VickySilver

Yikes, I've been over this before. The main difference is in the sharpness of the devices and edges, the "finish" or surface of the coin, especially of Eddie 7 issues can either be satin like or prooflike as both are known. There are occasional lapses in quality of Maundy that will make it impossible to tell, and obviously if they are circulated it may also be impossible. On Eddie, even in the smaller modulus of the 3d, there are differences for example in the sharpness and edge of the mustache and the hair detail above and forward to the ear as well as his hair detail in general... 1906 in currency if well preserved is actually one of the scarcer Eddie dates and I mean GEF/UNC.

Yes, and hated their pics in the Yearly book - very confusing and I think there are mistakes, possibly more than would be warranted.

I don't think it ever was "in stock" at Amazon or other venues to date...I still will get it and liked the previous even though it was missing a lot and was by denomination. Rob, did they have good pictures of things like Victoria obverse and reverse types in the threepence series??

That would not be in this lifetime. Why is it that these delicacies seem to show up at least 5-6 times per year? Can't afford to hold such I'd imagine, or else they are much more common than some think??

Wow, you brought up a tricky one. Besides the proof Maundy sets from years like 1839 or 1853 there are also a few actual proofs of other years. But back to the central part of your question: I would term these specimen (even though this is a slightly nebulous term) because there was a bit more effort put into them than the standard currency coins. The threepence is a good example: these are more sharply struck, but a slight confusion arises because they could be struck in a "finish" that ranges from satin-like to more mirror prooflike, and not just one or the other but on a spectrum. Unfortunately, and because of this we see 3ds from years like 1847, 1848 and 1852 (others too) that were either not struck in currency form, or in small numbers for "Colonial usage". In fact, the coins we may see occasionally on sale directly or by auction are nearly always liberated examples from Maundy sets that are leaning toward the satin finish and this even includes coins sold by the likes of Spink in their grand old days. The giveaway? They are better struck [nearly always] than the ordinary currency pieces. This shows up on the regularity and sharpness of the denticles and the outline of the devices - I said it this way because even the central part of Vick's effigy can be slightly mushy even on these better prepped and usually better prepped specimens. Steve Hill and I some years ago had a lengthy discussion, and this is also his opinion....

This is just an addition to the Proof/specimen topic: See Lot 910 (hope I remembered the number). Many times there are coins that can fool, and I believe this "proof" 1891 shilling is an example. It appears to be early die state of a CURRENCY piece to me, complete with prooflike fields and nice micro-pebbly appearance of Vick's bust device. Many coins from the Victoria period, spanning all the way back to first issue demonstrate this, and my opinion most common in the 6d and shilling denominations.

Yes, indeed, excellent addition!

Also quality/strength of the strike. Hate to drum up the poor ole 1953 crown again, but the strength of detail reflects this as does the [overated] knife edge.

Rob would know, but it is my recall that proofs are referred to as such when mentioned in the annual mint reports... In the Bowers (?) sale of the Canadian portion of Norweb, there was a lengthy discussion on proof and specimen, etc..... Also, the Spencer article in the 1982/83 Journal of the American Numismatic Association covered it in some very nice detail (I'd like to have seen his collection if he had one)...

IMO, not as valuable obviously as an original coin, but better than the holed artifact.

Uh, well, I'm guilty of having done that and worse! Light dip will not affect the proof nature of the coin, heavier will. Do NOT use dip on copper-nickel (don't ask). Obviously NOT copper coins either. Not as good on .500 as .925 silver. If one does dip, it is possible a light dip will not do more than minimally strip SOME of the toning. 5 or 10 seconds of dip will not destroy the coin but err to the latter and nearly all toning will go. Please do rinse, wash with mild soap, and rinse liberally again with high nap cotton white towel tamp dry. Sword, IMO, that first coin has been dipped to "full original mint brilliance"...

I believe I can: The 1937 Standard proof set was indeed labelled "Specimen Coins" and sounds to be of Royal Mint origin (the box). The 1935 "specimen" Rocking Horse Crown is what we now refer to as "specimen" and was the consolation prize for those unsuccessful in obtaining the actual proof that was given for sale by lottery. It has incuse edge lettering and is not so well struck and usually not so contrasty as the actual proof. The "polished die" coin for some reason is not called "specimen" though in fact meets at least some of the definitions of that designation. Yes, these are confusing labels that change with time.....How about when an individual example of a coin is also referred to as a "specimen"? LOL

This is an area of problem, or at least IMO (in my opinion). Guilty parties, as prejudged by me, are the usual suspects: PCGS, NGC, CGS... First, as we have come to generally appreciate, they are not consistent and grading on one day may be off a point or two (or more). Examples are the 1902 Crowns in both currency and matte, when seemingly on one day the hairlines placed evidently by the diligent mint workers at the time on the mattes are on occasion punished more severely in grade than at other times and this seems to be even more true for the larger gold 2 and 5 pound pieces of this year. I have seen coins graded 65 that are not as nice overall or in respect to wipe/polish lines as those graded 62 & in one example saw an ANACS 60 graded piece superior to many in the 62 and 63 category (bought that one!). Interestingly, these ANACS graded pieces in the small holders may yield pieces undergraded even in other denominations... Even the currency pieces of this year in the crown and larger gold are problematic and inconsistently graded, with coins as far apart as, say, 63 and 65 being reversed in terms of quality. And yet in a venue like Heritage or even LCA the second higher slab-graded piece will go for multiples of the the first. This is not spilt milk, but rather a warning to be careful and also a "heads up" that if you do get an overgraded slab that is not grossly so, there may be opportunity for profit. I almost did not want to touch the subject of VIP versus Standard specimens of 1937, 1951, 1953 and 1960. This was covered just today on the PCGS foreign columns by poster "7jaguars", and the reason I am also covering it to some degree. I agree with his commentary, although he did not exhaustively cover the "hypervarietals". If we take the 1953 crown as an example, and leaving out the matte which are distinct in appearance and much scarcer (possibly 8 or as many as 10 estimated in private hands as opposed to the oft-published figure of "1-2 minted for photographic purposes") there are the basic divisions between box standard proofs and the so-called VIP proofs (hello Rob, do you know who coined this term?), and these in regular, cameo and deep cameo presentations. With all due respect again to the hypervarietal collectors, there also seem to be two basic types of strikes which are perhaps related to die state or die pressure and this is best seen on the Queen's visage and facial structure and boot details (amongst other details) on the reverse: one with blurry indistinct features & the other with more facial and boot detail. As far as cameo and "deep" or "ultra" cameo, this can be seen on either standard or VIP specimens & generally have previously been related also to die state with the state of cameo (if I can use that term) deteriorating with die life after preparation. Why is this important? Well, if you care, a coin designated as VIP can many times bring very much more money than one that is not. But that is only a label, and who put it there? If a TPG, it gives one would think, a bit more credence than any "Joe blow" off the street. However, it is my opinion that they are not regular in these designations. As an example, a recent Heritage auction had a proof VIP cameo sell in 64 for over 3k US Dollars. For fun, I just bought one on ebay at "Buy It Now" price of 27 quid that looks superior from the pictures [with the caveat that all such coins really need to be seen in hand]. So a well struck deep cameo standard piece may appear superior and match or overmatch in details a VIP! What this means to us crown collectors is that one should use caution in buying such coins and not get overly excited by a coin slabbed or even just called VIP. I could also carry on by date as there are some infamous problems with the Rocking Horse 1935 crown and those termed proofs of the standard incuse 0.500 issues that may in fact NOT be that as yet another example. Sorry for the blah, blah, blah....

What I was saying is that there is overlap, and that over 25 years I have seen this to be the case and not only with respect to amount of cameo, but also edge "sharpness" and indeed, even the details as struck up (i.e. the facial features and boot detail on the mounted QE II on the reverse of the 1953 Coronation crown. Dare I say that I have a complete set, currency and proof including mattes and patterns (xpt the 1926 Wreath pattern rev., the .925 Incuse edge proof Rocking Horse, the E8 issue and a couple of the minor edge varietals). I do agree that in most cases one can tell the difference and to repeat was stating that I have seen overlap and also that the TPGs don't always pick this up. This does not make or break my case, but a minor example appears to be the recently closed eBay item # 381371293896 Please linkify if able.

One last thought - what about the fellow Stockwell/Stockton in Kentucky USA. His site has a similar scenario half dollar by recollection with before and after shots...

Didn't think I'd bid but ended up not being able to help myself and went one for two...No Vicks Jaggy.

Egyptian cotton the best, but really not that important. Acetone does not seem to remove India ink or similar marking. I also use ammonia - carefully - on copper with the same rinse technique.

The quality of fakes coming out of ?Bulgaria can be truly outstanding as they use "original" methods to strike their coins. I have heard that occasionally original poor quality or worn silver is melted down and used for blanks - these coins then would pass metallurgy tests for metal content...

A purported Alexander tetradrachma, but this was struck afterwards by many others and I have seen many styles. I don't keep up with them though. They can come very nice, essentially mint. Hopefully somebody else can add...

I very much like the simple approach of using acetone immersion and buds of cotton to get rid of the ?gunk/organics? and then rinse with dish soap and water, then with more water and tamp down on high nap white cotton towel...

Wow St James and Spink not yet posted!

I noted in the 'throwaway" Spink Insider Magazine that a preview was given of this upcoming sale in conjunction with Coinex. Does anybody (Bernie?) know who this mysterious collector is/was - seems to defy attempts at Google search! A pseudonym??? After the Harold Jackson New York Sale, I am wondering Spink's methodology in presenting and selling pennies.....Although, I appreciated the one penny I got there.... PS There is the citation of the 43 yo English footballer, now retired - is this the same person???

Yes, true. I also think it interesting that many collectors are so shy and retiring that their very existence may not be known by many & that they amass truly wonderful collections that even fewer might be aware of until sadly they (such collectors) meet their demise. Other times the "players" are known and can be seen at auction and are known from other venues. The mystery is, of course, what it is they have managed to get hold of and the reveal at auction. Mr. Jackson had, at least in my opinion amassed a tremendous group of pennies with some being as fine as I have seen. Finally, the auction houses do frequently use pseudonyms so not at all out of line to at least suspect this as a possibility in this case quite frankly. I have been around a few years and was not aware of this collector.

I had just been wondering as Gerald (not Harold) was a quiet engineering type evidently squirreled away in far-off Georgia USA that had really good taste in pennies and was evidently well-connected at Spink in the near Grande ole Days - is this fellow another such individual?

I have a fake by possibly the slavei (??) but can't seem to find it that looks between these. The reverse figure a bit suspect but a very nice looking coin. These types of fakes - if this is one, and I'm not saying it is - are very, very deceptive and can imagine them possibly fooling an expert every now and then....