VickySilver

Yes, that is the problem with value cataloguing as there are so many variables so best to be a tad conservative. The same coin sold in a different venue can bring vastly different prices even over short time intervals. Which value to pick? Likely neither high nor low but closer to the latter.

Ah, good guess as supposedly those are generally the equivalents. Once I get off it and figure out how to post will try to show a pic now and then (not to mention figure out the camera - LOL).

At least to me it appears to be soil/water chlorides as the culprit(s). These likely have a bit more penetration than PVC chlorides. Although I would try acetone and even dish detergent with considerable irrigation and a tamp dry. Guess is that it will require more such as the olive oil, but my problem with olive oil is that although it is partly a solvent that it is the actds doing the work & caution ought therefore be exercised.

Yes, I concur that is obviously one of the better strikes I have seen but sadly has the rim marks and also scattered friction both obv. and rev. Technical grade would be PCGS 55 I should think. I had some luck with my own and count myself lucky. 2500? Wow, that seems high still & was thinking 1200. Then again, compared to the looney buns maybe 2500 is a bargain!

Azda, glad you are so restrained in your opinion of the good gentleman! Can't say as I have a lot of disagreement though...

And I wonder about the 1852 3d currency or not? I vote not. What did it fetch?

Always hard for me to believe a run of one, even if that is the official score. Who is to know, and do dies talk? I think not...The 1954 is a currency strike (vs. the 1952 as a proof). Evidently, the 1952 was a year of waste due to the King's death (the PREVIOUS year) and so there are the orphan bits in the penny, shilling and halfcrown denominations; was the final count really only one penny in proof, one halfcrown currency, one 2/6 in proof and "a couple" of shillings ? Well, that diverges. Regardless, I just don't see value beyond nominal of foil impressions & wish good luck to the buyer.

Azda, both look cleaned and would be bodybagged at PCGS for cleaning would be my guess. I do not like them and think yours far superior, and this is not just flattery.

Yes, definately my recommendation and they will have a tendency to try to be VERY helpful, seeing as how they are trying to establsh an European presence.

PCGS has a presence in Paris. Check their site: www.pcgs.com I have many of my better pieces entombed and am the happier for their long term status as well as being "convertible" in larger auctions. This despite my preference to be able to hold coins.

Which, London Coins? It will be interesting to see what they would go for. This is a case where as much as third party grading is eschewed on these boards that a PCGS or possibly CGS certified coin might bring more because of guaruntee of authenticity, a stamp of approval as it were. What would an ordinary VF coin bring versus a PCGS VF35 coin? I believe that the latter would bring more and certainly would if auctioned by Heritage over in the USA.

A bit crass but what is seller asking for the '41 half sov?

Very nice coin, that 1841 half sov. IMO, the 1905 2/6 looks legitimate and of EF standard, albeit with at least an edge knock that is not severe. Better than VF, and remember that it must be seen in hand as many times the hair on Eddy is not struck up to start with. At least to me a VF or GVF specimen would have more wear apparent on obv. and even reverse.

Mat, I think value hard to determine on that and suspect the earlier auction prices are about what your coin is worth. It might be quite interesting to see what an EF or better might fetch in a major auction however! I tnk as you peruse the posts on this forum that Spink values and assessments might be taken with a bit of salt. Also, rarity requires demand to fetch large amounts for a particular coin. Still, nice find and think I would pay in the 250 range as well. I rather love the Victoria 2/6 series yet do not have one; I recall these coming up about 1-2 x per year in larger auctions. Rob P seems to have quite a storehouse of information and might contribute.

Not stealing thunder from the thread, but which bunhead date is most problematic EF and above (1882 London coin excepted)? My vote goes for 1864 and maybe 1875H... When the '26ME is found in high grade I have seen it to have booming lustre of an almost silky nature with a fairly decent strike. CC has one that may fit that description now....

Spink had one of the Dritanniars for sale 6 or so months ago that I believe is in a PCGS holder 64 - that is incredible as mine is the usual vf or so like all others I have seen. Doubt the Cypriots took much care with those that came their way, or possibly that is only a rumour??

Rob, I am thinking that if there is such a beast that it mustn't have been for sale in the last ten years or so and would be before that. According to the few listings I have seen this coin is likely, if it exists to be in F condition. Wonder if the mintage for the year could have been sent to some far off colony and most subsequently melted or meeting some such ugly fate.... Something like the die 6 1878 Dritanniar sixpences sent to Cyprus. BTW, has anybody ever seen one of these better than EF (the 6d that is)?

Anybody?

If you have a taste for such, look up seller Greattoning on www.ebay.com sometime!!!He says he only buys them that way.... BTW, I once addressed this on another forum and was nearly tarred and feathered for my efforts in pointing out that this wild toning, at least to my knowledge, was virtually unknown prior to some 20 years ago. Common date Morgan Dollars sometimes bring in the thousands if wildly toned. The controversy pits those thinking "artificially toned" (AT) against the "naturally toned" (NT) posters..

I have a 1981 pence struck over a 1953 6d slabbed but identified by me first (MS65). Another with, I think, 1956 date was up on ebay a year or two ago. These are more curiosities than anything else. 500 is probably the limit I should think. I say intentionally done but then can not prove that hypothesis.

Might want to see what it brings at auction in this market! [Or sell it to me!] Seriously, I have seen these in several old catalogues listed in Fine condition but nobody has been able to confirm existence of this coin in recent times. I do find it interesting that Marsh, who seems to not have actually seen specimen, lists it without stating "reported, not confirmed".

I have not seen this coin, and it is "legendary" in my book. Please post a picture or cite a reference if you have it. Rob P???? PS Sorry, a typo as I wrote this at work . NOT seen is what I meant.

I think I would be rather shocked to see an MS70 Bunhead (at least graded by PCGS). Not sure if I have ever seen better than a "66". Post your 67 and aboves here!

Yes, a difficult proposition with what Spink is stating as an equivalent to MS70 (or what it used to be?) as the unobtainable perfect. There is a bit of a problem with this full lustre business IMO, and that is that a coin can have fantastic lustre and yet be bagmarked not only in the case of mint bagging and other post strike contacts but even the planchets themselves do not enter the striking chamber unmarked and some of these issues carry through even unbroken lustre... PCGS makes some commentary as to market grading versus technical grading and perhaps we try to encompass this into our possibly more qualitative ananlyses with regards to this.

Terrifying what the scarcer hypervarietals can fetch these days! Still, to my calculations that 23k for the "63E would have gotten [i think] superb specimens of 1843, 1849, 1856, 1860/59, 1864 crosslet, 1869, 1871, 1875H, 1882London! Now that is outrageous IMO. Which would you rather have?