VickySilver

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...

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-!..