VickySilver

I concur with the nice pick up. However [iMO], an overstamped legend letter is not in the same category as an outright date rarity though. The other thing is that I can quite imagine additional specimens turning up if only more '51s were scrutinized, and likely not so with the 1860 copper. Somehow I don't see an owner of an 1860 swapping for a "D over sideways D".

And as a corollary I think this goes to show a rather thin market for at least later milled bits....

OK, I know it's not British coins, but here is a taste of the continuing toning madness and delusion in the States: If you could have a shot at just one of these Monster Morgan Dollars ... which would you pick and why? Pages: 1 2 Last I hope to God this is a finite madness...

Ah, George Morgan a Brit brought over to America....Also, I do recall some pictures of desirable women for the time and them being rather of the Rubens roundness...LOL

Want to know a bad method for breaking slabs? Pair of pliers to either end and twist against each other! Shards of hard plastic explode everywhere, and the coin is [usually] still stuck in the midst of the centerpiece. Kids, DO NOT TRY THIS! I can't imagine anybody doing this...LOL.

Double the opinion - this is the appearance of an acid dipped coin.

Yes, Peck. Actually it may be a bit of turning of the tide? That poster "Seattle Slammer" was just rather bad & essentially calling dissenters ignorant...

The edges and denticles look rude enough for a business strike, the device (Brit) quite hard to tell with wear & the datals look currency. I confess to having looked at the image on iPhone. On laptop it looks currency, although of course always nice to have a mint or near mint state specimen to look at. Is that one for sale?

Thanks for the images. Hmm, to my eyes, the first appears proof despite the edges - too much cameo contrast and device detail & not what at least I have seen in early currency proof-like strikes of other dates. Coincraft 2000 states, and I agree that there minor obv. detail [and IMO reverse as well] differences; Davies no commentary. Plain edges should exclude currency and are possibly scarcer but I would NOT make that blanket assumption as that is only theoretical . It is possible as has been suggested that these were not all struck in one run, and several obv and rev. dies may have been used. "B" looks like the best candidate (and I would buy it if only for reference) for currency, but any wear makes it a tough call. "C" has just too much wear to make a call IMO, and "D" looks to be not as nice a proof IMO as "A".

I quite agree that with the full pictures that all three groats appear as proofs. I am somewhat dubious of the practice of using edges and periphery to judge a coin as proof. Even though "great care" is supposedly taken with proofs, I think some may come off a bit sloppy with regards to planchet prep, and even die prep and maintenance, not to mention strike. IMO, one must keep an open mind and try to weigh as many attributes of a coin as possible before making pronouncements such as this. I have "cherry picked" some proofs before that were sold as currency, and a few the opposite - currency specimens that were clearly not proof. It is sometimes a tough call as others may possibly agree.

Yes, the latter two are def. proof, but I think the first ?may? be proof as well - the edge of the shield on the first is also a bit uneven with some wear to Brit's toes to boot (ha ha pun)... Still think in balance it may be a proof - can you provide a picture(s) of the rest of the first coin?

Reselling items you have bought from them previously if of sufficient value will go sans commission. Also, they are DEFINATELY business oriented and if you have marquee coins or a high value collection, they may waive fees in the entirety. Of course, they hit the buyers pretty hard.LOL>

Uhh, I do have one. Pictures are another matter. Mine is very convincing, to say the least. Gotten off ebay @ ~35 quid about 3 years ago...

Interestingly, there are circumstances that Heritage do NOT charge seller's commission at all...

I have had a "full court press on" as they say in basketball for about 25 years trying to locate a specimen, and the currency coin (yes, with Britannia reverse) may not exist and that the reported 11,000 specimens struck may have been of another date as was known to be custom at the mint. For now, I think it may be in the same category as the 1854 half sovereign. To give you an idea, the 1862 Britannia groat in proof is thought to be very rare but is almost common in a relative sense, and at least I have one of those but it is this currency strike '53 that has eluded me along with the 1857 proof that has managed to come up twice at times of economic inconvenience. I'd be in at 20+ X the price of a pedestrian date specimen...

Dredge this bit up again - 1853 groats (non-Maundy, non-proof) - still no sign or evidence of any currency groats of this year. Nobody seems to ever have seen one either. Perhaps this is the rarest currency Victorian silver coin? Not that I would be interested in one, LOL!

Flat G5 hair & brow/moustache or shield details, you pick 'em. These do suffer, esp. in his florins but the answer already posted.

At 400k per copy, plenty of room down to even 200 though. Australia must still allow coins to be part of peoples' retirement package in terms of tax benefits? That really puts a heater to their market IMO.

Nice coin there. I wonder what would happen if another of similar quality were to emerge from the shadows and go on sale - what would be the price drop?

The mirrors are actually quite striking as are the device details, perhaps a bit better than the posted 1868 et al but it is interesting the edge detail is not what one would like - on the other hand, quite the blowup ("pie pan " size); also a bit of deflection/difraction of light as Brit's face is actually quite good on both pieces. Not that it matters, but Steve Hill did give them seal of approval when at Spink which is how they made the SNC.

Thanks for the link, BRG. Those are ex-SNC coins from the glory days of Spink!

OK, I'll probably get shot for saying this, but check the farthings in proof of 1863 and 1869 on the PCGS site as they are qutie pleasantly stuck firmly and nice colouration.

Wait till number three comes around! Seriously, that is exactly what happened to me with the 1871 bun.

A lot of sovereigns out there in the last little while...I have sometimes wondered if some such as the 1920 S, or especially the 1917 London are not just a bit overhyped and that there may be more out there than recognised - maybe not a lot more but another here or there?

I have had absolute nightmares finding a superb obv. and rev. 1919H, and have some that might be ok but most unsightly metal discolouration. Extras of the others not for sale here....