Sandblasted Dies

[Hussulo 6]

Do you think this coin is made using the sandblasted dies as apposed to the normal proof polished dies? The frosted bust etc suggests to me it is and according to my Coincraft 1998 book they where some (vip) sandblasted die minted threepences of that year.

[Rob 3,152]

Do you think this coin is made using the sandblasted dies as apposed to the normal proof polished dies? The frosted bust etc suggests to me it is and according to my Coincraft 1998 book they where some (vip) sandblasted die minted threepences of that year.

Based on the image I'd say yes.

Interestingly and as an aside, my 1960 VIP proof 3d is not from sandblasted dies and is only a polished die. I don't know when the changeover took place as I don't have any intermediate years or whether both polished and sandblasted pieces were produced for this year.

Edited October 16, 2006 by Rob

[Hussulo 6]

Do you think this coin is made using the sandblasted dies as apposed to the normal proof polished dies? The frosted bust etc suggests to me it is and according to my Coincraft 1998 book they where some (vip) sandblasted die minted threepences of that year.

Based on the image I'd say yes.

Interestingly and as an aside, my 1960 VIP proof 3d is not from sandblasted dies and is only a polished die. I don't know when the changeover took place as I don't have any intermediate years or whether both polished and sandblasted pieces were produced for this year.

Thanks Rob you have confirmed my hunch, lets see if others also agree. If they do It could be purchase of the month for me.

I haven't seen your 1960 3p but your 1958 sandblasted 6p ia a real gem.

Do you think this coin is made using the sandblasted dies as apposed to the normal proof polished dies? The frosted bust etc suggests to me it is and according to my Coincraft 1998 book they where some (vip) sandblasted die minted threepences of that year.

Based on the image I'd say yes.

Interestingly and as an aside, my 1960 VIP proof 3d is not from sandblasted dies and is only a polished die. I don't know when the changeover took place as I don't have any intermediate years or whether both polished and sandblasted pieces were produced for this year.

Thanks Rob you have confirmed my hunch, lets see if others also agree. If they do It could be purchase of the month for me.

I haven't seen your 1960 3p but your 1958 sandblasted 6p ia a real gem.

P.s. According to Coincraft 1998 edition there were proofs minted for most years of Queen Elizabeth II threepences, but only in 1953 do you get a proof as well as a proof from sandblasted dies.

[Guest E. Dawson]

As it turns out I know quite a bit about the matte ("sand blasted") 1950's pieces. This would NOT be such but is an example of the so-called cameo proof. The matte would indeed be a great catch but not too many have escaped the sets which will not go for in excess of 5k pounds for the set. I would think a true matte 1953 would go individually for near to 1k pounds.

[Rob 3,152]

As it turns out I know quite a bit about the matte ("sand blasted") 1950's pieces. This would NOT be such but is an example of the so-called cameo proof. The matte would indeed be a great catch but not too many have escaped the sets which will not go for in excess of 5k pounds for the set. I would think a true matte 1953 would go individually for near to 1k pounds.

I suspect we are all talking sense but using different terminology.

In the UK, a matte proof would be one that is sandblasted over all of the face such as the 1902 proofs and which has no mirrors but has proof detail. The odd examples of later proofs were treated so as to improve the photographic qualities. An example of a matte proof 1953 farthing was sold in the "Gregory" part 1 sale (i.e. ex Baldwin) lot 720 and is now on Colin Cooke's website in the farthing section. This does not have a brilliant finish.

The normal sets for 1937,1950, 1951 & 1953 were as we know all struck from polished dies which did not have the same sandblasted effect anywhere on the design. As one would expect, the relief detail is not as brilliant as the fields, but equally does not have the velvet-like finish normally found on the VIP busts.

The VIP proofs typically had just the detail sandblasted as in my 1958 6d in the gallery, so presumably were made by sandblasting the whole (from which a matte proof would logically be struck) and then polishing the field to produce the cameo effect. So to summarise, I think we are saying a VIP=cameo and a matte proof is different, but with the caveat that the VIP proofs did not always have the cameo effect. The attached picture demonstates the difference between a 1954 and 1958 proof halfpenny where even allowing for some light toning on the 1958 it can be seen that there is no cameo effect. A better appraisal can probably be made by comparing the Adams sale VIP half crowns. The George VIs were not cameo, the Elizabeths (lots 806-811) were dated 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957 1958 & 1961, but only the 1957 and 1958 would be described as cameo. My 1958 6d and 1/-s came from the same set as the halfcrown and are also cameo appearance. The presence of a 1961S 1/- which is still pictured on Colin Cooke's site and is not cameo suggests that not all years had this effect.

Edited October 17, 2006 by Rob

[Hussulo 6]

Recived the coin today, the bust does appear to be frosty but not as frosty as the pictures suggest unless you change the angle and move it around in your hand. So I'm unsure as to whether its a really nice "normal proof" or a "sandblasted proof". However the normal proof 1953 threepences I have seen don't display any cameo affect.

Rob does your 1958 6d appear as frosty and cameo no matter how you hold it, as it does in your pictures?

[Rob 3,152]

Rob does your 1958 6d appear as frosty and cameo no matter how you hold it, as it does in your pictures?

Yes, the bust looks like velvet, albeit in metal. The fields are mirrors, the toning on my 6d at least gives some detail which on a scanner comes out black if untoned due to no light scattering which you will automatically get from a frosted bust or a currency piece as a result of the rougher surface.

[Rob 3,152]

Here are 3 shillings for comparison scanned together. UNC currency, 1953 proof from the sets and 1958 VIP respectively. As you can see, both the bust and field on the 1953 are brilliant, whereas the VIP is less reflective than the currency. The VIP bust also has an even texture which the currency pieces soon lose due to handling.

[Hussulo 6]

Here are 3 shillings for comparison scanned together. UNC currency, 1953 proof from the sets and 1958 VIP respectively. As you can see, both the bust and field on the 1953 are brilliant, whereas the VIP is less reflective than the currency. The VIP bust also has an even texture which the currency pieces soon lose due to handling.

Thanks Rob,

I'm unsure about this 3d now there definetly is a contrast of tone between the bust and feild, however the bust does not appear frosted when observed from all angles like your 6d. I think I might have to go with normal proof striking on this one.

[scottishmoney 29]

Of course I like the VIP example best, nice colouring. But how many of these were made, and for whom?

[Rob 3,152]

Of course I like the VIP example best, nice colouring. But how many of these were made, and for whom?

The mint won't reveal how many were made. They were made in sets, so there should be equal numbers of each denomination for a particular year assuming that normal currency coins were struck e.g. no pennies 1954-60, no 1961 halfpenny etc. I suppose it is just possible that some solely cupro-nickel or bronze sets were produced separately but this is only conjecture and based on the fact that my 1958s came from a 2/6d - 6d run (possibly a part set but the info not divulged) which was item MS5788 in the SNC Dec. 2003. It is probably safe to say that varying numbers between 2 or 3 and low double figures sets were made as some dates are decidedly rare.

They were supposedly made for important visitors to the mint although I would have thought it likely that a set would automatically be made for the monarch and possibly the PM and some ministers. The mint won't give any info on mintage at all, and I suspect the recipients want to keep a low profile too and not admit to a bit of fund raising.

[Guest E. Dawson]

Rob is quite correct with perhaps a few additions in order:

As most know, standard year proofs were struck for the public in larger numbers during the 20th century for the following years: 1902, 1927, 1937, 1950, 1951, 1953, 1970. Only 1902 specimens were struck to a matte standard. The other years listed all came with a normal proof appearance with special preparation of the planchets and the dies that struck them; from 1927 forward progressively greater preparation was afforded the dies. Latter specimens such as the 1953 3d that introduced the subject display this.

Dies for normal proof strikes of 1953 had standard modern preparation wherein the entire die was treated to give a satiny (and not technically matte) surface. The high points are then polished so that when the planchets are struck there is a cameo contrast between the devices such as the monarch's bust and the fiels surrounding. The first specimens struck from such dies preserve the greatest cameo contrast between the devices and fields but gradually with progressive strikings the impact with planchets serves to polish away the contrast so that the cameo effect is lost until the new set of dies is employed.

VIP specimens of these so-called normal year proofs have possibly greater preparation time and fewere specimens struck so will generally have great cameo contrast. Many experts will have great difficulty (and I would argue unable) distguishing very early normally prepared die struck specimes from true VIP specimens of these years - see for example the 1937 crowns offered earlier this year in either Goldberg or Heritage in proof 66 and 67 that were quite cameo in appearance.

True matte specimens have NO polished surfaces, either devices or fields and were struck to proof standard by sandblasting the dies with NO polishing. Therefore the cited 1953 3d is certainly NOT a proof, and there really should be no argument. Interestingly, and in the fashion of the time, all 1902 proof denominations were struck to a matte standard.

As an addendum and not to confuse: proofs were struck in non-standard years and are by definition VIP. There are very few examples of mattes struck in these non-standard years though Spink some 20+ years ago did offer a 1954 S shilling to this standard. From George V through Queen Elizabeth there is an increased tendency for there to be cameo contrast between devices and fields. On either end of the date spectrum there are some exceptions as has been pointed out above with the thought that generally greater preparation time in die production the reason.

Unfortunately I am a bit technically challenged so have some difficulty in getting pictures but will give it a try if readers are interested.

[Guest E. Dawson]

Sorry for the typos as my internet card is not allowing me good connection so my response could not be edited.

[Guest E. Dawson]

PS Numbers of VIP specimens struck in non-standard years is said to be five to ten, but some seem to be much more common. The 1958 halfpenny must have had at least 25 to30 as it shows up with great frequency. These did not all go to "gliterati" (OK, don't get mad at the word) as the jeweler located near to the old Tower mint had quite a few specimens, he being an associate of various mint employees.

There is a somewhat unofficial rating in terms of scarcity as some of the non-standard years are almost never, if ever, available.

[DaveG38 405]

Looking through the replies in this thread, I am bemused by the variety of answers and opinions. Just so that I fully understand the history of proofs and VIP proofs, I felt it might be useful if some of you experts could cast your eye over my interpretation of my own coins, based on the advice given.

First up is my 1953 Proof Set - all coins still in their plastic envelopes, and pretty much polished both in the field and the devices. Perhaps slightly matt on the busts, so I guess this is a set produced well into the striking run, and not at the beginning when the devices and bust would have been matt.

Next is a 1953 Scottish shilling in an NGC slab, which is described as cameo PF 68, and it clearly is, as both bust and lettering etc are matt. Therefore, it seems to me that this is an early proof strike, or perhaps a VIP strike.

Lastly, I have a 1937 set, in which both the Crown and the Scottish shilling have a cameo finish. All the other coins in the set are highly polished over the whole coin, and exhibit no signs of frosting or a matt finish. My conclusions: clearly the crown and shilling are an earlier strike or a VIP proof, whilst the other coins are very late strikes, as there is no sign of any matt finish. Therefore, either the crown and shilling were omitted from an early set and were 'found' later at the mint and 'married' to later coins to make up the set, or the set has been made up by a collector bringing together individual coins to complete the set.

Does all this make sense, or have I misunderstood this thread completely?

PS: For what it is worth neither my 1950, or 1951 set exhibit the slightest sign of matt finish or cameo effect, which I presume is correct?

[Guest E. Dawson]

Precisely! You seem to have absorbed exactly what it is that I was trying to say and what is known of these coins. If you have a choice I would suggest getting the cameo pieces as they generally are more attractive provided that they are not laden with hairlines, etc.

So well done on the crown!

[Gary D 76]

The 3d was sold as a normal proof and the cameo effect although present may have been unintentionally enhanced by the photography, althought there was never any intention to deceive. The 3d in my own collection is very similar if slightly better. Checking the other coins in the set they all exhibit some cameo more so the silver.

[Guest E. Dawson]

Yes, these sets are somewhat a mix and match affair with no exact timing between when each of the denominations were struck. Not to mention different die lifes striking different size planchets of differing metals of differing hardness.

[Hussulo 6]

Wow just when I start to think I am understanding "proofs" it seems there is alot more to learn, but I do love this hobby and I'm sure given time I will. It is definetly an interesting field of numismatics.