VickySilver

OK, I periodically dredge this up, but since I can barely afford nice later milled bits I have been chasing down some obscure and rare bits. What? Well, the Royal Mint took over striking proof sets for Jamaica in the period 1985-2001 omitting the 1986 date. Now either they have or have not issued a last year 2002 set but the RM has not responded to inquiry, and the only reference I have seen is in Krause with nary a picture or image or information available on internet searches. BTW, with the help of a reader of these boards I was able to get the elusive but ugly 1997 set so have all but this last 2002 year. PM me if you'd like with either information or questions.

Bernie, is that pictured 1922 from the 1922/24 specimen set?

I guess everybody else has had a shot at divergence: the OP title reminds me of a chant from the New Orleans Mardi Gras - "show us your t-ts"!

Yes, Neil's point is well taken. However, I think Spink is losing "cred" by not having a broader operation and are now relying on fading memories to keep them ahead of the pack of other auctioneers. There used to be a certain magic (or nearly so) to getting a coin off the SNC in their distinctive marked white envelope with descriptive round, often with provenances, etc. included. I guess those are the good ole days.....

RCB, dare I ask?

Gary, was that edge inscription omission on the currency type to which you refer?

Yes, good stuff. Gary beat me to the answer, except I would downgrade the contrast of the devices. The coin has some proof like fields but not the full proof prep - this is a bit unusual for the currency strikes but I would not be surprised if there was a transitional piece or two. The strikes to my view a bit better than currency as well. Don't forget to check the edges for inscription errors/omissions. If you find one on a currency I know somebody (hint, hint) that would reward you for such!

PS - I think it is harder to find a "gem" quality normal currency than the specimen. I have seen a couple with lovely swirling lustre.

Yes, I second the "cheap and easy" - sounds a bit provacative at that - and have at least four of them: - raw -CGS 85 -PCGS 65 -NGC 65 And the winner is? ? ? ? ? Drumroll, please.... PCGS! I showed the CGS on these Boards before, complete with a bit of worsening Verd.

But just what is Rev. of 1927 - would the Rev, dies of that year (1927) all come from the same master matrix, etc.?

1922 specimen with OE type bust.

Think I may be able to find an image of the specimen somewhere & have a look as well. My recall is also ME obverse though...

Hey now BRG, please do not give away all my secrets! LOL…As always, just know your coins be it them or the latest sales at DNW that, with online bidding, has also in some cases gone insane. Who is buying at those prices??

Some sharp edges on the milling in places but the obverse in particular is not compelling as a proof IMO.

No! LOL!! Is yours of the New Coinage variety or the older? A proof should have sharper edges, milling and devices with at least (generally) a modicum of reflective surface to the fields. Often not much of a cameo effect though... Post pictures if you can.

My issue with them, and I am overall Neutral with respect to the major TPGs is that they are INCONSISTENT. I won' t elaborate except by PM but I have seen some really terrible inconsistent grading - I don' t usually however find too many problems with attribution of later milled with the possible exception of examples like the 1850/46 (sic) shilling that is most surely IMO 50/49. I think they have become a bit imaginative with the 1887-1893 gold two and five pound coins in MS and PF as well. I find worst of all the up and down grading of matte proofs 1902-1965, including the Churchill satin piece.

Well, my point was that he won THEIR (PCGS) contest for grading…LOL.

Uh, IMO 2325 looks like its been cleaned with residue twixt lettering. Don't see "BBITTANIAR" though.

There can be a kind of reverse psychology at play with sellers such as Centsles. He is rejected by many but will tell you on occasion he has a very nice bit. About one year ago, I got a very rare Panama pattern for about 1/2 it's expected sale price or less. He did grade it Proof 68 and it slabbed out by PCGS as "64" which was about right in my book, if even a bit harsh. I bought a more common Vicky YH halfpenny at a good price previously as well. Interestingly, and possibly more damning is that I believe the seller WON a PCGS grading contest some years ago, so presumably knows what he is doing with his overgrading...

Ah yes, sadly my type of coin as well...Think I might fight a bit over it, drop out at a crazy price though.... That was the star of the show. I notice that the 1917 sov is still on sale!

Mount plus graininess, not a great picture. From the bit I can make out, generally a thumbs down but not necessarily worse than the LCA example...

A lot of nicer specimens of the more common dates it seems….Been a while since I've bought from them, how are prices in the last sale or two?

Ouch, I would have LESS confidence in this piece without them having slabbed it but quite frankly whether they slab it or not I would NOT accept it as the real thing. If they thought it legit as was hinted at by Coinery, then the increased monies it would bring at auction would be considerable - this leads me to believe that they do not have full confidence in it, and rightly so except that they have listed it in the first place.

True is that. They are so enormous (Heritage) that I imagine they scarcely want to be bothered by our pedestrian bits! LOL! Have you ever looked at their catalogues of Movie star bits & memoribilia ? Ouch!!!!! Or Hermes handbags on offer at a mere 45k USD!!! They might be a legitimate option as unpatriotic as it may seem for a 1933 penny or such...

Uh, think the stats on the 17 sov reversed....