VickySilver

Numbered field YHs? Denomination? An interesting bit on the '02 crown is that a "gem proof" 65 PCGS went for less than a third the price of the currency specimen. I really thing that 60/59 is a 10k coin to repeat myself. I kind of wish I had bid on the 1867 florin, but I could not make out the "hairline scratch" bit and this dissuaded me. I wonder that the 1862 shilling at 1400 was not a good price for a relatively scarcer shilling in very nice state, 66 or not and it was the "best" of the shillings offered in the old fashioned - I guess - way of assessing scarcer bits. Rob, what did you think of the MS68 1839 shilling? Looked rather nice but price a bit much.

My prediction had been 10k USD as the "breakpoint".... Got to be aggressive these days, which leaves me out many times. I hate that all the commisions are there as they are crazy additions in price. Rumored in the bad olde days that bidder colusion could happen and often did as there were smaller pools of bidders.

Ugggh, to bad about not going just a bit higher. I really think the two mentioned are head and shoulders above all others I know....BTW, the Colin Adams specimen went for 1550 plus the juice...

I think it was PCGS 66. Nice, but not at that price...

And I think the price relatively fair, all things considered the buyer got a very nice coin & about what I had thought. How about a 1902 crown currency for 3818 USD with commission? The MS67 Gothic Crown went 27k plus the juice, which may have been a lot less than the seller had hoped.

That crown still went for 200k USD exactly but a loss of 25k or so for the seller if our collective math was right...

Uggh, I was trying to post a better pic of the Adams specimen but Rob essentially had it spot on and have to rate them at close to a tie as the strike on his better than the current specimen, especially where pointed out on Britannia's Right breast, shoulder, and upper arm (to our left as visualized); the overall impression of the reverse strike much better. The Adams specimen has minimally less lustre on the obv. and a bit more on the reverse. Both have some superficial bagging or handling marks with the former having the worst overall mark in the field to left of shoulder (an old one at that). Both of good flans material and edges quite decent without the dings occ. seen. The Heritage coin wins by a whisker IMO on the obverse and then loses by same amount on reverse. These are the two nicest specimens I have ever seen & would guess a good purchase for a true collector at 10k USD or better. Will be watching (and NOT bidding).

And without being repititious, I would say Peck's statements reflect my own opinion. This general market, especially the relevant secondary market that concerns us appears VERY weak. If a particular seller really did get 2700 pounds, God Bless Him. Maybe ebay is the place to try yours; I was going to suggest an opening bid of 300-400 or at least a minimum of that, and see where the market may go. Be sure to hype it up with all the usual flim flam like "RAREST MODERN ROYAL MINT ISSUE", etc.

Dipped incompletely with retoning partially. I would go EF. Not sure if polished though, it looks fingered post dip (i.e. skin oil of some sort - I have heard some have used skin oils from outer nose). Should have left it unadulterated and would have gone GEF in that case probably.

I located the Spencer article - actually the second one and my dates were off as it was the December -83 Numismatist. I have the article at work so as long as demand is not too crazy I could fax it to a couple of people if interested. Not more that about three people as I have to share the fax machine. First three who PM me their numbers I will send it to. Please forgive the poor quality of the photographs as this thing has been copied several times over...

I wonder what true deman (whatever that means) is for proof or currency 1951 3ds. I like them but not many fans I would think... Most '51 proof coins I have seen are still there in set form, but I can't be sure if it is representative of the whole extant population.

Wow, I love pennies but don't chase the "hypervarietals" and completely missed this. Thanks for the alert; don't be too quick to condemn all their coins as I got a very nice proof KG6 '38 2/6 not so long ago after waiting FIFTEEN years...

Copper, just curious how you calculated the "consumption" rate? I often wonder about survivial rates, and these are a bit hard to calculate IMO...

Good luck, but I do think that it is a superior piece, so let loose the strings on that moneybag...

Coinery - kick me in the hindparts after the New Year and I will try to fax it (the Spencer article) to you. I think Graham Dyer had a look at it and found no problems with it - that is rather a high complement. BTW, you may try to see if you can reach him - Graham - through the Royal Mint Library (??there supposedly is one and he the semi-retired Librarian. He would possibly be an excellent source as well.

Let me dig after the New Year and see what I can find. I forgot about the breast bit (how could I?), this one has a bit more residual lustre.

Thanks Rob - the usual good work. It sounds as though if this coin goes for 200k he loses TWENTY THOUSAND $$, if 250 he makes 20k... Yes, that is a gorgeous 1860/59 and perhaps superior to the Colin Adams specimen that some of us know well - and I thought that one was best. Be nice to see them side to side. Guess the price? I don't know 6-8k USD, outsid chance of 10k. At today's prices perhaps anything in that range would not be too bad though not for me...

Yikes, those are a lot of questions. Let's start with the easiest. The non-standard year proofs in VIP proof format are not always cameo (Standard years are the years that proof sets were released to the general public - 1927, 1937, 1950, 1951, 1953). VIP strikes of these standard years are nearly always cameo, however there are some of the early strikes in the sets that have very nice cameos that frankly I can not separate from so-called "VIP" specimens. We do not have mintages for any of the VIP record pieces, standard or non-standard years. There is no good listings, but one must not ignore ESC, which simply only acknowledges their existence in most cases. Unfortunately they also include all the Lauer and other [iMO] bogus "Patina-like" strikes of the 19th and 20th C. Patterns are few and far between for the KG6 issues, but there are the CuNi 1946 patterns for what were to become the standard alloys the following year (6d through 2/6). You mentioned the double florins of 1950, and there are some variants of the 1951 and 1953 crowns with variant edge mottoes and rim/lettering combinations, not just the accidental edge alignments. Spencer actually wrote two articles for The Numismatist, with by recall the better one being the October (?) 1982 bit - hello, Rob? This details all years of Record proofs and the years that were considered by him to only have "specimen" strikes. I know of a couple of more recent additions not published as well. Finally, and I could get "bammed" for this: slabs to some extent, or greater, DO PROTECT coin surfaces and have significant value IMO, despite some of the cretin-ish remarks occasionally spread on these boards. They are not impermeable to gases however. BUT, no more finger grease and the sequelae of it. Silver is safe for acetone dip IMO prior to any submission. IMO also for copper but some claim even brief exposure on copper surfaces may slightly change them. For proofs and rarities and copper they do quite a good job - and I am talking about protection in the major TPG slabs - PCGS, NGC, CGS. Well, a lot more....

Can I put in a request that on the proposed revision of ESC they dump the private "Patina"-like issues such as this coin...... I really want to know the exact fate of this coin and if it really makes its price & also nice to know what it actually cost the consignor...Pure C-R-A-!..

PS - We don't need any help on bidding at Heritage, I ' d rather get the odd bargain by doing my homework and letting people make their assumptions. And let the fancy grades get their prices, who cares? I have occ. purchased exact bits supposedly sold in their sales for less not that much later. Also, we can fluff our feathers a bit when a coin that we feel that we have equal or superior to sells for high or even outrageous amounts.

Well, Christmas is now past so put on your iron shorts. LOL KG6 is known in proof for all years and Spencer in his Numismatist 1982 article performed an excellent reprise. I am perhaps nearly as familiar with this series as anybody and note that I have seen all silver in proof for KG6 as well as the later CuNi EXCEPT for the 1944 3d, the 1945 3d, the 1945 E&S Shillings, 2/- and 2/6, the 1946 (S) and 2/-. PM me if you are interested in any further investigations. Cameo and Deep Cameo are really quite evident in UK or USA issues, and after you have seen a few there really is no mystery. Quite honestly the latter are much more attractive, and all the more compared to the usually less contrasty bits that come up for sale, however infrequently. An astute collector might be expected to nearly always pick such a coin preferentially. So not a marketing instrument necessarily. Many of the KG5 an 6 issues that are not "contrasty" are actually quite unattractive and not much more visually than the already bland currency bits. Some are exceedingly rare (i.e. 1930 halfcrown in proof); also shocking how poorly some of these were handled and note that TPG slabbing have been a Godsend for these with all respect to the naysayer crowd on this board with regards to trying to protect them; one example is the vulnerable cheek of KG5 to "cabinet friction". Let me say that again: "The TPGs have been a Godsend for these with all respect to the naysayer crowd" - I just likely to hear the crowing! If somebody knows a source for any of the bits I have missed, please let me to know via PM.

I have never understood why some of this tripe ended up in ESC especially and how it is anything other than a numismatic version of "The Emperor's New Clothes"... Might as well be a Patina issue in my book, and in the event someone actually pays that sort of money, would like to know who it is. I know it is the type of thing that has occasionally appealed to the Japanese. God Rest the Tokyo Type A Collector of Crowns... Word is that if you have stupid money to spend that his heirs (errors?) might have a crown or two for you.

All good points to be sure. I think the number assigned, if at least by NGC or PCGS or maybe CGS, can be taken under advice and each should come to their own conclusion. I have seen coins rejected that have nothing objectionable or remarkable to an astute collector... One example I saw is an 1871 bunhead, brown but with lustre and no wear with few bagmarks. Because there was a minimal planchet delamination in the field, it was rejected. An GEF example for sure. So, are they (the TPGs) a bane or a blessing? No easy answer...

Yes, that is because it is a "private issue" by Lauer in Germany. Had and has NOTHING to do with the Royal Mint and is a trial pattern issue with no significant relevence. Absolute rubbish that it is valued at that level. Lauer struck many "denominations" in many different medals and is the earlier day equivalent to Patina and INA (see London Coins Auctions records for those lovely items).

Looked at the coin through www.sixbid.com It is PCGS and is graded 67. Seems optimistic to me, although on blowup certainly doesn't look bad - maybe 65. Not sure if that is an edge ding down toward 8 o'clock on reverse as it looks like "milling breakthrough" & seems to coincide with the "V" in the milling at that point. Be prepared to be shocked with some of your submissions as many will get rejected for cleaning or the "Genuine, details" as MANY will be. Also, when it comes to grades there is a funny phenomenon where your own coins seem to be "degraded" in comparo to others - always tremendously easy to criticize others numbers, and I have been guilty of same. I really want to know the truth of your submissions once you get them back as I would not be surprised for them to be chock full of disappointments.