VickySilver

Cameo versus deep cameo is supposed to be an index of reflectivity of the field mirrors and not just the amount of contrast between field and device. My recollection is that it is something like 4 inches for cameo and 9 inches for deep cameo.I agree that proofs up until 1937 (excluding mattes) do not have good reflectivity and even some afterwards such as the 1951 crown. This shows a relative lack of die preparation and sadly detracts greatly from the appearance of many George V pieces.

Yes, believe Marsh passed away in '07 or so... Actually little man likes hummus (?) best of all, don' t ask. Actually a good thing because a lot of other foods can be hidden up in all that garlic...

Well, evidently salivation at that age is not a problem and he regularly gives showers to all who play with him. I wonder if an update could be done on either the half sov or sov books with perhaps a bit more commentary and perhaps graphing date versus scarcity (if not value which is such a moving target).

Well, have to take you up on that some time. Cheers! Now I need the companion as I think my son (age 16 months) ate the half sov book.

Amazon.com in the USA is selling USED COPIES for 76 USD plus shipping!

Actually there is quite a bit of confusion about slabs, and unfortunately many companies willing to give it a go. PCGS is usually thought of as a bit more reliable than the others, definately with US coins, but generally with others as well. Unfortunately they do make errors which I have seen most often in attribution but the grading is generally a bit more reproducible. CGS not too bad but have caught them out on varietal errors as well. NGC is used by many US collectors of what to them are foreign coins and has probably been the most popular on the US side of the pond. I do not think that slabbing makes high price a certainty as the slab needs to contain a rare bit or one exceptionally well preserved to bring the big price, or at least so it seems in my experience.

The coin looks to have good lustre but a bit of field chatter in the obv. fields in addition to the points already broached. May go CGS 70 or possibly 75 dep. how it looks in hand would be my guess.

Rob, amen to all you said - somewhat similar to mine (opinion) in the other aquisition post.

OK, Mat lets not go there with that infernal slender 3 penny. That is the most egregious example of exactly what you are saying. I think it makes these two halfcrowns a bargain.

I am always amused at how much angst is uncovered when this subject is broached. I do love to handle coins but they may not love me for handling them, at least as far as skin oils and secondary oxidation that ensues, etc. I will say that having a slabbed coin does give me more confidence in the coin being protected. If the grade matches my own opinion, so much the better. I would not take as gospel the TPG number thereon. I do think that the certification does provide another reference point about the coin, however. I will also say that I am grateful if some bidders will not bid on a coin if it is "entombed" in a TPG slab - maybe better opportunities for me and others.

Okay Rob, that was a smart--- comment, but do agree with you anyway! There is NO way that money should have been paid for the 1839 at least since it may well have been a circulated proof. There are a plethora of varieties and even major disagreements between experts on uncirculated specimens of this date as to whether they are currency or proof (obviously they must have reeded edge). Even circulated proofs should carry a premium but not of this magnitude; still it took at least two bidders to produce this number! IMO (in my opinion) the value should have been established on this being a circulated proof. 1841 2/6s are a bit of a dilemma as they are rather scarce, even rare, in all states of preservation - if demand ever picked up for these Vicky bits prices could accelerate through the roof. I am rather a fan of this date, might be able to locate a EF truly graded specimen if somebody had the right money though...

400, you are a tough customer. Maybe your quest for perfection will leave some more bits for the rest of us peons! I do know what you mean and do not like to have inferior coins. I have a 1919H that whilst better than EF (GEF) just does not "do it" for me, and need a finer specimen & drives me crazy every time I look at it.

How on earth did they determine that the 1839 was currency? Both prices seem high, are they real and I wonder who purchased them.

Also refresh our memories as to the putative grades on the 1839 and 1841 2/6s please.

Hey, can azda be blackmailed - I'll settle for the penny and not tell anybody..

Ouch, evidently and according to the US coin magazine Coin World, Mark Rasmussen and Steve Fenton seem to have brokered this deal along with Goldbergs in Beverly Hills, California. Anybody know the buyer? To think how we fuss and fight over 20 quid purchases!Perhaps the ultimate in sets?

Yes, in fact there are a number of coins struck only on one side, either on purpose or after having been stuck in the collar with another planchet (each receiving the die impression of only the adjacent striking die). The fact that weight is normal, although a weight in grams and their fractions would be useful, is evidence of the coin possibly NOT having been altered. Are there any marks on the "smooth" unstruck side under a scope? I have a number of such QE II pieces. Some were struck to model format and generally have that designation on the "smooth" side. A study which I do not recall was done by a collector on one of the numismatic forums that by recall measured the weight metal loss to deface to smooth one side of a coin. I do not recall the figures but on a 1/2d I would imagine this to be at least 0.5 gm or so off the original spec 5.7 gm planchet. Thickness is generally NOT a good characteristic to compare.

I can go with G-VG for the original post coins. As far as dozens of nice Heaton mint coins, please post pics of some of the best if you are able. In my experience the average specimens do not come much better than these shown.

I can not speak for all, but as an AVID collector of Victorian silver minors I have little added value for die numbers. It just simply not of interest and there has been no complete listing with no doubt many undiscovered combinations. In general I have seen through private sales, auctions, dealer listings, etc. that seem support this notion being widespread. That having been said, if I have two or more of a particular date and die combination that I will be more enthusiastic at keeping the excess pieces if possessing different die numbers.

I am with Rob, toothed border & toothed border and not the mule. This is just from the picture but I feel this the case - IMO do not pay that money for it. This is not because I collect the occasional farthing but rather from conviction.

Well, I think Chris has shown himself to be a reliable person. Me, you would not know, and this would be true of other board members even though I suspect most would be quite reliable and respectable. I am NOT in the market for such as I have two superior specimens, one a proof from Spink from many years past. If Peckris thinks this not EF then I had better look at his coins for sale because that would be very high standard true "old school" grading like I have seen in the old Glens and Baldwin catalogues. If you need the sale, IMO he (Chris) would not be a bad place to go though you could shoot Spink a line or perhaps even Northeast Coin in the USA (www.northeastcoin.com) as they seem to be enthusiastic buyers of later milled bits and I have never heard a complaint with them. Have you asked Noble there in Aussieland?

Yes, I did forget to mention the rim ding, but as Chris said, that should be the number with the usual caveat of seeing it in hand. A shame that someone could look you straight in the face and offer such a ridiculously low amount. Krause is always a good starting point to get at least some relative idea. Not meaning to pirate the posting, but Spink seems a bit enthusiastic on some of the pricing of 19th and 20th C. milled but have yet to see it in its entirety.

Yes, thanks Aard for the pictures to at least get some idea. Afraid I can not pitch in with any meaningful opinion based solely on the picture. This coin has its analog in the US series with the 1870 S Half Dime that was found in a dealer tray but grades MS 63 now in a TPG and is priced at over a million dollars US. I would be pressed to guess a reasonable price for this coin if genuine, and could get ugly at auction. The 1848/7 6d seems quite scarce and although they must exist, have not seen above gF or so. Even the 1848/6 relatively languishes as the series seems a bit unloved.

Coin looks to be EF and then a bit, can not quite get myself to say GEF without it in hand. Unfortunate ding at Georgie's brow. Still this coin is every bit of 2500-3k pounds, two just closed that were the equivalent of GEF at Heritage NYINC auction for a bit under 3600 pounds yesterday (which is a slight decline over some recent prices gotten at auction). Price quoted is retail, not a dealer price offer.

I have often wondered about that 1847 6d. Is that the one reported in ESC? Does anybody have a picture of this coin, esp. the reverse? Well rarities are discovered all the time and mercifully forgotten, and have to confess that IMO some of these varietals need to stay in their pens (ie narrow and wide dates, thin dates, etc.). Others just get more publicity and seem to stay popular.