VickySilver

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.

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....

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!

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 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???

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....

And I think for an EF or better coin, that might be an option....?!....

I too think damaged Vick crowns a problem at sale, sad to say I'm in the 50 quid camp...

I did a careful measurement, and came up with the measurement from the outer point of the "1" to the Left Upright of the "N" at the beginning of the diagonal downstroke is pretty much exact distance as that from outer point of the "1" to the mark on your coin. I'm still not sure how there is not an area of increased relief around it as perhaps might be expected if the remainder of the mintmark was ground away on the die....

I'm still getting a delta (space difference) of greater magnitude from the left facing tip on the top stroke of the "1"to the nearer stroke of the H on the mint marked coin greater than on your specimen - if that makes sense.

Hi there, I meant gash to the die. I used some homemade calipers and compare the spot on your coin to the "H" and both upstrokes on the "N" and it (the "dot"/die ding) does not line up, at least with the placement of those particular H and KN mintmarks.

On my monitor it appears as more of a mini-gash with a bit of different toning about it, and not so much a dot? I agree the location curious but still don't see it the way other "dots" are, appearing as though a dedicated punch was at work. If a partially expunged mintmark, I would think more of a dished area in relief....

Hmmm, looks like die nick as opposed to purposeful dot...

Die prep, the latter. Former, a bit of scrunge left a slight bit of increase oxidation - hopefully not raised.

Yes, indeed, very nice coins. I like some nice mostly "red" copper/bronze coins that are rather well struck. For some reason, the KN coins of 1918 and 19 come with better obverses than the H's so finding a non-mushy H is a nice thing indeed. I remember reading some years ago that there was a hoard of 18H's that came to market but that whilst red, all were of the mushy obverse type (hey, did I "coin" a new hyper-varietal? - No, just a die state....).

I had been thinking a bit about this, and think perhaps a glance (gawk) at the PCGS grading bit might be of interest. I can think of one example of a coin I am fully prepared to accept as "uncirculated" that happens to be slabbed in a PCGS64 - the coin is a fully prooflike 1893 Jub Head 6d that has only the lightest of bag marks, beautiful and clearly not having knocked or rubbed about in somebody's pockets. Coinery, it seemed to me that is just the definition the earlier posters were putting up....

Uh, Dave had it right, I am just sick of people going off pop reports from the slabbers; obviously I do not know you from any other. Possibly there are other coins out there of merit that may be equal or even better, who knows? There are some coins that are absolute beauties, no question. Funny how the bit about negatives came out as I suppose I can't judge myself but think I am rather a positive person who loves nice milled coins, particularly silver and copper. Well, sorry if taken wrong but possibly not in the w--ker mode.... PS - I have coins that are a full 50 points better than the next reported by ANY slabbed and yet don't make the "finest known" claim.

Well, like to see the picture of the latter. I must say, as apparently do many others, that such claims are rather hollow ("finest known"). I find the 19H is very hard to find well struck and nicely preserved - moreso than the 18H.