Some of my British Coins - new pictures

[azda 979]

Lol, sorry Marvin for laughing a little here, but your explaining what a rim is to a coin forum

Edited October 23, 2014 by azda

[marvinfinnley 4]

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.

[shagreen 24]

Here is a proof half crown from my collection for reference

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/6diww245j07tymc/AABWLUuPteYuxJUV4ZLhX4Yya

Rev

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/d479r4p7ar47d4v/AABOj_MaseiJEo_8tWTrxpeya

great discussion here by all contributors

[marvinfinnley 4]

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.

[shagreen 24]

Here are some pics of an 1853 proof half crown a little later in production than your beautiful 1850 sadly nothing like the quality of the 1839

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/t3cfor5fq83lxut/AAC9S2VPoqB0HgdYYG-Fryita

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/npz8t9ndeb3evoq/AADD3y7VsuR8U-GAnKMpYYYla

I dont think NGC will have the expertise to tell the difference for your 1850 half crown and they dont guarantee their grading certification between proof and business strikes in this area of numismatics

[marvinfinnley 4]

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.

[azda 979]

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.

Have you considered CGS in the UK?

[azda 979]

i've found a proof first sold at baldwins, described as the following

Great Britain, BRITISH COINS. Victoria (1837-1901) Victoria, Proof Halfcrown, 1850, young head left with two plain fillets in hair, plain truncation, date below, rev crowned quartered shield of arms within wreath, edge milled (Davies 575; ESC 685 R4; S 3888). Attractively toned, good extremely fine and extremely rare. ex Colin Adams, Spink Auction 161, 1 December 2005, lot 684

Estimate: £2500-3000

Edited October 24, 2014 by azda

[Peckris 579]

i've found a proof first sold at baldwins, described as the following

Great Britain, BRITISH COINS. Victoria (1837-1901) Victoria, Proof Halfcrown, 1850, young head left with two plain fillets in hair, plain truncation, date below, rev crowned quartered shield of arms within wreath, edge milled (Davies 575; ESC 685 R4; S 3888). Attractively toned, good extremely fine and extremely rare. ex Colin Adams, Spink Auction 161, 1 December 2005, lot 684

Estimate: £2500-3000

Dave - that's a useful link but you above all people know that you can link directly to pictures without sending people to the site in question. Just copy and paste the relevant Photofuckit 'forum URL' and Rabbie's your uncle...

[Rob 3,152]

Nice coins.

It's a real shame about the couple of tiny marks on the crown bust.

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.

[azda 979]

Peck i posted the picture of the coin, if you click the picture it will always send you to the limk, tgats why i copied and pasted the img url into my post so you can see the picture without going to the link

[Paulus 1,975]

Dave, if you do it using the 'Direct' share link it will not redirect people:

Edited October 24, 2014 by Paulus

[VickySilver 830]

Rob probably knows the sale, but Spink in around 1998-2000 or so had a sale with numerous Vicky proofs and the later 1880s dates, though of a slightly different type had somewhat similar strike appearances..

My money on NGC grading it proof - and this from pictures alone...

[azda 979]

Bit why click the picture when the picture is already there in the post, hence the reason i ALWAYS add the img url, not my fault if you want to click an already viewable picture. I've done the same thing for years with my uploads and never had a moan, only about size

[Nick 329]

Bit why click the picture when the picture is already there in the post, hence the reason i ALWAYS add the img url, not my fault if you want to click an already viewable picture. I've done the same thing for years with my uploads and never had a moan, only about size

It's your post, Dave. Post it however you like. If it annoys a particular poster, all the more reason to post it that way, because the alternative is to submit to their prejudice.

[Peckris 579]

Bit why click the picture when the picture is already there in the post, hence the reason i ALWAYS add the img url, not my fault if you want to click an already viewable picture. I've done the same thing for years with my uploads and never had a moan, only about size

1) Because it looked like a forum thumbnail, which should be clicked to enlarge it

2) Because compared to your usual dinner plates, it's small, so even more reason to click to enlarge

3) Because there's nothing with the picture to say "If you click me you will be hijacked to Photofuckit".

What Paulus said is how I always assumed you did it - and your pictures were large enough not to need clicking on.

[azda 979]

Ahhhhhbut theirin is the problem Peck, as its not

My coin i cannot add a dinner plate, and when i do there's a moan about the size lol, and the main culprit of the size moan my old chum, is.......,,

Edited October 24, 2014 by azda

[TomGoodheart 402]

Are you on an iPad Peck? Just I always have problems with the one at work.

With that I can see all of Scott's pictures but very few others, including ones I have posted myself using my laptop! There's just a blank space where the image should be. Also some of my admin abilities which depend on being able to hover over an image or link don't work.

Now using my laptop, in the post above I can see Dave's halfcrown without clicking anywhere. It's just there in the post.

Though if I did click it would apparently take me to photobucket, as the useful 'hover' feature that seems to be missing from the iPad tells me.

I've wondered before what others see when I post an image. Appears that maybe we all see different things, depending on what software we're using?

.

Edited October 24, 2014 by TomGoodheart

[Peckris 579]

Are you on an iPad Peck? Just I always have problems with the one at work.

With that I can see all of Scott's pictures but very few others, including ones I have posted myself using my laptop! There's just a blank space where the image should be. Also some of my admin abilities which depend on being able to hover over an image or link don't work.

Now using my laptop, in the post above I can see Dave's halfcrown without clicking anywhere. It's just there in the post.

Though if I did click it would apparently take me to photobucket, as the useful 'hover' feature that seems to be missing from the iPad tells me.

I've wondered before what others see when I post an image. Appears that maybe we all see different things, depending on what software we're using?

Oh yes, I could see the halfcrown picture fine, but it was a small picture (by Dave's standards) so I clicked it. If I'd known I would be taken to PF I would have simply zoomed my screen a bit. I'm using an iMac and I generally have no problems seeing posted pictures.

For me, the ideal size of picture would be somewhere between 600x600 and 800x800 pixels. My own are smaller, simply because they are lifesize scans from my database, and the maximum size they can be enlarged to is twice that (they look bad enough at that).

The other forum I'm a member of (photography) that uses the same forum software as this one, doesn't allow external links, but does allow direct url links that posts the picture straight into the topic, as Paulus described.

[Coinery 1,153]

we have all been there.

Take Dave's 1902 Proof Florin for example!

[marvinfinnley 4]

i've found a proof first sold at baldwins, described as the following

Great Britain, BRITISH COINS. Victoria (1837-1901) Victoria, Proof Halfcrown, 1850, young head left with two plain fillets in hair, plain truncation, date below, rev crowned quartered shield of arms within wreath, edge milled (Davies 575; ESC 685 R4; S 3888). Attractively toned, good extremely fine and extremely rare. ex Colin Adams, Spink Auction 161, 1 December 2005, lot 684

Estimate: £2500-3000

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?

[marvinfinnley 4]

Rob probably knows the sale, but Spink in around 1998-2000 or so had a sale with numerous Vicky proofs and the later 1880s dates, though of a slightly different type had somewhat similar strike appearances..

My money on NGC grading it proof - and this from pictures alone...

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!

[marvinfinnley 4]

Nice coins.

It's a real shame about the couple of tiny marks on the crown bust.

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.

[marvinfinnley 4]

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.

[marvinfinnley 4]

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.

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.