VickySilver

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.

I recently tested a pattern 1920 shilling, and the metal content came to: Silver - 51.67% Copper - 39.57% Nickel - 7.36% Manganese 0.28% Arsenic (!) 0.015% The George V standard was in 1920 evidently" Silver - 50% Copper - 45% Manganese 5% By 1924, this was at: Silver - 50% Copper - 50% Any comments or interest???

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!).

I, for one, do not believe the collector base is expanding; quite the opposite & we see even rarer dates in lesser condition to languish at mere fractions of their higher grade brethren of the same date and type. Also, am of the opinion that the so-called bottom dweller coins are staying just there, with the middle bits subsiding. High-enders either go higher and higher, or in a few cases appear to be languishing in comparison to their highs.

No doubt. I think another interesting bit relating back to the SG/Baldwin's discussion is that Baldwin had (or has?) an investment program, whereby coins are stashed away by them as purchased by some sort of fund they created themselves. What has become of this particular fund?

Who is buying coins such as ANY of these three crowns? I love Victorians absolutely but just can not see how the crown (1839) is worth half that amount. A bit sad to see collectors likely being chased away....

Interesting points there, Rob. I don't see a lot in my area anymore, partly because I have nearly all the bits I have targeted, and partly because the prices of what I lack are absolutely astronomical and I refuse to pay the prices - just trying for the occasional bit. Wonder if that is how others are?

Think that might be a protective rumour as they found one of the 1864s just recently, allegedly by moving furniture about - somebody "back in the day" having dropped it behind a desk, and LEAVING it there.... A friend not so long ago was promised a tour of that famous basement, and that offer rescinded at the last moment...

True the above. They may be isolating themselves from the ordinary collector & that is just how they've been for such a very long time. Still the place has a bit of aura & mystery - who wouldn't like to have a look around their famous basement?

Hi Bob, bit interesting that he (Steve) has related that to you. Baldwin's has had some of the very rarest copper bits ever seen in the latter milled series incl. the 1860 copper farthing and halfpennies, 1864 COPPER "patterns" (plural), 1877 proof farthings, 1933 pennies, the 1952 proof penny....