VickySilver

I believe the current thought is that this is due to alloy mixture and the variable oxidation rates of it. When it is a bit uneven there often may occur the so-called "woodgrain" effect.

Yes, rare is rare. Evidently these were made for 6d, 1/- (English, not sure about Scotish), 2/-, 2/6. Some years ago I got the shilling in an European auction but not seen the others - they are in ESC which I do not have with me as I am away from home for a week or so more. ESC quoted R6 for the shilling.

Yes, I concur and was getting ready to say that much depends on the original strike as well as some specimes are struck with the rim "finning" and may appear a bit thicker but that is rather a corollary to what has just been posted. Also, neither date would be a target for a counterfeiter as they are not rare and would not be much profit in faking such a small denomination even in the 1940s. I was beginning to get excited right as you first were describing these coins as I was hoping you had found one of the pattern 1946 6ds in cupro-nickel, and that would have been a special rarity....

Well, we are not yet on the log value scale where one man's uncirculated is not quite someone else's and a point or two on the Sheldon (or CGS) scale double or trebles the value - generally ridiculous in my opinion. Still a nice 1932 with plenty of red and the newly reduced George's head with good strike detail and lustrous fields is more attractive than a drab brown coin with a lot of bagmarks, so a bit of a dilemma here. A 1932 or perhaps a 1934 fitting the former description might be a 65-80 pound item in my book, but not 200, at least yet. Well that is my vote. BTW, I had thought the 1934 issue was mint darkened but have an example tha seems to have a lot of golden red to it that does not look cleaned or darkened & not to pirate this thread but does anybody else have similar experience?

Price on the 1871 is pretty good up through another 50% higher at least and decent for grade with only a few expected contact marks for grade. Wow! I like the 1875H and would go for it at that price if I did not already have one just a bit better. Of course the usual disclaimer that it should be seen in hand but looks great even in supersize. I think it would be quite decent at 100-150 pounds higher. The 1864 is almost there but some rather distracting edge damage. I imagine he has accounted for that in price by giving it a good 40-50% price hit. In case you didn't get it: I LIKE THE 1875H!!!!

This proliferation of issues and reissues is quite over the top in my opinion. I remeber rather liking the gold Britannias as they got started and even got a one and a half ounce (which I wear on a chain to this day). But then they kept dumping unc. and proof bullion pieces in all the fractionals each and every year for twenty years, and I have just left them alone. Ditto the silver Britannias. Now each of the denominations is issued and reissued in all different metal compositions and feature increasingly inane commemorations, and I get the feeling that the Royal Mint is emulating the private mints with their "coins" struck for Liberia, Fanning Island, etc. They seem to be killing the goose that laid the golden egg, and - I really don't care if there are arteficial rarities being created, and god bless the buyers of such.

Well, CGS hardly has a universal grading system and it has a different numbering system from the others to boot (1-100 versus 1-70) so I think it would be a mistake to dump the descriptive designation. PCGS and NGC have very successfully used designations such as EF45 and I think the two spaces taken by letters are worthwhile - these have now been used for 23 years.As has been stated above, numbering systems are not for everybody and a bit of redundancy would still appeal to a much wider audience. BTW, and as an aside, I am not at all sure that CGS is more conservative. I have a Specimen 1935 in CGS85 that is definately not up to the same type coin that I have in NGC65. Maybe I will be able to go hi-tech and eventually figure out how to get some pictures...

Might be a technical grade unc. with soft/weak strike. This would have to be seen in hand though. EF would be a fair call until it shows better (if it does) in hand. Since filling this gap some years ago I really have not kept up with these early 20s dates of shillings and was wondering if demand would EVER materialise.

I have always been disappointed with the absolutes that we see thrown about in descriptions of proofs. I think there are tendencies and some characteristics more in line with proof status. I also have come to be of the opinion that the Royal Mint was not always that careful with dies or planchets and so we get polished die pieces, and coins that appear superior to the usual circulation strikes but not quite proof and designate them "specimen" and what may have been employment of proof dies in striking circulation strikes. Proofs from the George V series beginning in about 1922 or so (depends on who is counting what) were many times not stellar and not always clearly superior to the best first strikes off the dies. Of course the Wreaths are perhaps best known for very nice currency strikes with a few being quite prooflike and some appearing to reach what seemed to be proof quality at the time. I have seen a few certified/slabbed as proof that I am fairly certain are not despite relatively squared sharp edges and crisp milling. Somewhat analagous to the Victorian currency/Maundy 3d discrimination and in requiring definite status as currency before being accepted as such, I think a particular coin can not be considered proof unless it meets all of the general criteria. These are interesting but from the photos and despite their impaired status, I do not think can be accepted as proof and could not buy or sell them as such.

Ditto on that one. Send us pictures if you can. In the meanwhile, going only on what you told us, simple mild dish detergent/soap with hot water would be a good start. Then an acetone bath with these. To tell you more is quite difficult at this stage.

I am not convinced that oil application is the best idea as there are all sorts of oils, some with mildly acidic properties. Another issue is that in this polluted modern environment that most of us live in features many organics that may utilize the oil as a solvent and gain a better access to the surfaces of the coin - this even in paper envelopes, 2x2s or mylar holders as these are airborne. I remember being amazed by the concept of vapor pressure exerted even by seemingly inert substance such as metals or plastics, and so we know that everyday exposures to our coins (let alone ourselves) occurs with such compounds as the bonding agents in carpeting. How important are they? Probably nobody knows for sure and varies a good bit.And different from place to place.

Well, I am definately not on the other side of the fence on this one, but one aspect of added value afforded by the slabbing (and I mean NGC, PCGS, or possibly CGS) one has at least some sort of backing to declaration of grade or type to a "sight unseen" coin.

Gary, I guess we are getting a bit off the topic, but is your picture of the coin(s) the one you are contemplating sending off? There are two pictures of 1970 reverse penny, so I must be missing something unless you are wondering if it is a "double reverse" coin you are trying to authenticate. Can you give a bit more information?

The 1860 1/4d pieces listed in that catalogue were long since disposed of and the records on the site were kept so that readers might refer to essentially a library on all of the known pieces. The 1864 as best is known was held back, and is truly a tremendous piece (or at least appears to be and would love to hold it in hand). Interesting to see what any of these pieces might bring in London auctions by a major house these days....

Well, that is a rather difficult question to ask as the alternatives are not quite connceted. I think at least in the States that the slab if PCGS or NGC will raise the price over a raw coin that is unslabbed. That is not linked to the difficulies of photography of the coin however. A great coin for sale in the UK may not have a higher price in the slab, and so there is a difference in venue, so thus the conditional in my answer.

Now that is a thought, but never have heard of anyone doing it. Most probably do not check their collections by the day or week, so whatever corruptive influence at play will have begun to run its course before the collector is able to do much. In other words, the naked copper as you put it will show some evidence of these oxidants and the like but may not be all that helpful in that what chemical activity taking place has already taken place. It should not be able to "sacrifice" its own oxidation and spare the collection although a "lesser" metal in close confines to a more "noble" metal will be consumed by the oxidative reaction first; on the other hand, this process is not like an infectious disease - that is, if the copper exposed begins to turn it will not increase reactions to the coins about it. Many people put dessicants in with their coins and this will draw some of the moisture away from the microclimate about the enclosed coins. As you know moisture will tend to accelerate chemical reactions (as will heat), and so that is a good idea. The Intercept Shield idea incorporates some of this, but I must confess that I do not have knowledge to the exact details of this company's products.

Very interesting...It looks as though the rim area may have been the result of impact (drop or?) after the net results of strike and whatever else may have been done to the coin. It definately is not as I first thought possible that this was an area of incomplete milling [off] of the obverse. It is still possible that the obverse was milled off and then abraded irregularly by whatever means and then suffered the rim bruise from contact. If only 0.8 gm. is short from the standard, then there should be some image left; it is only a guess but I think to completely remove bust device and all lettering without a seeming trace that removal of more than this amount of metal would be required. Perhaps if we were better at math we could estimate the minimum amount of metal removal required but 10% loss would be 1.13 gm, so it appears that something less than 7% of the metal is short from the standard. The coin is not specimen which is obvious and yet I have known a 1937 matte specimen reverse florin with a blank obverse (don't know the weight of it). I have a 1970 10 P with no obverse and it is genuine with slight waviness to the obverse side. Also the Colin Adams sale had two pennies from I think 1965 that were in the striking chamber likely at the same time, one with blank obverse and the other with blank reverse with one coin being some 0.6 gm. short of standard. They also had a bit of waviness to the unstruck side and not as smooth as yours - I think that is the slightly bothersome aspect although the matte coin precedent is mentioned. Well, without seeing it I can not really comment further...

Mat, I would not completely condemn the coin just yet as it should be seen in hand perhaps at Baldwins or maybe Neil Paisley or other expert. I can not say as I really would have to see the coin in hand. The amount of material lost compared to the usual flan is not very large and would not itself be an huge issue. The reeding overlap is a bit curious and would think that careful examination of this area is shere I would concentrate. I would suggest a stereo dissecting scope of 30 power to start. Obviously, post mint milling marks could be disguised, but at L4 you do not have much loss if it is false.

A bit of a harsh assessment I would say there. I think Scotish, that you should cite the service who placed your coin in the TPG, perhaps with pictures for the benefit of the rest of us. Also, as you may know there is technical and market grading. PCGS may give a coin an uncirculated number (60 through 70) to a coin that is mint state in that it is preserved essentially as it left the mint, even not fully struck or on a faulty planchet, etc. An old Glendinning or Spink GEF can come away as a 65 many times, I have found. I will freely admit that I do not have the capacity to send out pictures but have a 1926 ME penny bought from an SNC cantalogue of nearly 10 years ago listed by them as "GEF with considerable lustre" that graded as 65RB by PCGS and will say that is a fair grade as the coin is without blemish and fully unmarred surfaces and devices with NO wear whatsoever. I will say that I have seen quite a few graded bits by PCGS and NGC and find that their certification as to type in 19th and 20th C. coins (with bronze hypervarietals being excepted) to be generally quite accurate. I do have some quibbles on occasion with the evaluated number but then again I have differences by the non-numerical assessments of UK dealers on many occasions and have definately found there to be grade inflation a much more common phenomenon. Nitpicking and finding extreme exceptions do not, in my opinion condemn the service provided by these companies. I also see that no shrift is given by other posters to the value of preserving coins within these tombs. Bad, but also good that we can not get our grimy fingers on the surfaces of many of these coins. I think that if a coin is particularly rare and uncirculated or proof, especially those from the last 150 years or so be considered for slabbing on that basis alone. As for the circulated bits or gold, well, I do not see the pressing need for these slabs.

Perhaps this is a rehash of topics broached previously, but Gary might it be a bit unfair to have a sample size of one or two coins and then condemn the whole lot of US grading firms? I definately do not think they are the endall or that they are infallible but generally NGC or PCGS have been relatively fair in grading; that having been said many series are fraught with grading difficulties with Wreath Crowns being amongst them. Even to this day we have lively discussions about whether some of these crowns are proof or just prooflike as production runs were rather short and actual proofs being somewhat less than stellar cameo contrast beauties. Another series that presents problems are the Victoria 3d proof versus currency coins. Many are borderline cases with legitimate differences of opinion and I have seen many UK dealers make mistakes with both these and the wreaths. Not to pick on CGS but I have seen in their featured display case an 1875 (Heaton) farthing labelled as its London cousin of the same date, and I have seen (indeed own) a 1935 Specimen crown in "85" with less detail and luster & strike than an NGC 65 of the same date and type. Perhaps a bit of openmindedness may go a ways when it comes to these slabs and companies?

OK, I am a bit on the fence as perhaps some others are. Circulated coins probably generally do not belong in slabs, although there is some credence to "genuineness" in that there is a guaruntee by the company. This might come into play with a coin like the 1905 halfcrown. On the other hand, I have seen mint red pennies held by dealers twixt thumb and index by the OBVERSE AND REVERSE, and not by the edge. Also numerous drops, and the very bad staples ( I have an 1856 penny that is mostly red and well struck, superior in every way except for a hairline scratch across Victoria's visage - uggh!). I have had coins slabbed where extreme rarity is involved as I do feel it provides a measure of protection, and as was stated earlier in the thread we are hopefully but temporary custodians of these coins and are responsible for their upkeep.

I guess that a pound just really does not buy anything anyway so you have to have a handful to get anything. Really a shame that this once proud denomination is really not much to value.

Please do not use the term "forge", but rather "strike" for the minting of coins. Forging is what they do with the one pound coins when counterfeiting or in China to make items for ebay....

The reason for asking was that Amazon was out on checking. I too would like a copy so will try to check back there again.

OK, what would be total with shipping to Maryland, USA? Would like to see this and the price seems in the real world too!