VickySilver

Hmm, yes rather a mixed bag with them. I haven't gotten much the last couple of years from them as a result. I thought I recalled that you could bid live through another service such as sixbid or biddr, or ?? some other. Don't laugh, the one that is something like "insulin", LOL, or invaluable or something....

Yes, a soft strike and the surfaces actually not showing much wear.

Just a question from my forgetful self. My recall is that London Coins now has an alternated bidding site or service that allows for live bidding. Like maybe biddr.com or some such perhaps?

Ah never did post this specimen/proof 1920 florin gotten from Mark R. many years ago with the “ducktailed” milling, possibly unique. Sorry about the poor photos from his list:

Maybe it is just me, but the proofs of the "off years" are quite obvious no matter what somebody chooses to name them and I have seen them of every year except 1929 from 1927-1963. Have only seen the 1941 shillings and only the 6d from 1945 however. Where Bull tries to differentiate between these and calling some "VIP" and others not is IMHO artifactual based on the coins themselves. As I. said, I would hazard a guess that he was using the presence of cameo devices that is more prominent on some. I would be interested what Joe finds in terms of confirmation on the true silver version of the 1960 crown.

I too am having some troubles posting but do not have an obverse photo at the moment. On a blowup, the third datal (digit) looks at least to my eyes to be an upside down 5 over 4???

Sorry about the extra half sov as I didn’t mean to post it.

Ok well here is one I’ve shared in the distant past but may be of continuing interest. What date do you make out and what happened? I have my thoughts but just putting it up here:

Good point and had forgotten about him Rob. I asked him a few questions about the 1952 proof long ago and had sent him a coin maybe 20 years ago that I was lucky enough to get back before the millennium, LOL.

Many of us have long since concluded that the clearly superior proofs of the late pre-decimal era were not labelled as "VIP" or even "Record" & this seems to be either/or invented terms of convenience and marketing (both?) but that it really doesn't matter as they "are what they are". In other words, and particularly of non-standard years, specimens of coins exist that are not run of the mill or willy-nilly early strikes, or whatever; most definitely are exceptional pieces that appear to have been produced with special proof qualities such as are generally are known. Bull is in all likelihood INCORRECT in separating, especially in the off years (and to some degree those from 1911, 1927, 1937, 1950, 1951, 1953 but also the 1960 crown) into ordinary proof and VIP/record proofs. In fact I know some of the principles you have referred to and can tell you that they agree. I do not know Mr. Bull but I would imagine that the difference he refers to may be that some have a cameo contrast between fields and devices and others do not. What we choose to label them is artifactual, but these superior piece do exist and that is clear. As a bonus point: regarding crowns of especially 1937, 1951 and 1953 years there appears to be some confusion - and I will admit to not being clear myself. I believe it well nigh impossible to differentiate between those with exceptional strike and cameo contrast between fields and devices, and those labelled as "VIP", "Record" or any combination of such. There are some exceptions such as the 1953 penny where even amongst the better quality proof strikings that there are die differences with the rarer types different enough that they fetch much higher prices on the market. I will confess to having purchased a 1937 proof crown as "VIP" (or similar designation as I can not remember) from Baldwin and paid significantly more therefore. When I later compared it to a slabbed and graded Proof Cameo 66, I could detect no meaningful difference with the latter generally somewhat superior mainly in that there were less handling marks, etc. I have learned my lesson. Further, a somewhat similar situation to the purported silver strike 1960 crown are the types of 1935 proof crown: specimen 0.500 fine PL coins, proof raised edge lettering coins, proof 0.500 and proof 0.925 incuse edge coins.

LOL, you sure did and I guess this discussion went on to the next page and did not notice. Joe, thanks for your work. I even have Linecar and had looked at this many years ago. The problem with the Glens issue is that no further characterisation other than a simple listing is given for the "silver" specimen. Glens was however very respected overall even if I do not recall their principal numismatist. This, if actually in silver, along with the somewhat odd 1937 pattern crown with the odd George slaying the Dragon reverse are the main stoppers on 20th C. crown pattern and proof series - other than the Edward VIII crown of course. Again, I was never able to confirm the silver pattern but the 20th c. pre-decimal crown series was what got me started with Brit coins so many years ago, when I had aspersions of getting them all, and it was nearly possible in the late 80s excepting the Edward VIII piece.

So Rob, do you have a copy of the mentioned Glens Oct. 1962 catalogue? I would like to see their listing on this crown. Glens used to have some absolutely tremendous coins "back in the day". Note the 1839 halfcrown that is pictured in the PCGS population reports....

Your efforts are appreciated as I really do like the 20th century crowns and have followed them for many years. I would not necessarily take all of Davies or even Spink/ESC as gospel. They are good and informative bur I have found other errors or corrections. Again, I have never seen or had reliable information on a sterling 0.925 specimen. BTW, I used to be the main cataloguer for a major work.

S. Hill is at Sovereign Rarities.

Should ask Mr. Steve Hill if he knows of silver 0.925 versions...

Yea, that is a crazy number. This is RIGHT UP MY ALLEY, and I have NEVER seen an actual silver specimen. Satin, PL and proofs of CuNi I have seen. IMHO, the latter is not rare enough to warrant the prices fetched and would downgrade the scarcity rating of this coin (VIP Record Proofs).

Are there any Gothic florins in the mix? I am trying to find a nice proof-like or ??proof as I have a number of others as you might guess...

Yes I’ve heard that as well. I’m not so interested in the micro-varietals such as designer initials and their placement. Perhaps a pristine of the YH Gothic Florin?

I just got this set for laughably low money but suspect it is quite rare with catalogue values based on NOTHING. These coins were struck by the Royal Mint in sizes from one cent through one dollar and very prooflike. Mintage not recorded, and I’ve not seen another. this is one of those sets/coins that are largely forgotten and never really noted at time of release or since then. Currency versions were struck from one cent through 25 cents but no 50c or dollar coins that I can tell - so the only “uncirculated” of any type in the BU sets. 1999 Trinidad Proof Sets were struck with an authorised Mintage of 3,000 but I suspect many fewer made it to collector channels. BU Set:

Nothing to report as these continue rare on ground...

No that is "shelf doubling" which occurs during strike, according to the error experts.....Good looking out however....

I agree, the surfaces "conserved" of oxidation - generally known in chemistry as reduction reactions. We have differing solutions of ammonia, the 25% would probably be alright. Please do experiment with lesser value pieces and suggest that they be of higher grade though & suggest all finenesses of silver and limited exposures on copper nickel as longer may start to dull lustre.

Yes, always seem to be a subjective component to this sort of thing. BTW, nice reverse on the 1918 and maybe excellent lustre in hand. Also the first photoed set is a bit ugly and possibly not in the range of restorable. I have found paranthetically (sp?) that dilute clear ammonia with liberal rinsing afterwards often does a nice and believable job of surface restoration....

Ground find/detector? Sometimes there can be moist soil contact with bits or grains of acidic components, not a solution - if that makes sense..

Fake, yes but the 1840 is not all that common a date in the shilling series.