VickySilver

Yes, I have used that technique to not much avail. It is amusing that when attending live auctions, the auctioneer does what s/he can to beat these down. I do hope that the crown I won is a currency strike as that would be a steal, but even if proof not a bad price in any case. But I have too many already...LOL

I won both small lots at quite a bit less than bid max, however they were so small as to not be on the radar. I did get the OMS 1965 halfpenny but am concerned that is possible plated given its weight (despite CGS slabbing). Bruce, I think that piece is currency as well and if so would have to have been a steal at 75 Quid. I don't usually have that sort of luck....

Lot 1491 was listed as a proof 1937 crown - can't tell from the pictures, is it proof or currency?

It will tend to flatten out with the strike but it is curious how much detail is showing in the devices. No weight listed.... As much as we. pound on this point, weights are frequently left out on slabs and else wise and catalogue listings...

Ah, do tell about the last!

IMO there are just too many problems with this coin, and a few more: Look at the details in Ed's ear top - struck fully. Lettering struck fully Look at St. George' s sword arm - that detail loss does not look like incomplete strike Look at contour of horse's "bottom" where original has a slight indent but NOT the subject coin Look at dragon's head and "sickly" atrophic wings on the subject coin - it is all wrong. The dragon's head fully struck and the rest not. Look at lower margin of horse' s chest with sternum terminus and adjunct muscles wrong Etc, etc.

Update: NONE. LOL No more 2002 Jamaica (Jammy) sets to show up. More importantly, no 1984 FM Jamaica specimen uncirculated sets to show. Please see other posting on my 1984 FM Trinidad specimen set just gotten last week.

The rims belie circulation. This coin is suspect and even though in my area I would reject without some sort of proof that it is legitimate (ie. it is a stinker).

Ah, yes. Well I will try to send some pictures as it is sometimes tough to see. In hand the differences are quite obvious though. The only packaged matte unc sets are the FM issues through 1974. After that, none. THe 1974 sets of any of the standard FM coins are easily had and my not be a bad idea just for reference to add to your collection as they can be gotten for 30 USD or so, and the later mattes (not in sets to the best of my knowledge are of the same finish).Please do not be insulted, but thumbnail of the three finishes: Uncirculated - (M) matte: the coins have a uniform satiny finish over the whole coin, devices and fields and lettering (U) prooflike: the coins have a uniform semi-reflective finish over the whole coin, devices, fields and lettering Proof - (P) proof: the coins have reflective fields and contrasting frosty or satiny devices and lettering I apologise that my ability to send pictures is severely limited. If you PM me your email I can send many more images. BTW, FM matte are quite different than classical Royal Mint mattes, even though they do resemble each other just a bit.

The devices still appear faulty, obverse AND reverse.

I would be most interested if you would be able to photograph one, I am waiting to see an unequivocal matte after 1977 - not including some of the satiny coins like the 1984 Liberia & some of those later BVI issues that are not IMHO matte.

Yes, mostly. The 1983 T&T Specimen set usually goes for above 300USD when it appears Who knows the mintage of even that one? My guess nobody.

Wow, that pattern needs to be examined by the RM/ Graham Dyer. I really do not care for the look of the King - very softly struck and the proportions of the horse's hindparts, etc. just not looking quite right. The purported mintmark looks off or at least upside down. Out of curiosity, what did it sell for?

There is a seller on ebay that has persisted in offering a "matte" Papua 10K of 1978 - it is NOT. That coin has much post-minting "damage" and has altered surfaces. I have found a few borderline coins that likely were original (U) prooflike coins that had toned/oxidized to make them look more matte in appearance. Many photos are hard to discern, esp. from ebay sellers.

Yes, the 1847 and 1848 especially IMO were NOT currency. I have posted several times about the variances in Maundy strikes and also have had lengthy conversations with none other than Steve Hill who agrees. I do not recall the others. Also, the RM seems to have been fast and furious with dies in those days (1840s through at least 1860s) so there was mix and match, satin finish, PL finish, some dies with "proofy" characteristics, overstruck die lettering/legend issues, etc....

Yes, a bit scarce and have been on the rise on ebay amongst other august (LOL) sources. There are two 8 coin sets In proof for 1984: One is all coins in sterling silver the other has only the larger $10 in silver, the rest in lesser metals. The specimen set is very rare on the ground and have not seen before. An interesting but subtle sign of the distress in producing such is in the accompanying information card on my new set - it looks like it was printed at the corner High Street print shop compared to the very professionally done in earlier years. Also the plastic case not shown is a generic mint set case in use since 1980 and before. As was stated above, even bank personnel that usually have NO interest in numismatic issues knew at the time of issue that it was very scarce & the uncirculated set was NEVER to my knowledge advertised in all of the media outlets. Readers will excuse me for still being excited I hope, but the seller was so flaky that even the small parts of the story were entertaining. Ah, the things we do for our collections! My friend was literally at the departure gate when he delivered, and this was after I was sure it was a lost enterprise.

Obverses

Bad picture:

Agreed, the thing is that they get these days 0% of my money as I don't even bid anymore...Not that I have been overly thrilled with offerings of late.

Wow, another White Whale landed, and with some difficulty. Besides the Jamaican coins and sets I have discussed elsewhere, I have for over 25 years been looking for the 1984 Franklin Mint Uncirculated Trinidad and Tobago 8 coin set. It is not listed in Krause or Schon although I had whiffs of its existence and had even turned up the 1984 50c in uncirculated separately. So a long story short, the set appeared, disappeared and just at the last moment appeared again and a friend was able to make the connection AT THE AIRPORT on leaving just at the last moment. So I have it in hand. I will try to post pictures as soon as I can... My friend's cousin used to work at the Central Bank In Port-Au-Spain and related that I was extremely lucky to get such a set as VERY few were seen at that time... Well, anyway, pictures to follow as I am able but meanwhile an exciting discovery....

Methinks that they would turn back the hands of time to the Iron Age..... Beyond me that they have not gotten their act together enough to have on-line bidding. Also the pictures are somewhat inadequate, and at times even moreso.

I am still bothered by the designation of those 3d bits, esp. the 1840s and the "proofs" that IMO were not and was agreed to by none other that Steve Hill.

I am not aware of any and this is right up my alley as I like metal OMS strikes and variants. In halfcrowns the weight of 0.500 and 0.925 are both 14.14 gms. When circulated the difference is obvious as the later coins have a kind of dirty yellowish and unpleasant colour even when oxidized. Also, some of the blanks on the 0.500 coins through 1922 were pickled in acid to make the surface technically of higher silver than the "under" deeper layers, so appearance on minty specimens can be deceiving.

Update: NONE. LOL Some of these issues are near to impossible as they were NOT sold by FM directly to collectors the way they did with proof sets and gold proofs, etc. In the earlier years the FM used to release uncirculated quality specimen sets - 1970 through 1983. The next year (1984) the specimen sets were diverted to the Central Banks for dispersal and this seem to include Belize, Jamaica and Trinidad with no other nations confirmed that I am aware of & if they had a FM direct release, news of it must have been rather sparse as I NEVER saw any for sale in the States. Other than the matte quality specimen sets for 1970-1974, I can not find nor have I EVER seen a matte specimen set from the FM. Some 12 years ago or so I got a 1975 FM matte Barbados set but this was in a Capitol holder and best guess is that someone at the Central bank saved out one of each denomination. The rest of the mattes of other years seem to have gone to the Central Banks. Examples of them are the 1975 & 1976 FM matte unc coins of Belize, and the 1975-76 FM matte coins of Trinidad as well as the aforementioned Barbados set; sprinkled in are the occasional matte issues of Jamaica Mintages such as listed at Krause and even Schon are VERY misleading as far as survival or how many were released by them to the Central Banks, and then of course how many were "paid out" by the Central Banks. These are occasionally seen on the secondary market, but are very much a hit and miss affair. I am not at all sure the FM sent or in any form released 1975 matte coins to Malta, but seem to have sent a scant few to the Central Bank - I have seen only one each of the larger 25c and 50c matte pieces of 1976 year and these were listed at mintage of 300 and 150 pieces, respectively. What is good about them is that evidently NO specimen sets of that year were released so they are only supplemented by proof coins from the sets & I would rate as RARE. I bought my coins from a Said - but can't remember the name of his shop in Valetta. I think I will make a separate post about uncirculated dollar through 10 dollar coins of Bahamas post 1974 if any are interested...

The lines through the devices (ie Vicky bust and head) extend through from the fields. This IMHO ought to be environmental in that the coin may have been either fingered or exposed to surface contaminants, or even other substances intentionally applied - these then oxidized with the residuals as seen. It is possible that there is no actual wear other than bag marks despite these issues. Also, as a collector of such, this coin has near to zero appeal and is quite unsightly.