All Activity

Congrats, Eric for getting the PL descriptor! Looking forward to seeing it. Obviously, the reflective fields would be obvious to someone seeing the coin in real life, but it is really nice to have it as part of the grade as a photo might not capture it so well. I agree that calling a prooflike coin a "variety" is just wrong. But I think NGC is using the term proof like simply to describe a circulating coin with unusually reflective fields and it is just a description of the appearance. The amount of "reflectivity" needed for the PL destination is of course subjective and depends on the opinion of the grader but then all grading by a TGP is subjective. Descriptors like PL also indicates that coins of the same "grade" can differ significantly in value and desirability despite the impression often given by TGPs to the contrary. From NGC website: "Most circulation issue coins have minimally reflective fields, even in Mint State (MS) grades. When a circulation issue coin’s fields exhibit a higher-than-normal degree of reflectivity, the coin is said to be “Prooflike” (or “PL”) because it is reminiscent of a Proof coin. If the fields are deeply mirrored, the coin is said to be “Deep Prooflike” (or “DPL”). NGC uses the PL or DPL modifiers after an MS coin’s numeric grade, when applicable. These designations indicate only the degree of reflectivity evident in a coin’s fields and make no implication as to other qualities associated with Proof coins, such as frosted devices and superior sharpness."

the higher relief is not a one off, in fact the low, more regular looking strike is rare. the relief is the same on the reverse between he 2 types the die looks fine to me I am not very well versed in proof strikes, but the features look very well defined on the more common 2017 coins, can’t rule out that possibility.

Better relief due to a plundered year specimen set? Is the strike of better quality or is that die a proof die recycled for the next stage down in quality? Does the bottom one look like it is from a worn die on its last legs? Is the relief similar on both sides? etc. All valid questions required to make decision. I won't say taken from a proof set because the rims aren't right, but that doesn't preclude the use use of a worn proof die or collar without the other bit. With less than 30K specimen and 14246 proofs struck across 3 sets, the dies should have plenty of life left in them.

Something I’ve noticed is that the vast majority of 5p coins from 2017 seemingly have a much higher relief than other coins from the same queen portrait, but i have seemingly found a 2017 coin with much less relief than the other coins from 2017, much like the other coins from the same time period. I have a photo of the coins here

I find it difficult to comprehend that it needs to be confirmed as 'prooflike' by a TPG given the lack of official designation or description. How do they cope with coins that are proofs but not all shite and briny (e.g. matte), and those superior currency strikes that look exactly the same, or close to? It only takes the use of a wrong die or collar to produce something akin to the real thing. This is as bad as Bull assigning prooflike to a halfcrown and calling it a variety, which it ain't.

Absolute classic! 🙌

Love that book and film.

Phew, thank goodness you don’t, this fella may have been a little too much for you!

No, not at all. It's all my fault.

I thought I had a rival............

https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/ Ah. I got the name wrong, didn't I !

Could you give me link please.

That picture is much clearer and yes Gouby BP1898 Ba

Thanks. I did look at the Pennywise site before, but I never thought I would encounter any of the varieties mentioned and did not look too closely at my coins. It will take me a long time to digest all this information. The Pennywise site is very interesting and highlights so much information throughout all the years. I would go with the Ba, but what do I know? Well, more than yesterday.

Take a look at: https://headsntails14.wordpress.com/victoria-bronze-reverses/

I think that's a Gouby Ba narrower date type as Ian [ alfnail ] says . Terry

Here is a better image og the date. I can now see that the second number 8 is different from the first.

Wow. I had no idea. Thank you both, that is very interesting. I looked it up in the Freemans book and thought it was an F149 1 + B. I have only just stared to investigate all of the variants and I have a lot to learn. That's OK because that is what it is all about.

I concur. As you might guess, I do like Victorian silver (certainly including shillings) but have no real interest in die numbers or "micro-varietals" for that matter. Nothing against those that do, and more power to them. Now, some die numbers and their associations do interest me - like the DRITTANIAR issues of 6d that went to Cyprus & die number 6,etc.

Yes, this coin is superior to all that I have seen, regardless. It went MS 63PL and is the only prooflike YH verified at either major TPG. Some other specimens are verging on it, but just not quite there. I will tr to post some pictures, but am having trouble at the moment. (still!).

Although a better picture would be good, i think its Ca which is rarer still. Good investment " for a few pounds " king Kenny" 👍

I have been looking at Rod Blunt for some time, the link you attached has directed me further on the web page, how did I miss this? Doh, Many Many Thanks Im indebted to you. 👍

Did you know it's the 'bisect lines' 2nd numeral 8? Gouby marks as RARE in his latest pages. Looks like a Ba.

When I started working in 1974 I could afford to buy a few pennies from one of the mail order coin dealers. In those days you did not get a nice colour photograph of the coin you wished to buy, but rather just a brief description on a typed list. I bought this penny for a few pounds. I was a little disappointed when it arrived because of the black spots on an otherwise good looking coin. I was, and still am puzzled as to what caused these marks. The uniform pattern looks like marks left from a pierced metal tray