiting.

Wow, have not seen or heard of these...I got a proof 1860 bunhead lying around somewhere & don't (horror of horrors!!) know the F#.

Pictures would be nice, if you can manage. I'm really bad at that myself. This would critical as from your description it is hard to tell exactly what you are talking about.