VickySilver

How do those kids say it (with regards to CGS) - NOT! I was visiting about 2 or three years ago to the NYINC show when I pointed out to the CGS folks that the 1875 farthing in their FEATURED display case actually was an 1875 H!

Wow, not sure if I like the responses. Olive oil is acidic, and can not say if this property deteriorates with time but know that it will continue to react with coin surface - I have had some strip to an unnatural color (20th C. pennies & farthings). I have seen some go to a pinkish colour after some while, stripping down to the copper base. Maybe depends on the oil...I remember living on Cyprus and visiting Crete where they had some of the mildest and finest olive oils - I wonder if they were as acid as the base Italian stuff? I remove excess oil with dish detergent and LOTS of water, tamp & not rub dry with a high nap CLEAN white towel. PS - A gentleman in the States, Weimar White wrote I believe two books on coin chemistry and will have a look around and see if I can find at least one title. PPS - Once when I was brave I used a celly charge cord as the power behind an electolyte source to reduce the oxidation at coin surface; believe it or not I found out by this method that one 1936 penny was actually a proof!

Wow, I really hate it when they do that. Damages credibility quite a lot. My pet peeve with them is grading of matte proofs, both the 1902s, and later patterns and proofs that I have seen. What are they thinking on these? Not consitently high or low but all over the place gradewise.

It is my understanding that they do, and have seen some coins reflecting this...

Ah yes, "focal aesthetics" maybe is the term? I too am in the same boat, as even minimal marks to the face seem to carry so much more weight and a corollary that the same physical dimensions of scuff, brush or mark on either the reverse or lesser area seems to carry so much more import. I remember seeing one of the rarest of all Victorian currency bits, the 1893 Jubilee Head 6d now slabbed as MS64, that was virtually perfect with mirror-like PL fields that had but a single tiny and otherwise seemingly insignificant blemish on Vick's cheek and thinking what a terrible shame that was - the mark itself and the fact that it was accentuated but such an otherwise pristine coin.

Anybody bid in the just-closed Heritage Auction Sales? Some high prices but friend of mine got the 1889 Small Head shilling - Wow! Nicest I have seen ever. Seemed like there was a concentration on high grade material versus absolute rarity, last example excepted.

Yikes, big step of a statement. 1860 copper farthings pretty tough as you were saying as well. I don't know, may be true about the halfpennies but they just do not "light my fire", and this seems to be the general feeling I get from many collectors as well. On the other hand, wouldn't turn down a mint 1845.

Not sure if you mean the clash mark found on all that I've seen, including the other Colin Adams specimen we have talked about. That one is of course a mark of legitimacy. I would challenge the finding of significant wear marks of any circulation on the one just sold.

Of course that leaves 1863, plus or minus dot. Nice '63s a bit hard but not crazily so...

For now I think this quality will cost 10 k. USD. The two mentioned on these boards appear to be near the very top quality wise. EFs might drop the price in half.

Mandatory picture as you esp . to see if it is NOT a counterfeit and also whether there is a "C" (for Ottawa/Canada mint) at base of horse's hoof on reverse. If no "C", then it could be rare London Mint issue.

IMO, the price on the 1889 small head shilling was a good one for that sort of top shelf quality. The second session without floor auction has been known to offer up the odd bargain. Perhaps Rob knows of a finer specimen? I definately do not. RLC, I really feel for you on the 60/59 but perhaps it is not in strong hands and will re-emerge - I have noticed this to happen on occasion. I too think that the prices fetched for some of the "condition rarities" were rather high...

Great source and he has helped me out with some of the greatest coins imaginable...

Yikes, "Run Forrest, Run"!!!

Sword I'd check with them on that.

I am convinced that the "plastic changes/PVC" are due to factors prior to encapsulation and not the plastic of the "tomb" itself. What is that term for the flame test again (think it's naturally a German one)?

Yes, likely a wiser move rather than the "itchy fingers" I would have to "fix it". PCGS of Europe for a try? They may also be at some coin fairs but you might have to contact them. Do let us how this all works out. BTW, can you show the rest of the coin?

I have had excellent luck with acetone (pure 100%) and no colour changes - works pretty well. I don't think it a big thing to crack it out of a holder at 64. If it was 67, it would be. The two TPG's in America guarantee their coins against such damage and will make good but I don't think the value would justify sending it...

There is a relevant post on www.pcgs.com (foreign and ancients forum) about what a rarity a 1935 REP crown in proof was at PCGS67 for "only" 2600USD. Thought you fellows would like that! Outrageous in my opinion. So maybe money to be made as the one poster appears to have an offer out!!!! PS Please adjust the linkage for me if you are able.

The satin types seem to be not so much from worn dies but rather many quite fresh without die degradation. With that having been said, I don't think there are any rules with regards to what the RM may have done with dies and also that either satin or PL dies may have carried over into currency usage. There are some other odd bits like evenness of striking which may have been governed by such factors as greater care with die alignment, etc. Other evidence like all the overpunched letters seem to support that great care was not always taken at all stages. I think experts such as those at Baldwin would likely concur as I have had conversation about exactly this point.

Well, to start Peck - currency specimens for those years (possibly excepting the 1853) are excessively rare to nonexistent. I do wonder that a Maundy 1847 3d would not have pressure on the price by virtue of there essentially being no other choices for a collector. Coinery - sorry I seem to not be communicating very well. The issues are that there are in fact two basic formats for the Maundy 3d's: proof like and satin. The proof like is referring to the semi-mirror surfaces of the fields primarily, though also of the devices. Satin is the other type with a semi-matte like appearance seen best in the fields. Not to confuse the point, but there are "transitional" pieces which I define as not clearly being either type and somewhat in-between. What confuses some is that in either format the details such as lettering, devices, dentillation, milling and edges are generally sharper on both than the currency. Currency bits are generally not as well struck and there is "mushiness" to these details, together with the fact that the dies to strike such were used for longer periods of time. Obviously an early struck specimen may occasionally possess some of the characteristics of the satin pieces. The fields such as the OP coin show much die wear and comparatively a bit of sloppiness. A problem with Vicky Maundies is that the obverse dies appear to have been carried over from year to year so that devices to begin to get sloppy and things such as hair detail on Vick tend to get mushy. Many of the TPGs do not seem to have learned this point so that other rare currency dates such as 1846 will be slabbed as currency. Also, do look at those through 1853 or so as there are many errors on Maundies with overpunched lettering, etc. More to come if you' d like....

In point of fact the satin coins have that very appearance - as opposed to proof like with mirroring in the fields. They are clearly distinguished and have been commented on before. A wonderful illustration of this is the 1904 date where they both show up with seemingly near equal frequency. The better strikes (as opposed to currency) are seen on both. As was alluded to, the giveaway is when mates from the same set are examined (1,2,4d). Many of the satin finish specimens have been separated and sold deceptively as currency - in the Vicky series that would be such dates as 1847, 1848, 1852, 1853, etc. Caveat emptor! This having been said, there are some borderline pieces that are hard to tell when isolated from the rest of a particular set - they have overdates, somewhat poor strikes (esp. the obverse in the Vickies), and dies that have been taxed with overuse. I could go on, but will elaborate. To repeat be careful in your perusals...

Uhhhh, well all Maundies are NOT proof like - that is a commonly held misconception and is NOT true. This has been pointed out numerous times in both the Victoria series and also KE7 where the other denominations appear with satin-like strikes. PL specimens are usually Maundy but the converse about "satin" can not be stated. Usually it comes down to a matter of strike detail of devices, reeding, rim dentition. That having been said I will definately concur that this is a currency struck from dies that have some mileage, at least with respect to the obverse. aUnc is OK grade....

Why not, everybody else does? Just post decent pictures and leave it to the buyers. Maybe not such a hot idea to call it mint state...

Yes, dipped at the least, possible silver cleaner of ? type. I can not make out if there are fine hairlines such as would occur with wiping. Still, I had an 1847 YH crown that I put into an older brown coin envelope (complete with the desired mild sulfured paper) and it has toned rather nicely. It is rumoured in the States that they wrap the coin in Taco Bell brown napkins +/- putting it on the window sill for somewhat of the same effect, kind of checking and turning it a bit. Not very scientific but same idea...