VickySilver

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!).

There certainly appear to be significant remnants of the "H" on this one, look again. I have a GVF 1882 but of the wrong overall type that I bought off Colin Cooke many years ago. It has no sign of an "H". To me, this coin is a bit like the USA 1922 "no D" cent, where all coins were known to be struck at the Denver mint but some with the "D" polished away. The mintmark was variously said to not show as the die was filled or worn or both & so many middle spectrum coins. I am still not sure how in the case of this cent or the OP 1882 coin how it can be ruled out that mintmarks were committed from die prep on any reverse dies even if the coin is not of accepted reverse type for "genuine" no-H coins.

I was thinking perhaps grease in the die as there is no relief to the part of the "E" it seems you are referring to.

Weigh it please.

Thanks for that. It seems, if we take him exactly that the proofs are a lot more common that the much lower figures we had seen before (which I have always felt to be the case given the frequency of their sales). It does leave that bit of the auction record though....

This just sold at auction for 160,000 Swiss Francs, so I guess with commission just over that in pounds...Sorry no pictures here for now. Very rare and right up my alley but WAAAY out of my affordability range. I have the die module/trial for the reverse gotten some years ago but not nearly as exciting as this one.

I have thin planchet struck pennies, threepence, shillings, and I think halfpennies - all this much more common in the late '50s to '60s. So legit specimens do exist and probably not all that valuable but interesting none-the-less.

It is from the die [skip] rotating about an axial radius and can affect other areas depending on the axis.

I think some have called that "skip" with the die slipping on strike...Something of that sort...Comes with a shelf-like appearance at the date and occasionally other devices.

Indeed, as have I. However, the mint did "flub" on occasion and struck coins on thinner planchets. I bought a bunch of them as a lot from London Coins about 10 years ago. Have a few others and thrown in were some off metal strikes and off center, etc.

My chemistry classes and background beckon, and they say, well that it is an oxidant that chemically further oxidizes the surface for removal of the top layers of the coin. Ammonia does not react with the metal surfaces so would in fact be less aggressive.