VickySilver

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?

Looks like water degradation on the more worn coin. I think it would be VERY hard to draw any conclusions from this piece. I have not noticed any lettering variants of significance in the 19H's I have seen but have not looked at too many of the "basal state" pieces either. I tend to agree with Rob however.

I still have not a bad "feel" about this coin as to it being a Royal Mint product, though the points are well taken. Lettering odd, and somehow I cannot accept it as solely due to the metal flow as there are areas pointed out that demonstrate the characteristic that should not be subjected to such movement. I love the toning and overall appearance. Is this coin slabbed?

Could be mint sport or experimentation. I don't have problems with the devices, though Rob certainly is a maestro on this. Lettering curious as well and not like any currency 6ds I have or have seen...2..8 gm is the correct weight.

Hey, wait you must bed a dealer-in-training holding coins like that; now all you have to do is learn how to drop them after sneezing on them.LOL!

I think they have a general scale to which the type is graded. 90 would be a very nice coin, as an example, but improvable.

that would likely be a die crack....

Does not look like my iv over iii. Sorry no photo capability yet.

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...

I saw the Workman specimen and actually attractive obverse despite the lesser hair detail. That coin has NO circulation wear or lustre breaks and very nice indeed although not the best seen, certainly amongst the top 20% of uncirculated of this date I have seen - nice metal in fact. I am beginning to suspect that these dies were quite worn and NOT a soft strike for die preservation as has been sometimes stated. The reverse of this coin is very sharp as well.

I am fairly certain that is a typo in Krause as they are well versed in 19th C. general types and have not otherwise been far off given the volatile nature of the bun head series. Possibly the same could not be said for microtypes (who really cares anyway?).

Peck, if that 26ME is only VF in your book, please let me know when you have coins to sell. LOL. Seriously, though, look at the rim and ear, fields, etc...a lot of what may look like obv. wear is in the strike methinks and would like to have all of my VFs to look as nice.

As I had posted elsewhere, I think the Workman '19H was very nice and had an extremely well struck reverse albeit the mushy obverse. Did they reuse already tired '18H obverse dies? I have one that has unfortunate toning but has a well struck obverse. Ooops, did not mean to pirate the thread... I still like a nice red original '12H and even some of the London mint issues from years shortly afterwards when well struck...The worn bits, even including the 1922 rev. 1927 just do not do anything for me. What about the rest of you?

Too bad about the grading, and 831 seems a bit high though 750 perhaps not?

David - should have gotten the Workman 1919H in the sale with Colin Cooke. Nice piece even with the soft obv. (the reverse is VERY sharp for some reason)...

What I have seen is dealers to hold copper twixt thumb and index and not bother with holding by the edge...I have been shocked by cavalier handling seen at shows, etc.

I think another point is that not all slabs, or companies, are created equally. PCGS is not infallible but generally a bit more credence can be given their grading on milled bits of the 19th and 20h C. versus some of the others, and NGC not too bad generally. The othe American companies occ. leave something to be desired. At least to me, I still need to see a few more CGS coins... Trays definately appear more pleasing to site, but I have seen many a coin mistreated by hamfisted dealers and collectors complete with finger prints, drops, saliva, and worse...Also, no cabinet friction over time in a slab.

Urrrggggghhhhh, mintage is only one facet of value determination & does not reflect how many were actually even made in earlier years, let alone survivorship, condition and completely derails demand factors. Please let us keep mintage figures in perspective when it comes to value. 20th C. Heaton mint pennies are limited to three dates as well, and so type/mintmark presentation is another factor.

Well, I think nice red examples are not as common as their collectors and so the price. Now if only the 19KNs could come down to 200...

Uhhh, Peck the '12H fetching "more than it deserves" not quite fair as demand dictates a higher price for it. At least a legitimate date and not a die state "rarity" or one of those da--ed slender 3s...

Were those bags of halfcrowns (or how about shillings)????Thanks for the pictures Hussolo!

Several are still churning, will report on results....