VickySilver

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 have seen this coin, the 1854 half sovereign referred to by Marsh who seems to not clearly state that he had seen one. I have not, nor has anybody I know. It has been variously listed in Coincraft many years ago, and even in Spink. I wonder if anybody can confirm seeing one, or even go one better by posting a picture of it?

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?

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...

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...