VickySilver

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.

I bought this coin some years ago at, I believe, DNW (Noonan’s) or perhaps Baldwin’s. It looked like the real thing but PCGS called it counterfeit. I have a currency 1964 double reverse error confirmed but thought this bit unusual in that it was a proof only year. i looked for seams or signs of them around the edge and then, where it is sometimes seen, just inside the rim on both sides looking for a seam or the residuals of such but could find none. It weighed on balance scale (ok, old fashioned) 9.19 gms so just a bit light compared to the standard 9.4 gms. So below are some pictures and I know the usual caveats but curious if any are oreoared to advance any opinions - I might not, LOL. I might need some help if anybody wants to email me as I can’t figure out how to compress on thi newer iPhone.

Hmmm, I vote for a bit less aggressive. My fave is clear ammonia, diluted 1:1 that haw worked well on CuNi or silver coins. Try it on some cheaper bits and think you will likely see....

Sad to hear. As you will recall olive oil has an acidic pH and so not for lustrous copper coinage as you've found out.

Yikes! Not a buyer at that for sure. Too bad as I have my own "pet" collection of 1887 Young Head silvers as you might imagine. What did the currency Gothic go for?

Yes, I noticed that too - relative rarity - but maybe dependent on demand as well?

Yes, I agree that the coin is generally scarce & got a couple a few years ago, one came up MS65 at PCGS & thought it might even go higher...

Very good job on the research. Not at all sure however that the "AR" can be taken literally as the coin definitely being of silver composition as it was and continues to be used in referring to copper nickel iterations of former actual struck-in-silver coins of that denomination(s). As a side note there are some transitional issues of coins of a date that should be actual silver being struck in pattern form in Cu-ni (ie 1923 3d, 1923, 1924 shillings and the very rare 1946 shillings).... So these 1960 crown coins may well exist in silver but definitive proof would be required: wight, specific gravity and XRF testing, etc.

Hmm, I am trying to locate the upcoming sale and think my search criteria must be off.

Hmm, yes rather a mixed bag with them. I haven't gotten much the last couple of years from them as a result. I thought I recalled that you could bid live through another service such as sixbid or biddr, or ?? some other. Don't laugh, the one that is something like "insulin", LOL, or invaluable or something....

Yes, a soft strike and the surfaces actually not showing much wear.

Just a question from my forgetful self. My recall is that London Coins now has an alternated bidding site or service that allows for live bidding. Like maybe biddr.com or some such perhaps?

Ah never did post this specimen/proof 1920 florin gotten from Mark R. many years ago with the “ducktailed” milling, possibly unique. Sorry about the poor photos from his list:

Maybe it is just me, but the proofs of the "off years" are quite obvious no matter what somebody chooses to name them and I have seen them of every year except 1929 from 1927-1963. Have only seen the 1941 shillings and only the 6d from 1945 however. Where Bull tries to differentiate between these and calling some "VIP" and others not is IMHO artifactual based on the coins themselves. As I. said, I would hazard a guess that he was using the presence of cameo devices that is more prominent on some. I would be interested what Joe finds in terms of confirmation on the true silver version of the 1960 crown.

I too am having some troubles posting but do not have an obverse photo at the moment. On a blowup, the third datal (digit) looks at least to my eyes to be an upside down 5 over 4???

Sorry about the extra half sov as I didn’t mean to post it.

Ok well here is one I’ve shared in the distant past but may be of continuing interest. What date do you make out and what happened? I have my thoughts but just putting it up here:

Good point and had forgotten about him Rob. I asked him a few questions about the 1952 proof long ago and had sent him a coin maybe 20 years ago that I was lucky enough to get back before the millennium, LOL.

Many of us have long since concluded that the clearly superior proofs of the late pre-decimal era were not labelled as "VIP" or even "Record" & this seems to be either/or invented terms of convenience and marketing (both?) but that it really doesn't matter as they "are what they are". In other words, and particularly of non-standard years, specimens of coins exist that are not run of the mill or willy-nilly early strikes, or whatever; most definitely are exceptional pieces that appear to have been produced with special proof qualities such as are generally are known. Bull is in all likelihood INCORRECT in separating, especially in the off years (and to some degree those from 1911, 1927, 1937, 1950, 1951, 1953 but also the 1960 crown) into ordinary proof and VIP/record proofs. In fact I know some of the principles you have referred to and can tell you that they agree. I do not know Mr. Bull but I would imagine that the difference he refers to may be that some have a cameo contrast between fields and devices and others do not. What we choose to label them is artifactual, but these superior piece do exist and that is clear. As a bonus point: regarding crowns of especially 1937, 1951 and 1953 years there appears to be some confusion - and I will admit to not being clear myself. I believe it well nigh impossible to differentiate between those with exceptional strike and cameo contrast between fields and devices, and those labelled as "VIP", "Record" or any combination of such. There are some exceptions such as the 1953 penny where even amongst the better quality proof strikings that there are die differences with the rarer types different enough that they fetch much higher prices on the market. I will confess to having purchased a 1937 proof crown as "VIP" (or similar designation as I can not remember) from Baldwin and paid significantly more therefore. When I later compared it to a slabbed and graded Proof Cameo 66, I could detect no meaningful difference with the latter generally somewhat superior mainly in that there were less handling marks, etc. I have learned my lesson. Further, a somewhat similar situation to the purported silver strike 1960 crown are the types of 1935 proof crown: specimen 0.500 fine PL coins, proof raised edge lettering coins, proof 0.500 and proof 0.925 incuse edge coins.