VickySilver

I have been somewhat saddened by what appears to be the demise of that company. I used to communicate with Alan about coins and got some quite decent pieces from him years ago & do hope he is well. I still look at their "offerings" but have not bid for quite a few years now. Well, here's to hoping the ship can be righted.... PS - really superb currency George VI crowns are hard to come by as I believe the planchets were not well cared for and there are nearly always bag marks, including in key areas. Same is generally true of the George V 1935 Jubilee crown issues.

Yes I saw those - he has previously been possibly a bit conservative but believe that to be a family business. Is there now another hand involved with the grading and cataloguing?

Matte proof 65. There are hints of verdigris/green oxidation in places and the usual wipe as has been stated. IMHO a 63 on a good day only....HOWEVER these at auction go logarithmically higher with each grade. Not sure what it sold for @ St. James...

OK this is from an auction not yet closed and is only the obverse (St. Jas or somebody - lol) . As they like to ask, GTG or guess the grade! Can’t say I’m in agreement: I see the usual wipe and even some hints of green near corrosion.

Thanks for the pictures as I was about to share, but covered nicely. Back to the OP: some have said that both the 1899 and 1919 dates have a final "9 over 8". I am not at all sure that they are not artifact even though I have purported examples of both. LOL. Might be worth a check but they would not be valuable in any case....

Bit of a puzzler. The center details of George may have had a bit of dip applied (as opposed to immersion of the whole coin) perhaps with cotton bud or some other device. IMHO these coins need to be seen in hand; doesn't look to be a terrible price though.

By recall the British Museum has quite a series of coins demonstrating the alloy experiments and versions and that most were of the 1920-22 vintage. XRF scanning will yield metal breakdown of the surface metals at least and would be interesting if anyone had access to such an instrument....Results might readily be published in Coin News or other publications....I would be very interested to know results and have some really nice transitional pieces like the "duck-tailed" silver and others....

With the possible exception of when it comes time to sell! LOL

Hmmm, hadn't thought about the mattes at all, but don't seem to have any others.

OK, first of all I do like 20th C. silver as you probably have seen so like BOTH. I looked at the PCGS cert pictures and think I may be able to answer [to some degree]: The second coin has a cheek and base of the neck (along the SCM muscle to be precise) that show some degree or rub or contact, at least to my eyes. They will tend to be hard on that bit. Also, it is likely just the pictures but the top coin appears to have better lustre even if struck more softly than the second coin. On what I have heard a "technical" basis, aside from strike the first coin would then get the higher grade. I think this is something that both NGC and PCGS tend to go with more strongly.

Sorry Rob as I was concentrating on the silver series 6d-5Sh (no 3d other than Maundy struck).... have seen the bronze as you've said. I have had a press on trying to get the smaller silver as I have the crown in definitive proof. They did not have any bronze proofs illustrated however and you are quite correct.

Looked back over this site some more and a couple of observations: - did not see ANY 1929 proofs, even of the crown - there is no 1945 currency threepence, or proof of that type (non-Maundy) - the 1945 year coins did not show any proofs to my eyes - there is no 1952 currency or proof halfcrown - there is a proof 1963 halfcrown, none for 1964-67 - there are some proofs of pennies and larger denominations up into the 1960s (Hello Richard!) - some of the coins from the 1960s whilst not proof are either early strikes or somewhat "specimenish" but not well care for - this site may not be complete but seems to support my hypothesis that there were no proofs (or at least no evidence) for the years 1929, save the crown, or for 1945 and helps to explain why I have not seen any in all these years.

Oh, thanks Richard I messed it up. I wish they would have put a little bit more into the labelling....

I was looking for some references and knew they had a site, but this may be of interest to some. It is mainly pictures with bare descriptions so that is a bit limiting. Also, when I looked up the 1920 date (because the site would not take more info on the search section), I was looking for information on transitional patterns like the "duck-tailed milling" silver coins. I think I found them but they are not identified as patterns and had to mainly pick this out from the pictured details. Much of Bull could probably be updated from this and other pages, but wish a bit more ID had been done as they have some very rare coins that I have NEVER seen in commercial channels. There were some errors too (ie the incorrect ID of the 1926 Wood Pattern Reverse MODEL Half crown). Anyway, do have a look....

Braggadocio: Sir, I do not think you understand how, or if you care, what you say is received by others which contrary to what you've said do come off as "boastful" (your word choice). There are likely people with collections that are on a similar level that do not enunciate such and yet are quite open in providing data, insight or opinions contributory to other members. Many also are of humble or lesser economic means but some not, yet no proclamations of such. Also, you will note that many including myself did give you praise & only suggested moderation in commentary is the choice many of us make - with the occasional disagreement displayed. And again, many including myself have praised the positive in what you have shared with the rest of us. You may recall that the current USA president has often criticized those of varied opinions to his own as somehow lesser or not intelligent, etc. In any case, Viva la Difference!