VickySilver

Yes, all true. This is my area - I must say that most "currency" pieces of the rare dates are refugees from Maundy sets ( ie 1841, 1847, 1848, 1852, 1853, etc.). Maundy coins DO NOT NECESSARILY have prooflike surfaces as has been PROVEN. Some are so-called "satin surfaces". The biggest giveaway, to me at least, is the quality of strike and details of denticles, etc. Incidentally, I have seen some significant lettering errors in Maundies of the 1848-1853 period, so have a look!

I have a question: What is "mint state"? I am sure many readers here have seen how coins are struck, either through video, photos or other means. If a coin is struck and then slides down a chute of types and is bagged with other coins, at what point does it cease being mint state? Is mint state not the status of a coin when it leaves the mint? I say this because wear appears a bit different, at least to my eyes, than bagging marks. What do others think? I pose this because of Paulus' comment about coins up to mint state 62 or 63. IMO, there are many coins that are mint state with excellent lustre and only mild bag marks that I have seen and would still call mint state. Obviously there are many other related topics and questions...

GEF, not the best strike & obverse less attractive than sometimes seen. On coins like these, I do like to check the rims and edges - and these look fairly sharp without damage/dings, etc. On a 70 scale, I'd go 55-58 unless seen in hand. Have to forget the 100 point scale as the markers and all seem to be in more flux than the 70 pt. system. Anyway, that reverse looks good to my eye.

Rather devolving the response I should say. I would say if you do not know the appearance connoted by the nomenclature that it would be ignorance to lump it all together. We are talking about mint state or near calibre of coins. This is not to say that in hand appraisal is not the best but if you bother to study you will see there is some consistency to what Red Brown is and that it applies to higher graded coins - not just any polished bit of cr--. Sometimes call it making that one does not appreciate a straw dummy and beat on that rather than taking the real thing on, I should say. The variance is far greater when it comes to what even members of this board call GEF or aEF or other such Honestly MR, where do you go with mocking responses such as that anyway?

True, but colour is quite variably reproduced. One example was the now almost-famous Spink New York sale of Pennies wherein many suffered from rather poor underrepresentation in the pictures - much to the delight of bidders who did participate!

I think the Reverse strike quite pleasantly firm with the mentioned lion's nose not only well struck up but not worn or damaged or showing hits. The field is relatively clean. To me the limiting factor if I was to bid on this is the obverse - even though the ear is great, the hair complete if soft, the beard and mustache not quite as well struck as can sometimes be seen. There is a bit of worrisome ?? something on E7's neck, almost as if struck from a rusty die. The obverse toning is not as nice as one might wish. Still I would buy this coin in a minute if the selling price were less than EF. Paulus, what are the detractors that you see pulling it down?

This RD, RB, and BN business does however seem occasionally (maybe a lot of the time) better than teams such as full or subdued lustre or whatever, and then you get a grab bag of a coin - even when you have seen the pictures! I'll be a monkey's uncle if that is any clearer. If I am understanding what seems clear is that Prax wishes to have his coins more "marketable" and he may be well right as the price fetched for a slabbed coin that is correctly graded will rise much higher at least in the States than an unslabbed coin that is labelled as simply "GEF" or "unc" or "mint state" or "nearly (!!) mint state". I daresay such a coin may now do much better in the major London salesrooms at auction time as well.

Very nice piece. I think this would be MS62 or so in NGC/PCGS "speak" or grade. Overall very pleasant appearance, toning alright, looks to be the random hit in the field or so, good hair detail. Have to reserve judgement on what lustre remains under the toning. The edges not quite as crisp as one would hope for in an uncirculated coin. Overall a very nice piece that I would hesitate to guess a retail price on - not so good on a bad day, possibly wonderful on a great day. I think 3k quid is very possible on one of the latter. A wholesale offer would naturally be a bit back, possibly 2.25 or so would be the guess. All of course said with the "in hand viewing mandatory" caveat!

No. Nice bit there...

Rob, I have to check and see... Sorry, did not mean to pirate thread! Do check out the colour pictures of some of the Vicky silver (!!) proofs in the mentioned 15 Nov., 2001 sale!

OK, a bit harsh, but I still don't care for the fantasies. Wouldn't mind one of the Liliuokalani (spelling?) Hawaiian Dollar patterns of ?1893. I have a Moore penny I would sell if the right buyer came along - gotten by accident!

Weyl = private pattern & nada to do with Royal Mint. This to me at least, and this probably not popular, represents an earlier version of the Patina and INA "attempts". Esoteric, but even a dyed in the wool Vicky fanatic like myself leaves them alone. BTW, the Spink auction to which I refer which you may want to look up is the November 15, 2001 Sale which has many, many proofs of ythe Victorian period.

Uhhh, I like the Young Head iterations! Esp. in the copper penny format! My favourite may be the 1839 proof penny if well preserved. That Jub. crown looks like something that belongs on a little girl's birthday cake....

Last I checked, I had a couple and not "metro". LOL Welcome to send cute daughters this way! Ha ha.... I just like Victorian coins as Dave said. I found a "mechanical error" by PCGS on a 3d coin, and will not yet reveal what I have in mind but will try to catch them out if I can.

Ha ha....They are all business at times & britches get a bit big...I'm going to jack up one of the graders pretty soon & will notify of results...

A call might suffice, especially if you have submitted before. They generally are at least personable. I never try to put my opinion above anybody else's and do have to state that I have not held the coin but would say that yours would very likely be a proof despite areas of softness. In general the surfaces appear immaculate and despite the reverse softness presents with an excellent strike - far above the very attractive NGC MS65 I know (which is the very nicest true currency strike I've seen). IMO, yours is superior to the Baldwin specimen overall.

A trip to the PCGS headquarters in Orange County, California might be a nice trip if you call and ask. Maybe a tour??? I have had some disagreements with their main grader as they have missed a few types and even grades for that matter. Nice holders though, LOL!

Rob probably knows the sale, but Spink in around 1998-2000 or so had a sale with numerous Vicky proofs and the later 1880s dates, though of a slightly different type had somewhat similar strike appearances.. My money on NGC grading it proof - and this from pictures alone...

I looked at your lovely 1850 2/6 again and think it likely a proof with what has sometimes been called "aluminum foil cameo" and note that though dated 1839 that I have seen a Deep Mirror Proof Cameo that was somewhat similar & that even for a proof coin, this in very nice state of presentation and better than most proofs. Can we ask the origin, at least in general terms? PS - If you look on the PCGS site under population guide, Great Britain and then look up Victoria milled half crowns there are also some very nice bits: I like the 1839 currency, ex-Gendinning and the 1862 CA proof, ex-Spink that is also very attractive amongst a number of others...

Well, I always like to think that enough money could shake loose a coin but some are rather favoured and we do like to hold on to them. I can not tell if the 1850 is a proof, but give much credit for a beautiful coin - I need to find my way out with saying it needs to be seen in hand. I have seen a "65" that is as well preserved but does not have the lovely cameo yours does. I would have to say it is the nicest I've seen. Not that you would but I think I know somebody (wink, wink) that would probably be a buyer...

For sale? Looks nice there....

Not to derail the thread, but one story I have always wondered about is how Dolphin (Bob I.) managed to get those Pretoria mint proof and patterns - apparently had nearly all of the Brit specimens at one time?!

I hope it does not offend anybody, but that AMR coin is quite a dog. Started "modern" life as apparently gVF or so and then was cleaned and brushed to its current state. Waaaaaaaay overpriced and at least double its real retail value IMO. This has appeared some 17 times in LCA auctions since they kept records according to their site and does not include appearances in lot combos. Some of the recent auctions have gotten a bit heated, but the lesser graded coins simply don't generate the same fight - same has held for the 1854 florin (which above VF I would rate a good deal scarcer).

Oh well,I love the Victorian sixpences, but will confess in my turn to them being a bit boring. I liked that 1854 in the Cheshire sale that was under graded IMO, and the same year shilling on sale at that time as well for that matter. There certainly is some enjoyment in "completing" a series, but a bit sad as well with no more important bits to collect or only those with stratospheric prices left.....

I rather know these coins & have seen more than a few. Remember that though this is a scarcer date that it is on a "log" value scale with the price escalating rapidly as condition increases. I am definitely in the 1-1.5k crowd if you can find the right buyer. Now if you can pull it up to GEF status, you'll really have something. Don't get carried away by comparing to coins better preserved