marvinfinnley

I think the JH isn't so bad when it looks like this: http://www.omnicoin.com/coins/946558.jpg or like this: http://www.omnicoin.com/coins/994431.jpg

Well of course Wyon's YH is a masterpiece - I wouldn't dispute that. However, when you see the Jubilee crown up close, you realize how beautiful and delicate it is. That changed my perception of the JH coinage quite a bit. It's just that the engraving might have been done a bit better to size the depiction of the crown a bit more so it doesn't look so out of place atop Victoria's head. Looking at the regular crown, it's a bit over the top in person, so I can understand that Victoria might have preferred the small crown for state functions. You have to see them in person to understand.

I'm with you - I like the "Vicky" portraits, even the Jubilee. Just saw the crown jewels at the Tower (a few weeks ago), so I saw the crown depicted on the Jubilee coinage, and it's not so bad.

My profuse apologies!! Didn't get the "nomme de guerre" (your battle name) significance.

I'm not sure what this language means especially coming from a woman (I assume VickySilver is a woman), but just the way you say it...I'm interested in the results too.

I've been told that you cannot do drop-offs at their headquarters unless you're a dealer with a large consignment. So I'm not sure they'd let me in the door.

Have you considered CGS in the UK? Since I'm in the US, well...no. I know nothing about them whereas I have developed a certain understanding of how PCGS and NGC grade world coinage. Plus I usually submit at the Long Beach show and avoid shipping charges to the grading house (although I still pay for return shipping unless I do a round-trip grading at the show). I have no idea how much it would cost to ship high-value coins to the UK with insurance, but I would imagine the cost would be substantial for a coin worth say $6000.

And yes, even though many criticize Pistrucci for his prima-donna attitudes, and even though I think Wyon was the greatest engraver of the Mint, still this coin's design is a masterpiece in my opinion. And it is especially when you have a chance to see one so well preserved and with such sparkle, that you can fully appreciate its beauty.

Hi Rob. No coin is perfect. One has to view a coin with how it compares to others. These two coins are probably close to the finest business strikes you will see, but are they perfect down to 100x or more? Of course not. As I'm sure you know, if one seeks absolute perfection, one will constantly be disappointed, whether in coins or people. Modern proofs might be the exception, but where is the history of that cookie cutter perfection? The knowledge that for these pictured coins to endure in such a well preserved state, there had to have been collectors down through the years that lovingly treasured them, and, for me, this is part of the allure of coins as an inheritor of their trust. I never meant to imply that these two of my coins were perfect, just that they are glorious examples of the engraver's art and the technology of the Royal mint at the time. And one must remember that, at least for the crown, the dies were cut directly by the engraver into the steel - no reducer used. With the magnified picture (thank you photographer), one can see the painstaking nature of the engraving that went into the hair and fully appreciate the dynamism of the St. George reverse. With the YH half crown, one can appreciate the care that Wyon took with her hair and the girlish nature and openness of her gaze. It wasn't meant as a put-down, just a genuine expression of regret that it was so close to being perfect without looking too hard. A tiny dig in the field, a little scratch in the hair, a miniscule rim ding, bagmarks - we have all been there. Rob, forgive me if I "sounded" put-down. I wasn't - just got stimulated to wax poetic about how often we don't see the forest through the trees - me included. I always value your conversation.

Well Vicky, I hope you're right, but the reverse just seems a tad less sharp than the proof pictures we've seen. But I will drink a toast to you if it comes back proof!

Wow, thanks a bunch for that. I've never seen one before. Without a hi-res picture, it's hard to compare to mine, but at first glance it looks a lot like the 1853 that another post linked. So again most likely mine is not a proof based on the sharpness of the reverse Irish shield for the most part. Now I can say I've seen an 1850 proof! Know what it sold for?

Well with all these pictures, I don't think mine's a proof, but it might be interesting to see what NGC does. They may send it out for an expert opinion or let Ken Krah grade it. He actually is a pretty fine grader. Unfortunately, he doesn't grade all the world submissions like he used to before they had so many. Thanks for your pictures.

Ah yes, the 1839. A beautiful specimen for sure. I've seen many fine ones through the years. This seems to be the most common proof date and always brings strong prices. Other proof dates besides 1839 from the high relief dates (1840-1850) don't show up very often (or ever). Thanks for the pics. Since I've never seen a proof 1850, and neither NGC nor PCGS has ever graded one and Heritage has never sold one, I guess I'll just let NGC figure it out.

Well, from my experience in coin forums, there are people at all levels, and I know how easy it is for some to be confused because others assume a certain level of knowledge that may not apply to all. In public forums, one hopes that there is a certain amount of tolerance exercised by all when reading others' posts. If you know what I mean by "rim" then just disregard the explanation. It's as simple as that. However, someone else, of more limited experience may confuse "rim" with "edge." It's a very commonplace error.

As for the origin, I don't know. It came to me from a dealer with a reputation for finding the finest coins on his trips to England. He told me the coin was from an old collection, so I don't know if it had ever been auctioned. He told me that it was the finest 1850 he'd ever seen, and that one just could not find nice unc 1850 half crowns. As a date, you know, it's very scarce one.

With proof 2/6 coins, some talk about the sharpness of the rim upsets, i.e., the up-turned circle around the coin at the edge; one also must consider the sharpness of the design, and on this coin, the strings in the Irish shield (i.e. harp) might not be as fully sharp as on other recognized proofs I have seen. However, I have never seen a proof 1850. Heritage auctioned a proof 1864 and here is the link: http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/great-britain-victoria-proof-halfcrown-1864-/a/3016-24424.s#73017301175 The reverse of this coin looks very similar to my coin in that the Irish shield is not perfectly sharp, but the overall strike seems to be a bit sharper than mine. So who knows? I may submit it to NGC as a proof and see what they say. PCGS only shows one uncirculated 1850, graded MS62, meaning there are significant marks/abrasions on the surfaces. And one can see through the colorful toning that indeed the obverse has quite a few marks. However, it's a nice coin, and the reverse strike is pretty similar to mine. However, my coin has a very lovely proof like obverse and hardly any surface disturbances, so it is of a much higher grade. There is one MS65 graded by NGC, and it's from the Goldberg Cheshire collection here http://64.60.141.195/photos/31jpegs/79038.jpg and here: http://64.60.141.195/photos/31jpegs/79038N2.jpg but in my opinion, this one is not as nice as mine. That sale also has a proof 1839, so one could look at the characteristics of a proof, however the dies were fresh in 1839 and is it valid to compare a proof of 1839 to a possible one of 1850? Don't know. I just know it's fun to research all this.

My own particular philosophy is to buy coins that I love to look at time after time. I don't buy to create a date run or collection of like things necessarily. To me, coins are historical art objects which encapsulate the history of the period, the talents of the designer and engraver, and the technology used to create them. I strive to find the most beautiful I can afford. I buy inexpensive coins if they catch my eye, and, at times, rather expensive coins (for me at least) that I feel have something unique or special about them. Because of the reasons I collect, it is hard to part with them. In comparison to buying, selling is difficult. One wants to have his own evaluation of a coin confirmed by others, so one strives to market high value coins in a way that exposes them to knowledgeable (and wealthy) collectors to the maximum degree. Of course, it's a matter of degree. My "expensive coin" is cheap compared to some coins in the US market where many sell for more than $100,000. We must all face the prospect of selling at some point or our heirs will do it. With rare coins, it makes sense for the person that knows where and how to market the coin to sell rather than leaving it to an heir who knows nothing or relies on an advisor who may not have the owner's best interest at heart. With low value coins, it probably doesn't matter. So yes, I would sell if the market for the coin at a particular time (such as the Chinese or Russian booms) made financial sense, but it's always hard to sell coins one loves.

Certainly Chris you can use the pictures. I had them taken so that they might be used in references. I'm told that the YH was in an old time collection, so it was only auctioned once, not sure when, and therefore not really known by the numismatic community. Time to change that. BL told me it was the best one he had ever seen in 40 years of dealing. With the profusion of counterfeits, high resolution pictures of unc specimens are absolutely essential for collectors. I'd just appreciate a copy of the new edition when it comes out. I can PM you my address if you agree. Best

Hi Rob. No coin is perfect. One has to view a coin with how it compares to others. These two coins are probably close to the finest business strikes you will see, but are they perfect down to 100x or more? Of course not. As I'm sure you know, if one seeks absolute perfection, one will constantly be disappointed, whether in coins or people. Modern proofs might be the exception, but where is the history of that cookie cutter perfection? The knowledge that for these pictured coins to endure in such a well preserved state, there had to have been collectors down through the years that lovingly treasured them, and, for me, this is part of the allure of coins as an inheritor of their trust. I never meant to imply that these two of my coins were perfect, just that they are glorious examples of the engraver's art and the technology of the Royal mint at the time. And one must remember that, at least for the crown, the dies were cut directly by the engraver into the steel - no reducer used. With the magnified picture (thank you photographer), one can see the painstaking nature of the engraving that went into the hair and fully appreciate the dynamism of the St. George reverse. With the YH half crown, one can appreciate the care that Wyon took with her hair and the girlish nature and openness of her gaze. The "cabinet friction" that has been mentioned is difficult to separate from die insufficiency. For in the case of the reverse of the YH, if it were cabinet friction, one would expect that each of the highest points of the reverse design (if it were lying on the reverse) would show some rubbing. I have looked carefully at the coin, and it's only some of the highest points of the design that exhibit the reflectivity that some posts interpret as "cabinet friction." Without high magnification to see whether there are abrasive lines in the reflective areas (which would imply friction) or not, it's hard to tell, but the fact that all of the highest points are not affected leads me to believe that we're looking at die insufficiency again. With high relief designs, one sees die insufficiency all the time. One also has to consider die wear which can smooth die surfaces so that the frost is lost (it rhymes) at that point giving the coin a reflective surface rather than a frosty surface. But in any event, we're "pixel peeping" (to use a term from digital photography whereby pictures are blown up to the point that individual pixels become visible) at the coins. I challenge anyone to show me a (non-proof) 1850 half crown that has more eye-appeal than mine. BTW, do I think mine is a proof? Probably not, but it might be according to one expert I consulted. Best

And here are enlarged pictures of the 1850: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88770760/1850%20HalfcrownPRO_obv.JPG https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88770760/1850%20HalfcrownPRO_rev.JPG

And here is the reverse: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88770760/1818%20CrownPRO_rev.JPG

Here's a bigger picture of the 1818. No wear! https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88770760/1818%20CrownPRO_obv.JPG

I'm curious about the "noticeable wear" that you see. In particular, the bright "spot" at the top of St. George's head is caused by the high relief and die insufficiency. The point retains full luster and hence is not wear. In many high relief designs, one can see that striking pressure was not sufficient to cause metal to flow into the highest parts of the design (deepest parts of the die), and as a consequence, the surfaces of the metal at those points do not pick up the frostiness of the die but look bright as molten metal would look that has cooled. This is common on almost every uncirculated George III 1818-1820 crown in existence. The effect is also visible on George IV 1821/22 crowns and on many other high relief designs such as the Three Graces (reverse spots on high points etc.). As for the YH half crown, this is one of the finest specimens that I have seen, or Bruce Lorich has seen, in 40 years, and I don't see any "wear" on that coin. One has to look at the overall luster of the coin and for any spots that exhibit wear, where the luster is missing. In hand, there are no wear spots, and the coin's fields are very proof like and mark free and the devices are very frosty. Any coin that's been circulated, even to a very small degree, will pick up circulation marks as well as wear. In the absence of marks and in the presence of uniform luster, this coin is absolutely uncirculated. No picture can confirm this as well as seeing the coin in person.

Forgot to include buyer's comm. for the sale in 2005, so the profit is still around 85%, still not bad.

Hammered in St. James I (2005) for 21,000. More than doubled in nine years. Rarity + <more robust economic outlook+ low interest rates> = 125% profit in nine years. Not a bad return for the seller. Also that the juice was less in 2005 with St.J then it is now (17.5% vs 20%). Part of that is St.J has no sellers comm. for lots > £1000.