1939 proof coins!

[Coinery 1,152]

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.

Thanks VS, really appreciate the time, and will certainly PM you in a couple of days, once the mayhem of this period is over.

I never dreamed I'd be collating the G6 series, but the currency coins are affordable enough to allow for early errors in purchase (The Modern Milled coins are a totally new animal to me) and, of course, there is enough material out there for multiple 'fine-tunes' with upgrades, for what I hope will ultimately be a very pretty raw collection for Coinery Junior.

Now, it doesn't just stop there, as the elitist in me has also taken an interest in the greater prizes of the G6 series, notwithstanding the new learnings that accompany them (incidentally, is the Spencer article available to read online?) so, all in good time, the proofs and gold coinage will also be the order of the day, and these I will very likely collect encapsulated, or at least get encapsulated!

1) I know Declan mentioned the '39 proofs were in Coincraft, are they all documented there?

2) Is there a resource out there that catalogues the G6 series better than say Freeman and Davies, or have they got it cornered, apart

from the breakdown of Cameo and micro-varieties that is?

3) Are there any other patterns out there, besides the Double Florin coins and, if so, are they catalogued or written about somewhere?

4) Was it just the VIP proofs that were frosted?

Without wishing to spark any big debate on the matter, I have enquired before about the surface contaminants (acidic grease from fingers, atmopheric pollutants, etc.) that must surely accompany coins into their tombs and, being as encapsulation is a relatively new phenomenon, wonder whether we have seen the full implications of such things yet? I do like both raw and slabbed coins, but have some concerns that a fingerprint could slowly begin to appear over the next decade or so on an otherwise immaculate proof. This would of course be exactly the same for a raw coin, however, it would certainly be reassuring if the TPGC's were to actively degrease/decontaminate, or other such thing, before encapsulation.

[Coinery 1,152]

Freeman lists proof bronze pennies and halfpennies for 1939 at R18 ~ 6 to 15 estimated to be in existence.

Freeman gives virtually all the G5 & G6 proofs as R18 and all the E2s (bar 1953) as R19, which is patently wrong. As always, it is a case of guesstimating rarities because readers demand a number. Spadework is required to establish the relative rarities and numbers for each year.

So where is your more accurate source ?

On my computer. Spadework produces information. e.g. Someone on the PCGS forum collected 1958 VIP halfpennies who almost reached R18 on his own. Knowing full well that there were other identifiable sales that were not his, the conclusion is apparent. As always, some rarity numbers are overestimates and others under. Whilst you can never achieve definitive numbers from catalogues, you can make a pretty good stab at relative rarity based on images from sales because most will be identified for what they are. At best, Freeman's estimates are taken from auction catalogues with only some of these illustrated because his work predates the internet making any number more unreliable. Inevitably some rarity estimates will be correct, but only by accident and intuition.

I would be correct in thinking the VIP coins are the frosted ones, wouldn't I? And that it's these that we have no mintages for? Total proof coins are recorded however, is that correct?

[VickySilver 830]

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....

[Coinery 1,152]

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....

Great stuff, thank-you very much! Also, I have to agree, I've never noticed any changes on silver when using acetone, nor on full-lustred copper. However, I have noticed some sort of reaction with the copper on partially lustred coins (a kind of hue can appear), but this improves with a light pat with olive-oil. I do avoid using acetone on copper wherever possible, which is a shame, as this is the metal that has the most to gain from decontamination.

Anyway, thanks again, have a Happy New Year!

NB: I think the Spencer article is a must then, so if anyone has a copy available, or for sale, I'd very much appreciate it!

[Gary D 76]

Can I also ask what is meant by cameo in reference to proof coins?

The frosted appearance is produced by sandblasting the sunk portions of a die. It's actually a particular minting technique, and should be distinguished from - e.g. - proofs produced in the 1970s, which are non-frosted mirror-like proofs. The particular difficulty is with George VI - some of the proofs have a very mild frosting appearance (which may or may not have been caused by treatment of dies), while others of the same year / denomination don't show any.

I often wonder what the Edward VII matt proofs would have been like if the matt effect had been restricted to only the raised portions of the design.

If you look at the edge lettering on the crown you will see that the faces of the letters are Matt and the rest of the edge shiny.

[Gary D 76]

Yes this is something I get annoyed about. Take the 1935 raised edge crown for instance. With a mintage of just 2500 and probably all minted at the same time how can you differentiate between them, the TPGs are just making it up for their own gains.

I agree that there is no point trying to describe some 1935 raised edge crowns as "cameo" and others as "deep cameo". I read in a review that there are also non cameo (no frosting) 1935 proof crowns but have never seen one myself. Has anyone seen one before? If so does anyone know why the different types exist?

All the raised edge proofs I've seen are frosted but the incuse proof I have barely shows and frosting. Which brings me onto another pet hate, the TPGs don't differentiate between the raised edge pattern proof and the incuse proofs, so how can you tell the difference when you can't see the edges.

[VickySilver 830]

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.

[Coinery 1,152]

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.

Thanks again VS, prepare yourself for a New Year 'Cat 'O' Nine'!

Whilst I have nothing remotely interesting or academic to discuss with Graham(yet), I would certainly like him on-side (in the address book), if only so he might wait patiently on my ignorance of this series, until such a time as I can find a question of importance!

As always with this forum, all knowledge is gratefully received!

Edited December 31, 2012 by Coinery

[Rob 3,152]

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.

Graham is a very nice man and extremely helpful, gives a good talk and is willing to share knowledge. He does spend some time at the Mint even though retired as he passed on some information about the Weyl patterns whilst looking through their material doing research. The Mint didn't reply to my initial enquiry, though he did having been the referee for the paper and remembered after the event! That is someone with a consummate interest in all things milled.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Rob

[VickySilver 830]

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...