Rob

If anyone has Seabys Coin & Medal Bulletin for 1959, either complete or a part could they please PM me. Thanks.

Has anyone got an 1835 1/3 farthing in perfect condition because this is only EF? It looks distinctly like there is an underlying 4 as evidenced by the upturned serif on the topright of the 5, the vertical dropping down from this point and the angle of the 4 joining the end of the 5's tail to the nearest angle. There is a small pointed bit protruding from the loop of the 5 at 3 o'clock although you have to look from the side to see this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I had a further discussion this morning with a third party and I think I'm happy with tun/crown for the obverse. Despite what the scan suggests, in the hand I simply can not make out any of what would be the top of the bell which in any case would have to be a smaller than normal bell, so the bottom protrusion could just be part of a tun. I'm going to seek a fourth opinion but may be a while getting a reply.

Imaged on the scanner it is over crown and probably over bell too as there appears to be a small ring centre top to complement the bottom of what would be a bell!! This is not obvious using an illuminated x12 in the hand.

This little gem turned up on ebay a couple of weeks ago. This obverse legend with FRA was only present in the Brooker collection for i.m. Harp on one fine work piece and not on any currency pieces. Also came with the added bonus of a Lingford ticket.

Can't post a picture in the unrecorded varieties section either - something wrong here as the file size is the same as normally used. If anyone wants a picture, please PM me. Try again at less dpi. Overall about the same grade as the Burstal piece which is better than either the Brooker or Lockett examples. Weaker on the portrait but stronger legend and fewer flat areas to the reverse. Not clipped and a nice round flan weighing 6.37g. I believe this is a new die pairing for what is already a seriously rare variety.

Can't post a picture in the unrecorded varieties section either - something wrong here as the file size is the same as normally used. If anyone wants a picture, please PM me.

Unrecorded to my knowledge is an E2/3 mm.Tun with apostrophe only stops on the obverse instead of the usual apost. with stop below. Also, the reverse has no stops. All the 3 other examples of this type I could find - Lockett 3424, Burstal 309 and Brooker 508 had apostrophes with a lower stop and reverse stops in the legend. I can't add a picture here because I've reached my limit for this thread, so will put it in the unrecorded varieties section.

I despair. Here we have a very rare French arms at date 1787 shilling. As you can see, the French harp is very clear.

These were discussed and dismissed many times on this forum. Interestingly, the 1936 proof penny is no longer available and has been removed from the website.

Personally I think you can forget FDC as I believe it is a currency piece which is struggling to make UNC. If you compare the Adams 1936 proof penny lot 357 with the one for sale, there is much less hair detail. A matt proof for photographic purposes must have the same sharp detail found on a bog standard proof, otherwise why make it as a currency piece would suffice.

It looks a bit impaired with the bagmarks on the reverse. And the obverse doesn't look like it is either. The post 1926 bronze proofs were normally brilliant (see attached picture of 1935 proof 1/2d) which although it doesn't exclude matt proofs, does raise questions. Aside from the normal proof fields, the lettering is also much sharper. The rims however are not as wide or with such a sharp rim/edge as those of earlier proofs but are better than normal currency pieces. The piece shown does have reasonable rims.

I'm 48 and both of me are normal. I think.

No. Anyone can pay a premium to the going rate for a specific coin, but an experienced collector/dealer will only pay a premium for a much better than normally found example. A person who has not seen any or only few examples of that coin is unlikely to be able to grade it properly and it's not very sensible to buy £10 notes for £20.

There is an approximate price the majority of collectors will pay for a particular variety of coin in a particular grade. This usually applies to the commoner pieces because there are sufficient sales to say this, whereas the scarcity/demand will drive the prices of the rarer pieces. People who regularly follow sales will therefore have a rough idea what the coin should sell for. When a coin is said to be worth a premium it is because that piece is better than typically found for that type. It may be more attractively toned, a sharper strike, better centred etc or a combination of factors or simply that it is the best known example. In the case of milled pieces it usually applies to UNC or nearly so coins, but in the case of hammered would be applicable to lower grade coins if they were fully struck up with no flat areas for example. Better than average features will therefore drive demand and result in a premium to the price tyically paid. An experienced collector will recognise what is a better example having seen sufficient numbers to be able to discriminate - novices, lacking this resource of experience should therefore not buy the first thing they see.

And so the seller and description were as one. 1790 shilling

Does this guy work for a US grading company in his spare time? 1690 4d

No less or more interesting, but I would be wiser. Anyway, why would I charge myself £50?

Josie, the first thing to remember is that we are a collecting fraternity doing this for a hobby. There is not the same need for quality control that you would need as a manufacturer. The publication of a standard reference for new varieties or an overseeing body would need to be funded as an ongoing business as it is clearly a full time job keeping up to date the records of unrecorded pieces. This would only happen if someone could make a living doing so and who would pay the subscription fees to such an organisation? To do this on a commercial basis with just one employee would cost between £50-100K per annum plus the cost of publishing an annually updated list.