VickySilver

A lot of nicer specimens of the more common dates it seems….Been a while since I've bought from them, how are prices in the last sale or two?

Ouch, I would have LESS confidence in this piece without them having slabbed it but quite frankly whether they slab it or not I would NOT accept it as the real thing. If they thought it legit as was hinted at by Coinery, then the increased monies it would bring at auction would be considerable - this leads me to believe that they do not have full confidence in it, and rightly so except that they have listed it in the first place.

True is that. They are so enormous (Heritage) that I imagine they scarcely want to be bothered by our pedestrian bits! LOL! Have you ever looked at their catalogues of Movie star bits & memoribilia ? Ouch!!!!! Or Hermes handbags on offer at a mere 45k USD!!! They might be a legitimate option as unpatriotic as it may seem for a 1933 penny or such...

Uh, think the stats on the 17 sov reversed....

Wow, I'm down with that. Now all I need is a RT ticket!

Ha ha! Yea, right. They aren't that dumb, that would shoot credibility at CGS.

Yes, and who is bidding (and underbidding thereby driving prices)? Some of the prices have fetched lunatic levels IMO on occasion. Jag, you have FIVE in addition to the proof? Yikes, maybe that makes me feel a bit better about some borderline OCD tendencies that I might have... Does anybody remember the child's game: Duck, duck, goose? I think that the high prices and bidding might bring on a soporific state and may allow relative bargains to slip on occasion as young Rob says...

One point I hinted at with regards to Heritage before, and is something of a secret I probably I ought not to be sharing is this: there is indeed a frenzy over grading and "condition rarity". The interesting thing is that a simple 1883 shilling in MS66 at PCGS may have a population that is 1 or 2 as would, say, an 1889 small head Jubilee shilling. So conditional rarity would apparently (sic) be the same and both might go for very high similar amounts. The former not seemingly such a bargain but a price that would not necessarily be objectionable for the later bit. This in fact did happen on several occasions with the Kairos (??I think??) collection where similar such exampled coins sold for near the same amount! And which would you rather have? I actually did make some purchases of much scarcer coins on this principle

Yes, that is my measurement as well. It is also difficult to make out the area of possible mintmark. Remember that reproductions if they are from a "ordinary" coin will have this tendency to be just that little bit larger. I am not an expert in counterfeits by any stretch but will note that it is my recall that centrifugal casting can give a failry good result which can then come off rather nicely with surfacing/buffing/prepping....That would be one example. I have gradually come to the opinion for what it's worth that coins such as the 1905 halfcrown and the 1917 London sov. must be proven as authentic rather than the opposite and be proven as faux. As far as the latter specimen, I think it would fit at least some of the qualifications for Beirut manufacture but difficult to condemn on pictures alone.

Yikes, the die work reminds me, as I said, of Beirut issues counterfeits circa 1970s. Perhaps those more gifted than me might post matching pictures of 1925, 1917C or others side by side with this one (not to mention the ex-Terner coin). Please, I am quite shocked by anyone even considering an altered date....

I really can't see defence of this coin as genuine. "Have you ever seen another?" doesn't make it. Yes, I have seen another and it looks nothing like this coin. I don't have one personally because I feel they are overpriced. How about outting those that have thought it genuine. Several? I would hope that is a bit of exaggeration. PS - Bruce Lorich has nice photos of one on his site.

They really are about money after all. No small fry allowed I guess. Just curious as to why not selecting a Brit auction house? Obviously Heritage's exposure for flashy bits can bring absolutely crazy prices, so they may still be an option. Never have used them myself but might given the right circumstances... Which brings up the larger topic: where does one go to sell a 500 or 1000 quid coin? I sold a couple of G5 proofs a few years ago through Spink and despite the price rises in these coins, LOST money due to all the costs....

One famous toner/cleaning fluid is the MS70 copper cleaner which is noted for leaving a bluish discolouration. The 1911 2/6, like many of its proof silver brethren have some questionable toning secondary to cleaning (in many occasions). The "shininess" always can be one-upped and one only hopes that non-abrasives or cloths used; the corollary is that the opposite is true with the 1902 matte proofs whose dull nature was thought to be improved by a swipe or two... Even the minimal skin that develops can be altered by cleaning and make the coin in general more subject to retoning - some more natural appearing than others. Colin's coin is interesting in that what I was trying to say is that analagous - I think - toning can be seen on silver coins that have been stored in original boxes or other felt lined boxes and develope interesting toning..

Yes, look. St. George's face and helm are horribly done compared to what one would expect. Interesting thought about the ring - might have been one of those '70s style Beirut knockoffs that was then put in a ring - good gold in them thar bits....Just counterfeit!

No toning mentioned on the original envelope from that 1807 (two) bits.

St George looks in "bad form" as well. The bit of pecking and then possible smoothing on G5 obverse seems a bit suspicious. IMO, subtracting the wear, the die prep just does not appear up to snuff.

My SINGLE purchase last time broke my bank! Hope they don't have any "must haves" for me - is that the final listing or just a partial of what will be on sale?

Dam-, just lost my first response... Nick that '69 is very nice and nicer than the (dipped) bit that Mark R. had on sale some while ago (?still does?), mine I bought as a slabbed "62". I think Paulus' '02 6d is illustrative as IMHO this coin may have been dipped some time ago and then followed the unfortunate colour oxidation scheme presented on the post about the toning on the -92 half crown in PCGS livery. It is just a bit too uniform in its yellow/light brown transition and something about the uniformity about especially the obverse device just a bit off. And this is not to say it is not an attractive piece, as it most certainly is. I think there are many coins, slabbed or not, CGS, PCGS, NGC or not that have been dipped or cleaned if it indeed was. A problem arises such as with the case of the famous dipped Norweb 1893 S Morgan dollar that probably lost 300-400k USD in value by so doing. The 1821 crown is a bit more blatant IMO as a dipped and lightly retoned and it along with the 1834 bit the most blatant of that category. Thankfully light toning sans the neon electric treatment! The 1806 - weill I don't collect bits so early as this but have noticed that certain older and sometimes ? original holders may lend to purplish an maybe slightly bluish tone to silver coins, with the slightly later copper proofs more like those shown by Accumulator and reminding a bit of chocolate. The infamous seller "greattoning" on ebay has in the past had some mainly US copper of a similar colour. His bits have almost always IMO been enhanced. So I apologise at including it, but do say that his (gt's) doctors would readily be able to replicate. I am sure it would have a very good chance at slabbing. Disclaimer on above ebay seller - he has pm'd me and informed me he does not do the work, which is not to say directly or indirectly he might know more than just a bit of how his bits got to be like that. The 1787 bit has a history that is good with no monkeying with since at least 1984 - that is nearly 30 years, and wow! I have occasionally seen dipped coins to retain cleaning residue possibly even after rinse and then to enhance later toning and IMO this may be the case. Confessional: Ah, running out of time here but will try to keep plugging away and do hope once again not to have offended. I will say that I proudly have some very nice coins in my own collection that have been dipped, some elsewhere and some my responsibility of later 20th Century vintage. BTW, only sold a few as I suffer from Packrat Syndrome! I admit I still occasionly use acetone to remove adherent residues such as tape or finger oils and the like. I love original lightly toned Victorian silver best as you might have guessed.

Uhhh, Nick how about bribing my silence by paying me off with the 1869 6d? LOL OK, I don't want to start a witch hunt with my hide the designated target, but IMO a couple of questionables (okay excepting Nick and Accumulator, with whose I can't quibble): the OP 1902 6d, cleaned and retoned the 1834 2/6 , cleaned or dipped. the 1787 jaggy bit cleaned/dipped and retoned the 1911 2/6 the 1821 crown that 1806 Colin G bit

Hmmm, don't want to call anybody out, as they say, but a couple of the examples posted are suspicious for cleaning and then retoning, AT or not....

Hmmm, that is questionable. Not a lot of wear and softly struck as well. Another interesting speculation is whether the coin has been blanched in an effort to clean it possibly as it has the appearance of that and then retoned a bit.

Ouch, must be a collector as I can not imagine how a dealer would scheme a profit out of that! I too would have tendered an offer on the low side and in line with what I have seen the 1922 (ordinary dies) in CuNi go for. Incidentally, the 1920 Nicholson PATTERN matte Nickel proof half penny complete with mint-applied "N" sold for 800 pounds.

Knee, breast and shoulder not too bad though. The whole reverse looks a bit like a worn die, does not snap how one would like a really nice unc. (if brown) coin to look. I don't thinks it is a date that people could not do better elsewhere obviously. I bought a lovely 1849 from St. James's many moons ago and I think that one ended up 63RB and was definately superior.

Yes, indeed. I think it may have been given on technical grounds - not a lot of wear. Still the surface colour is a bit objectionable. I really don't understand their grading on occasion and disagree with the main Brit grader with some frequency. On the opposite end of this coin was (and maybe I'll try to post a picture?!!) an old Spink shilling, 1849, that was given an MS62 for hairlines which were instead clearly on the die itself.

Don't forget the seller "greattoning"!