VickySilver

You know, Peck, I was thinking this only because of stories I have heard about untold hundreds, if not thousands of dies laying around mint property(ies?) which certainly left room for "sport". I know that the mint wizards at the Philadelphia mint carried on with such activities in the 19th century and even into the 20th, so to me kind of a black box situation. Bernie's penny is much nicer than most and I believe Rob would be able to locate a picture of the mint state, or so, piece that Spink had in one of their SNCs about 1980 or so that was far and away the best I have seen. I believe I have seen one 1882 London penny that is not strictly following the F11 format and it is in GVF or better condition with no problems other than poor planchet with no "monkey business" in the erstwhile mintmark area. The reaction when shown was that it was not F11 and therefore could not be London minted coin. That is NOT de facto data, and such intrepretation quite poor as opposed to the opinion that further study was needed. Electron microscopy in the area of the mintmark should show metal manipulation but access and cost of such testing may not be feasible. I vote for cautious openminded approach to such coins overall, with the coin having to essentially prove itself if possible...I can not condemn even this coin without further study but think that there are serious questions about the mintmark area.

My question is: why is Freeman gospel on there being only one die combination for this coin (the 1882 London penny)? I simply do not understand how another obv. die, or even rev. die might not have been employed at another occasion that year, or even another year. This possibility does not seem to be excluded in arguments I have seen thus far.

Counterfeit. OK, I will try to post some halfcrown pics this weekend at great hazard (uggh, drag me kicking and screaming into the 21st century).

IMHO, interesting but not of any sensational value. Good to keep sharp eyes though! To give you an idea, and sorry I have yet to master pictures, I have an 1953 Coronation Crown with the entire edge lettering done twice and about 90 degrees out of sync. Price on ebay? L95.

And yet, playing the devil's advocate, the entire GB coin market is but a flea in comparison to the enormity of the elephant-sized American market in US coins and their slabbing - remember these are all milled and thus a bit more amenable to TPG grading. I think I am more of a mind that these TPGs run into a bit more of a problem (for many of the reasons discussed)with hammered coins; still I am not sure if they are any worse than some mainline dealers in the UK, names unmentioned, who have made major attribution errors even in the milled series. Their (TPGs) strength is in the grading of Morgan dollars and the like but some of this may be able to cross into grading 20th or even 19th C. silver GB coins, and they may prove of value here. Not to resurrect the lustre issue again but I daresay many otherwise uncirculated Vicky bronzes would have retained a much better appearance had they been slabbed instead of being handled by hamfisted dealers (amongst others) who even in recent times seem not averse to holding coins with finger contact to the fields, or by dropping them, or by allowing staple scarring, etc. IMO, there is no absolute accounting for taste or rightness or wrongness of these slabs.

Rob, I think that sometimes we see a PCGS58 and that it is reflecting a more technical grade so that especially on an older coin which may have had a rather poor strike and be hammered, as opposed to milled, with actually only minimal wear/friction to the resultant coin achieve the 58. When the coin is graded by how much detail remains on the coin that it may come out as a VF only. That having been said, I have had more that a couple of disagreements with their grade number on more recent milled coinage and feel that the coin obviously must be considered on its own merits as opposed to putting too much stock in their number as you have said before.

Now I have seen the 1987 Cayman Islands set and the 50c and $1 kept the same reverses, complete with the Franklin Mint monogram mintmark. I would guess, but have not seen, that the 1988 set coins of the same denomination will also bear the FM mintmark.

That was you that profitted? Congratulations, and I mean than!

Caveat emptor, and I agree with what has been said but will add that I have bought from him going on the coin itself and not the plastic. His plastic, but not grading, is on par with NGC (do not get them confused!).

Hussolo, great pics as usual and thanks for elucidating. It would have been strange that two would all of the sudden show up (though that is what happens with hoards after all)...

Well, caveat emptor.I think you have to look for warning signs and even with apparently none that you may get "caught out" on a few bits. At least in my experience, the good has far outweighed the bad and very happy in balance with ebay.

Yes, quite right with the weighing. That particular coin would not be hurt to much by lightly bouncing it off a wooden surface or even kitchen sideboard,etc. Odd appearance but the worn details incl. rim, etc. not too bad looking from the picture.

Looks plated for sure, but can not tell about the underlying coin. Maybe a couple of other pictures, but coin below pretty dirty for sterling silver.

Well, I will try to find out more about this set. It strikes me that the former librarian to the Royal Mint Graham Dyer may be of assistance and will try to contact him if possible. I believe that the 50c and dollar coins of the following 1987 and 1988 years as the reverse types are unchanged from 1984 and 1986. Not trying to suggest anything but seems a bit of an unholy alliance between the Royal and Franklin Mints - the latter has been castigated for varied business practices and excesses as readers may recall...

For what it is worth, I have noticed basically what Rob has stated - I have not seen these pieces in any state of preservation beyond fair and dates do appear a bit sharp in comparison to the other legend. For some reason, I have seen more of the 1861s and have been tempted to get one even though they "smell" counterfeit, or at least not what I would consider a contemporary piece of any relation to the Royal Mint (ie dies and/or planchets). 300 pounds max would be a price on these to me, certainly not 900. Interesting bit there.

Wow, I had really tried hard to separate colour from lustre and evidently failed. They are actually semi-independent variables.Well, I guess I will let it all rest in any case I do agree with buying the coin for the coin's sake, and hope this CCC Sale of the Workmen pennies comes out well - well could have said "works" out well...

Huss, as I become breathless trying to respond and try to work on an understanding of lustre, you are standing in nicely. BTW, I have met Daniel Carr and he not only is quite a gentleman, but is very knowledgeable about stiking coins and medals; if any readers have a chance they really should talk to him... I am really only trying to spread knowledge and dispel incorrect notions as I would rather proceed with a scientific approach. So na hard feelings...

Yes, many interesting bits of information to be gleaned from these boards. My understanding is that essentially there are TWO types of numerical grading, first is market grade and second is technical grade. As if that is not an absolute nightmare. The Britannia breast issue (sounds a bit mature in subject matter, but is not) is problematic as this represents one of the high points on the coins surface, and there are others, so it is both the last bit to strike up and the first worn. IMO, the American TPG graders technically can grade a coin high with no wear but poorly struck as it may be essentially be "FDC" to mix terms but have only the strike details ooriginally that might be seen on another coin that is only VF for wear but originally fully struck up. Market grading as I understand it tries to give an increase of number for a visually appealing and well struck specimen, etc. Peck, sorry if I do not remember specific questions. Sheen as I understand you to me is most likely lustre; lustre is NOT colour but rather a light phenomena cayssed by metal flow in the strike somewhat influenced by alloy (there is an interesting discussion of this peripherally on the www.pcgs.com US coin forum board as Daniel Carr of Denver describes the difficulties in striking up a modern 1964 D Peace dollar on an old Peace dollar blank where it is noted that detail increases with repetitive striking but lustre is lost as those "mini-peaks" are essentially ironed out by the striking.

Toning is the oxidation of surface metal, and this can be by a variety of "oxidants" as has been stated above. Oxides tend to give a blackish color, sulfas red to green, and chlorides blue to green. There are many complex organic oxidants that are difficult to characterise as well. PS Hussolo, that was a pleasant and civilized way to state it. I wonder if there could be a clinic of sorts at the various shows such as Coinex that these subjects might be covered in a competent manner? Education can only be a postive thing.

I have not had too many bad experiences with ebay, in fact quite the contrary and it has been a very good source for decent coins over the years. I must say that the quality of available material has significantly deteriorated over the last 5-7 years. I have been burned on a couple of occasions to the tune of several unrefunded hundreds of dollars but have literally bought coins on which gains were in multiples of that so overall quite a bit ahead. Not so many bargains these days but occasionally still find the nice bit. Plenty of dross out there so I use directed search functions nowadays.

Title of post should have been: 1986 Cayman Islands Proof Set - Royal Mint "Passin Off" Franklin Mint Coins?

As a sidelight, and don't let the major contributors to these forums see this, I collect some modern proof sets and recently purchased an 1986 Cayman Islands Proof Set on ebay. These coins are supposedly struck by the Royal Mint and certainly released from them, but on inspection was most surprised to find that the 50c, $1 and $5 dollar proof coins all had the Franklin Mint mintmark monogram of the "F superimposed on M". I contacted the Royal Mint who said they would not offer any explanation! As the Franklin Mint had evidently ceased minting coins with some of their 1985 issues, this seems doubly strange. My thought is that as the reverse dies were already in existence complete with monogram that the dies were either obtained by Royal Mint or hub from Franklin mint used to create dies and the mintmark left on. What say you dear readers?

Please see Hussolo diagram, lustre is not caused by oxidation, it is a light property imparted by strike and influenced by alloy and other parameters. It is also moderately independent of colour but can present well with original red. Sheen is probably an inexact description of lustre but would have to see the example.

Yes, Hussulo being much more creative was able to diagram what I have been talking about as the basic model. Thanks for that. Azda's coin looks to be EF with residual red in/arond the legend...

Would that it be so simple. Copper can be oxidized by any of a number of agents that include Oxygen, and commonly chlorides as well as sulfides/sulfur compounds. I can assure you that it is no theory that I have presented, it takes only a bit of investigation to verify exactly what I am saying if you choose not to believe. Once again, lustre is an optical characteristic that is most affected by the surface layer of a coin's metal and its configuration. "Microwaves" of a certain pattern will hold and alter light in such a way as to give lustre. As wear occurs, the little micropeaks are abraded and light is no longer altered as with a coin with undamaged/worn surfaces. Minimal oxidation, even enough to bestow a slight brown or even an apparently heavier brown appearance will not greatly affect lustre. If enough oxidation occurs, the lustre can be lost. As corollary to the above, dipping a silver coin (and possibly copper cleaning agents such as the infamous MS70) will themselves oxidise away the surface of the coin and the "micropeaks" are thus lost. Wear does the same thing as has been said. As per the post above, raw copper metal or alloy primarily of copper will have a fresh unoxidised surface that is "red" but will lack the lustre of a struck surface; this is not to say it has none, only less. PS - I do not use the term sheen though believe I know what is meant by its usage, and it is an inprecise term.