VickySilver

Staying off topic - and Bernie, put a value on that proof! Please...

Questioning Freeman? How could you? Seriously though, he reminds me a bit (though hopefully without the social proclivities) of Walter Breen over in the USA. Brilliant but flawed. I think the collection that LCA dispersed over the last year or two spoke for that, or at least some of his rationale. I also wonder about the even worse - IMO - notion of collecting by die state. Dies wear and there will be changes, and so what? Interesting commentary as to the legitimacy of the 1922 so-called ME specimen. I think it possibly should be scanned with electron microscopy...I have an 1882 that will get such once I figure out how to get somebody to watch my son AND take off during a workday.

Yes, point well taken. If however the verdigris is allowed to remain there may be increased likelihood of penetration into the crystalline structure of the flans metal. This can, depending on local environment take place rapidly. Derek's point (and Gary's) is well taken, that is that cleaning should not be taken lightly - like the pun? However, if you are rightfully squeamish you would not lose by a bath in hot water with mild detergent followed by liberal irrigation and tamp dry with a white cotton towel - NO RUBBING!!!! It is difficult to describe in words other than the simplest of measures but I have "conserved" many copper coins with great effect but will state that some experience is quite useful and great care must be taken. As a side note, some coins that have looked hopeless end up with great results and others that looked not so much of a problem that were not helped significantly (though not harmed). The overall recommendations given above I agree with - if you are not comfortable do not touch...

I would be very tempted to get some of that verdigris off of that coin. Except for that, this may be one of the higher grades known, or at least that I am aware of. VERY NICE! If you do clean, obviously be very conservative. I bit of olive oil most would not object to, there are some copper coin agents that are mainly detergent and not acidic as well. I think I would have to join those who would toss their hats in the ring for a shot at this one....

I also have gone with the teeth as an ID. The so called ME 1922 Rev. 1927 was I think derived from a DNW sale (RobP would probably know this!). These (the 1922 rev 1927) are considered rare and above F prohibitively so. I have often wondered how much one of the two SPECIMEN strikes of this would go for at a London Auction??

I remember living on Cyprus in 1967-8 (had to have been very young - LOL) and coming back through England in the summer of '68. Evidently 5P and 10P New Pence had been released and were being used interchangeably with 1/- and 2/- coins which were the same size. Wasn't there for the changeover though...

Yes, prices are ratcheting up, esp for the finer bits but I think many coins are still relative bargains. The 60/59 penny @ CCC is rather a nice bit for rather nice money, as is (IMO) the perhaps even more desirable and beautiful 1849 penny. These are great and classic coins, and will always be & sad they are now relatively unreachable; do look at the prices that similar US coins bring even though to a larger demand base!

I, for one like these off metal strikes but not too sure of values like that (1000). I got a 1936 CuNi penny recently for 50 euros...

Yes, I have a number of these OMS (off metal strikes) that are not proofs and are of differing weights. Most are CuNi but some are nickel; if pure nickel or mostly so they are weakly magnetic but are NOT iron just because of that. The 1922 in JW2 was I believe nickel. I do not likely have the experience of , say, Rob, but have seen a few in recent years: 1922, 1936, 1965, 1966, 1967. I believe that a gold specimen or two is known of the the latter dates. Too bad you did not find one of these but then I suppose colour and density would have given it away.

I am certainly no Gouby and have seen only the pictures but can not see a problem based on them with this picture; have already posted my comments on this coin. Think you did well, and he may be one of those troublesome 1%. Hang in there Dave.

Wow, a lot of speculation necessary on this piece as its preservation is just a bit too poor for this soul to make many pronouncements or add thought. Interesting though...

Hi all, I am trying to obtain a copy of the last edition of Marsh's work on half sovereigns and see it on UK Amazon but not over here. Anybody have a lead on a reasonably priced and usable edition (ie does not need to be pristine)?

Chingford, thanks for the PM & will keep my fingers crossed.

Azda, i have seen first edition at 5 (or so) quid, but the second more, even on Brit Amazon (which does not ship this book across the Atlantic). Picky but want the latest of course...

LVII is one of the better Widow head crowns and worth quite a bit if in better condition (ie GEF & better).

Wow, that is very depressive & I have not ever tried to sell via ebay. Well, a pain but hopefully you are still up a few quid.

I believe there are unknown ingredients in these wipes that includes emulients and lubricants with unknown composition and therefore likely poorly studied long term effects on coin surfaces. You takes your chances...

Well, in that case I hope he makes a good profit....

That 1919KN linkified before on ebay (German seller) is at 300 pounds. I agree near EF but coin is cleaned and has that telltale pinkish cast as well!

Hey, I think we need to find some 1863s and a bit of saline plus a bathtub and create thin dates at home to sell on ebay for the bargain sum of 5k or so!LOL. Actually, these slender and narrow date buns in basal state are about as interesting IMO.

I would say "yes". Corrosion is quite odd in water and there may have been enhanced local elctrolytic action due to alloy just there andor the interaction with deposition salts, conglomerates, whatever...

Somewhere I believe I have one of these as well, and purchased from DNW some years ago. Even if rare, I counsel not getting too excited as it requires demand to bring price...

Ah well, guess nobody cares too much. Don't know if there are any collectors out there of Cayman proofs. If so, might they take a look at their sets of these dates (1986-1988) and see if there are any that have or do not have the FM mintmark/monogram matches with the 50c, dollar and 5 dollar coins? In other words, did the RM use any other dies or did all sets have coins that match these that I have noted?

OK, well this is an update: 1988 Cayman Island proofs of the 50c and $1 coins have no FM monogram/mintmark on the reverse. As you loyal readers will recall in an earlier post, I noted that the 1986 50c, $1 and $5 and the 1987 50c and $1 have these mintmarks. Evidently they (the RM) noted this and for this final year removed the mark - it was noted that during this time period the Franklin Mint was the subject of TV exposes like the American 60 min. show and had an aura of scandal about them, so a bit of a story even behind a seemingly insignificant mark...