VickySilver

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.

I'm a buyer at 150, too cheap IMO. 1k over the top. BTW, I am not an advocate of fancy catalogue prices, high or low.

Ah yes, well speak of the devil...LOL That coin is IMO mint state with a very soft strike through the bow at bottom of wreath. This is not wear. The obverse is a bit soft through the hair & the brow area, for example, is also soft and NOT wear. So a technical grade would be in the 60-70 range. To narrow it down: very little in the way of distracting actual marks, but the toning makes it hard to determine if there not be lesser areas of "bag marks" - I have to guess since the coin is not in hand that they are there, however. I do not have a problem with 63-4. This is not a gem (65) or superb (67). Toning colour looks acceptable and neither outstanding or necessarily artificial. So I think this would reflect overall the colour, strike, metal quality (as best as can be determined), and overall eye appeal is decent. Have to weasel on the 63 or 64 designation without it being in hand. As far as value, I am not going to pretend to guess what it would go for but I would tend to opt for possibly 300-350 pounds and do not see 1k as being reasonable. I have in the past had some major disagreements with NGC 6d and 1/- grading on later milled, and PCGS also seems to have a spread of often 2-3 points high or low of what I might attribute when speaking of a coin I have no interest or stake in. Generally, I would say the PCGS grades are a bit more conservative, but NOT always. An example would be some of the pieces graded for the "Millennium Collection" of some 4 years ago. Another example is the 1854 6d that was in the Cheshire sale (by memory) that was UNDERGRADED IMO as there appears to have been clashmarks responsible for some of the downgrading to a 63. That was a superior piece, and probably a "65". I saw recently an ex-Spink SNC 1848/6 shilling in NGC 58 that had only minimal bag marks, excellent strike, colour, metal and eye appeal which I would have given a certain GEF or 63 to. A conservative GEF might quite often reach "63", a very conservative such as Glendining GEF from the grand olde days might even reach 64 or 65. The coin graded 1926 ME in MS65RB (PCGS) is a superior piece that was originally a Spink SNC GEF - the colour on that quite original and showing a silky lustre and one of the nicest 20th C. coins I have seen. Point being that these numbers are not perfect and certainly open to debate but, I at least, have rarely seen a later milled coin that was graded 65 by either of the two above services that would not generally be considered a nice piece with decent appeal and GEF to mint. I do not see them grading cleaned, hairlined bits that might otherwise be called VF cleaned or some such.

Amen, will leave blanket unsupported statements and assertions at Peace without response for the season! Meanwhile, we can encourage actually learning as well and will say that though I am no supporter PCGS has supplied their definition to each numerical grade they "award" It might be entertaining enlightenment to see what VF, EF, AU are as well (say, as opposed to lower grade UNC), and why there are different numbers for uncirculated in the 60-70 range. Meanwhile, I have seen "good olde daye" Spink coins listed as GEF thar really were Uncirculated and without other than the most minor of bagmarks and no wear.

Well the final price - 227 - was consistent with a "no", but that was my choice anyway. It is possible to find quite PL silver and some copper of this era as well.

Or rather that the article touts the capacity of the two major TPGs to pick out dipped pieces = really more of a comparo re: the lesser or backyard TPGs to pick out specimens altered.

Supposedly original 1889 French definition: "bloom of the die"

And Spinks is gospel? Not! LOL on the '73 set - you may have to pay someone to take it...

Hmm, smarter use IMO...

Not sure how FDC coins have to be of proof strike. A coin with full mint bloom and without bag marks would be the virtual definition, but I think the "n' or "a" prefix has some validity as the minutest of marks missed by some are picked up by others with more acute observation powers or vision. Probably most "68" or "69" coins would fit this definition as well as the 70s, but of either proof or currency format. Azda's coin is rather nice but the rim dent or deflection would keep it out of that category, most def. post-minting. I have seen a matte proof 1953 with such an edge "deflection" that I think was caused by a soft hammer strike. Otherwise nice surfaces though. Interesting that as was pointed out in the Coincraft book, it seems that virtually all the matte proof 1902s were given an extra wipe by the workcrew before being packaged up in sets - how much does this bother others? As for me, I would rather not have them present but at least if they are more subdued, then a bit better. These marks are sometimes difficult to pick up in the wrong lighting, and I have also noted in the areas of what is perhaps micro abrasion to be slightly varied toning.

If authentic it would be valuable. Unfortunately, it is most likely a concoction which is generally made by hollowing out the obverse (heads side) of one coin, machining down and away the heads side of another and fitting the second coin within the first with a braze or gluing of the two pieces. There is generally a seem showing on the rim (although this can be worn away). Also the obverse half of one can be cut away and two halve showing the "tails" side glued/brazed together. Also, counterfits can be cast. These are then worn down by either real or simulated wear. These are the main methods, but others can be performed...