VickySilver

Not to divert the topic (again) but I am with Paulus about LCA and their lack of internet bidding in sales. I would certainly be bidding a lot more, and will not bid at all this time for similar reasons. Meanwhile, I too will be interested in the outcome of the 1860 sales prices....

Please check lot 2851 in the current LCA sale and see if that is not total poppycock as another example of what I'm talking about!!!! Grade ridiculous and not even IMO a proof in a series I might with all due apologies have some authority on....

I'd rather not at this juncture get into specifics but if you look at some of their EF and better slabbed bits you will see. Some while ago I trotted out examples and pictures of a specimen 1935 Jub. crown. Compared CGS85 to PCGS65, NGC65 and raw "handpicked". By far the poorest was the CGS example that even had a corrosion spot, bright green in colour that must have occurred in slab. I frequently see what are admittedly pictures, but representations none the less in LCA auctions that show excessive, dip, or wear or inferior strike for grade.

How about the pattern of three marks below the back of Vick's head - identical, thats a bit interesting as well....Gonna take at some reference bits later on today.

While conflict of interest may not mean corruption has or is occurring, it is certainly more likely than not! I mean really, propriety is a term with meaning and I for one would not care to be accused of COI. Not good. BTW, I have seen some rather overgraded bits in CGS holders as well.....

Precisely & what I was trying to say. Might have a bit to do with relief opposing on obverse?

Had to think about this one, and in balance suppose that I agree although nickel a bit harder to attack with acid than mainly copper planchets - also interesting that the relief appears better preserved and "deeper" in some areas and would have predicted it more even. Also elements such as the denticles will also elongate with a smaller diameter flans but slightly different in my experience than the acid-dipped bronzes.

I guess I am really not in agreement with an otherwise uncirculated coin have edge knocks of mention and still being called uncirculated; only if EXTREMELY subtle or would call it "AU" as dropping a coin on the floor repeatedly would be one form of circulation I should imagine. At less than an ounce of silver, I would call this one a "push[away]"....

I would literally be a buyer at 200 pounds right now. This coin still has plenty of lustre and is softly struck (yes, the lions and Vick's hair, veil, etc.). This coin IMO is EF on technical grounds, though as was alluded above soft strike leaving a bit underwhelmed as far as visual "snap". This is a nice coin from appearances, and may look better in hand. PM me if you want a sale.. On a similar vein, an 1889 Jub head small bust shilling went off for sale in America in a PCGS66 holder a couple of years ago and because it was such an ugly design (IMO also), just did not attract buyers the way it should have & went for about 1900 USD by recall. This for a scarce date but truly rare in higher UNC grades..... PS - The lions are not all that soft and the apparent chatter to the field to Left of Vick is probably also overrepresented by the photo & showing some reflectivity.

Suitable for a pocketpiece...LOL....Not a great specimen of what is IMO a nice design.

A bit off topic, if related....I sure liked their "Viking On Horseback" Isle of Man gold sovs of the '70s and early '80s....

Hmmm, Colin I think you might be leaving one big and one moderate factor out. Big: as I've said, demand is there and likely more than for the counter marked 4 real Moderate (but linked): Condition - try to find a top GEF specimen of either the 60/59 with some decent lustre and lacking handling marks - or the '41 sov in top condition which I would define as EF or above.

Copper brought up an excellent point - often the same coin IS listed in multiple venues....

Uhhh, demand might just provide a bit of an answer and especially for the nicer specimens. I remember the Colin Adams specimen as particularly noteworthy...

Good points there Bernie. I too am of the opinion that it certainly remains possible that MORE than one type of reverse, or combo obi/rev was used. I do not think or see that the Royal Mint has operated always on a logical basis - this to me at least calls into question some of the other conclusions about their "products" based on assumption.

Sorry to say, not.

A little hard to tell from the picture but the verd appears a bit superficial and perhaps a bit easier to deal with. Did you try try acetone? That is fairly simple and should not cause any problems if pharmaceutical grade and not left on for long exposure time.

Isn't that process termed "knurling"? Not sure but that is PMD (post mint damage).

I guess technically that at least this pattern is not base metal - %52 silver!!! I may drop off a couple of patterns for analysis come November if I can not sooner.

Looks straight out of the US Mint catalogue! UgggH!

I still slobber over that 1882 London mint coin, and wished the funds had been there - price high, but a bargain compared to those infernal "narrow dates". The 1869 was beautiful as well, not to mention the 1864 and the 1875H and the 19KN, and the ....

The local University charges outrageous sums for any investigations, so have left them alone. Alas, my alma mater is too far away to use them as I have a few specimens I would like checked.

I must admit to not having the equipment, and that it was also a surface spectroscopy (XRF), thankfully non-destructive. I have a couple others (denominations) that I will try the next time I get a chance. I seem to recall the BM having a couple of different specimens of differing metal alloys of same period. I will also see if I can manage either the 1923 or 4 "nickel" pieces, the latter date evidently struck to 5.0 and 5.7 gm. standards but the alloy of which I have not seen published.

That 1919 is quite a nice specimen and certainly better struck than the "H"s of that year....

Lavrilliers look bad enough, this a bad copy of an ugly coin. Five quid maybe (if it looked a bit nicer!).