VickySilver

Delighted to have just purchased an (unlisted) as far as I know, a 1998 Jamaica proof set struck by the Royal Mint. I had not seen it for sale in the last 10-12 years of looking. I have no idea of rarity or if others are hidden away. I got this directly from Jamaica, along with a 1996 that I was unaware of until March of this year, and also what I believe is a rather scarce 1991 set. These all have 500 authorised mintage. I still do not know if 2002 sets were struck or if 1997 or 1999 sets were struck. There are no crowns from these years so possibly not as the "minors" are quite unsightly national hero series coins that are tiny. There was a 2002 crown, so there may have been a set that year. Another issue is that when a COA (certificate of authenticity) says 500 sets authorised by Royal Mint, how many were net struck, or more importantly how many were actually released, and how many might be languishing in safes somewhere?? Bank of Jamaica does not respond or seem not to know what was struck or any other details and seems to STILL have in stock 1992 and 1993 sets twenty years after release. Royal Mint does not respond to even basic inquiries....

Very good! Since I posted I was able to obtain the '97 set, which I believe is probably fairly rare. I have been looking for the 2002 set which I believe to exist as well. The '02 crown was sold on eBay earlier this year and I missed it. BTW, have you seen any of the matte 1975-77 issues - either gold or copper-nickel? Feel free to PM me any time you 'd like as these are something of a sidelight for me....

Although rumoured to exist and was pictured on a Royal Mint Bulletin, I have not seen these nor are they catalogued by Krause or others. Has anybody seen the proof set of 1997 or the individual crown - 25 dollar size?

Oh, can't we go more back to coins and the market and what may or may not be going on with the Bunhead market. There may in fact be only a few buyers at the top of the pyramid (at least as far as prices paid) with saturation point possibly reached even with nicer coins such as the proofs or '64s starting to lag a bit....??

Uhhh, those were top flight coins off of the Spink Numismatic Circular in their absolute heydey. These were and are superior coins, just high priced IMO.

Yikes, those coins would have gone for maybe 40% that even in the Heritage sale!

Meanwhile, nicer Bunheads like the 1864s and some proofs of that era and later languished. How deep is the market for top end pennies?

I would imagine there to be some adjustments coming. One thing I noticed is that they ran through the lots with rapidity, without fanfare or announcements save for the above-mentioned Una.

I will have to post the currency A4 although its on loan at the moment. I bought it in the UK some years ago, complete with a flowery description by the seller who I gather had been a collector, proclaiming it as the "discovery piece". Honestly I don't even remember what I paid for it!

This date of threepence is a bit of a rascal, and very hard to run down in the sources such as ESC, Davies, Spink & Krause. There was a DNW lot, supposedly proof and NOT Maundy. DNW Sale specimen was 18 Sept. 2012, Lot 2727 evidently proof, certainly not currency that fits best to Spink cat. 3914C. The lot description states Maundy was only of the first A2 type (same as first currency type). Can anyone verify that all Maundy was of the A2 type? OK, I admit I usually don't like the microvarietals but it is Victorian silver after all! According to DNW the revision for 1866 3d should be: A2 Currency Maundy Unknown in Proof * A4 Currency Proof (unique?) Both A4s are quite rare, if anybody cares but just wondering how it can be said that there are NO Maundies of this type?

Hope you were able to get that lot. I have an "ordinary" Maundy 3d of that date in satin variety. I guess I wouldn't necessarily have thought of Heritage for an obscure varietal.

Wow, nice bit of research there Nick. That looks Maundy to me as well. So that seems to support that there are Maundy. The Heritage bit does not look quite as nice as the DNW piece which ended up not selling in 2012 but did sell as Lot 580 in March of 2013. Can you give away the trade secret as to your search function?

BTW, the listed mintage for this last bit is 30k (!), and even with concentrated looking have seen only ONE for sale in 12 years. As stated BoJ does not even know anything about their own issue. So I still do not know whether the whole set was made in 2002. PM me if you should ever see one for sale, PLEASE. I think this begs the question about domestic Proof sets for the UK - how many actually released to public as opposed to how many authorised and yet again how many struck. I have noted that the Central Bank of Barbados states on their site indicate that the actual number they took delivery of is many times 1/10 the amount made, more sometimes and less others.

OK, I periodically dredge this up, but since I can barely afford nice later milled bits I have been chasing down some obscure and rare bits. What? Well, the Royal Mint took over striking proof sets for Jamaica in the period 1985-2001 omitting the 1986 date. Now either they have or have not issued a last year 2002 set but the RM has not responded to inquiry, and the only reference I have seen is in Krause with nary a picture or image or information available on internet searches. BTW, with the help of a reader of these boards I was able to get the elusive but ugly 1997 set so have all but this last 2002 year. PM me if you'd like with either information or questions.

Uh, I am a STRONG crown collector of 20th C. predecimal and wouldn't touch that Foley above 200 pounds max. The Wyon crowns of 1910 private, but were nicely (IMO) redone in the Patina series at quite a discount and in gold as well (I got one of those for 550 quid for 40+ gms of gold).

Still like that '08 date. OZ, is that a bit of PVC on the obverse. Your specimen is well struck IMO with a bit of bag handling. I think it too may have been a bit cleaned with some retoning. The OP coin is on the lower fringe of EF, not what Glendining would have called it "back in the day" however! Still a nice date.

Nice! Specimen 3 looks to have been through a bit of it. From the pictures the first is convincing as a possible currency and the second looks proof. Very nice & wish the guides could have such pictures. If you EVER get tired of that first bit, I'd be glad to help. LOL!

That Foley pattern result is just fine for the buyer and seller IMO. Find each some more junk to buy and sell. If a Royal Mint product, I would have been in the fight - this piece was meaningless and certainly no better than a Hearn pattern crown. The execution of the reverse absolutely awful so no points for artistic merit. At least the Patina pieces were (some of them anyway) more pleasant products...

Looks a bit like the obverse from the Indian Rupees as well.... IMO quite unpleasant...

That. No wizard meeting put those prices together, mere humans....

I have an 1936 that looks a bit similar to your earlier 1921 coin that evidently had some cancellation stamp to it. Is that a hint of copper at 8 o'clock on the obverse rim of the 1967? I don't think it would be the end of the world to judiciously lightly scratch the edge of either or both to test for underlying metal (usu parallel to the edge of the coin, NOT crosswise to the edge). Based on the photos, IMO the first may be a counterfeit & the second may be real. The first in worn condition much more problematic for at least some of the reasons already stated above. For argument sake, assuming GENUINE which is a reach, the values of the second would be less than 50 quid IMO for the second and a bit less for the first.

Please at least weigh the coins. Occasionally even the copper alloy can oxidize to rather different appearance. I have quite a few of the off metal penny strikes and 1967 is a relatively common date for them. The 1921 not so much. Where are you located? You can PM me pictures if you like.

Well, you have a point there - we actually want the more INFERIOR coin! But IMO not a lot different than proof versus currency of other coins and same date. The true currency bits for the 1840-48 are much scarcer in my experience.

As far as valuations, IMO, they don't do a lot of research and unless it is a more renowned rarity (and even on occasion with those), the values are changed seemingly at whim. I note with careful comparison that they are influenced, as would even be natural to some extent, by other sources - even Krause. Still IMO they are also of value and I tend to get one about every other year...

Hmmm, definately has a Pobjoy Mint look about it and IMO I prefer the Churchill depicted on the infamous 1965 crown!