VickySilver

Not so much that they are found there but rather that grading is many times nicely conservative and prices reasonable.

I'd accept that as a proof, G5 has some nice detail there - wouldn't accept that into my collection. Wait for a bit nicer specimen as they certainly are not rare. You might do well as has been suggested by finding (with some work) a well struck gVF specimen of the currency. If a few extra quid get you a much nicer bit, try for it. Interestingly, I have seen some conservatively graded bits on ebay from places like New Zealand.

The Royal Mint has been known to release "proofs" not up to the standards of Royal Mint proofs!

OK, I guess I've been left behind like all of the other old fogeys, but I was absolutely shocked yet again by prices fetched in the recent Heritage Long Beach Sale: Examples (all in USD) - 1853 6d proof65 1938 but, wait.......1839 6d proof66 2350! 1845 Crown MS62 7050! Worse to come...... 1887 Jub 2/6 proof66 4112! 1887 Dbl florin proof66 4700!! 1887 Jub 1/2 sov proof64 Ultra cameo 4406 1893 Currency crown Regnal LVI MS66 2232 same, in MS65 1468 1893 crown, ordinary proof63 4993!! 1902 crown matte proof62 5287 1937 5 pounds proof66 16,450 same, in proof65 9,450 same, in proof64 8812 I am absolutely astonished at these prices, yet again. I actually have bought from Heritage in years past and got an 1893 Regnal LVII at 600 USD net, and an 1887 1/2 sov in proof63 Ultra Cameo at 545 USD (only 3-4 years ago)... What say readers about the implications of these sales? I just can't take them 100% seriously, but I believe they are. At the least, I would imagine that these type of sales will create something of a vacuum on the market.....

Yes, I think this phenomenon just a market reality that can not really be ignored, and we have to scurry about for lovely bits with just a bit more energy and diligence. I have a few odds that I have been thinking about selling and am back and forth about the venue. Sometimes, as has been pointed out, they don't quite get the attribution right and/or a significant rarity slips through....

That is really one of my points - this may be a draw on the market pulling coins over into "their clutches". Quite frankly I think it likely crazy not to if you have,say, a higher grade 1893 proof 5 pounds to NOT consign to them, but better have the slab grade. Like it or not, this does create a market force; I think it will gradually squeeze most of us out of many of these coins. Not that I collect big gold, but just saying....

Ooops, the 5 sov.

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).