VickySilver

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...

Mine would have been but had a bit of handling so graded PCGS 55.......I don't usually collect varieties but do in this case.

Wow, that about covers it! LOL Well I do want really choice currency examples of 1841 and 1842 only. Is there an 1868 RRITANNIAR? Mine is fairly nice but a choice piece would be special...

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.

Perhaps a matter of definition. IMHO if a coin is of uncirculated quality when struck and then pushed out of the mint in bag quantities and spent in significant numbers whilst most not receiving any special treatment or being cased individually or placed In sets (which was what happened) as was the case of these crowns, then they would fit the definition of "currency".

Hiya Paddy. Love the better 1920 transition year shillings, florins and half crowns. Although only pictures, you will see with some frequency the TPGs to give a "technical" grade - that is the level of wear and lustre, etc. giving the grade. The strike IMHO is not valued enough and so I believe this to be the rationale for the higher grade on the first coin. Yours appears to have a wonderful strike with excellent hair & mustache, etc. detail. To be fair the first coin appears a bit overexposed photographically but the details do appear a bit flatter. I was thrilled to some years ago get the specimen proof "duck tailed" 1920 florin and will post a picture later today in case you might be interested.

This. They were struck in large numbers in non-proof uncirculated (ie currency) pieces regardless of them being commemorative issues & as we know many commems find their way into business "currency" channels.

I have been somewhat saddened by what appears to be the demise of that company. I used to communicate with Alan about coins and got some quite decent pieces from him years ago & do hope he is well. I still look at their "offerings" but have not bid for quite a few years now. Well, here's to hoping the ship can be righted.... PS - really superb currency George VI crowns are hard to come by as I believe the planchets were not well cared for and there are nearly always bag marks, including in key areas. Same is generally true of the George V 1935 Jubilee crown issues.

Yes I saw those - he has previously been possibly a bit conservative but believe that to be a family business. Is there now another hand involved with the grading and cataloguing?

Matte proof 65. There are hints of verdigris/green oxidation in places and the usual wipe as has been stated. IMHO a 63 on a good day only....HOWEVER these at auction go logarithmically higher with each grade. Not sure what it sold for @ St. James...

OK this is from an auction not yet closed and is only the obverse (St. Jas or somebody - lol) . As they like to ask, GTG or guess the grade! Can’t say I’m in agreement: I see the usual wipe and even some hints of green near corrosion.

Thanks for the pictures as I was about to share, but covered nicely. Back to the OP: some have said that both the 1899 and 1919 dates have a final "9 over 8". I am not at all sure that they are not artifact even though I have purported examples of both. LOL. Might be worth a check but they would not be valuable in any case....

Bit of a puzzler. The center details of George may have had a bit of dip applied (as opposed to immersion of the whole coin) perhaps with cotton bud or some other device. IMHO these coins need to be seen in hand; doesn't look to be a terrible price though.

By recall the British Museum has quite a series of coins demonstrating the alloy experiments and versions and that most were of the 1920-22 vintage. XRF scanning will yield metal breakdown of the surface metals at least and would be interesting if anyone had access to such an instrument....Results might readily be published in Coin News or other publications....I would be very interested to know results and have some really nice transitional pieces like the "duck-tailed" silver and others....

With the possible exception of when it comes time to sell! LOL

Hmmm, hadn't thought about the mattes at all, but don't seem to have any others.

OK, first of all I do like 20th C. silver as you probably have seen so like BOTH. I looked at the PCGS cert pictures and think I may be able to answer [to some degree]: The second coin has a cheek and base of the neck (along the SCM muscle to be precise) that show some degree or rub or contact, at least to my eyes. They will tend to be hard on that bit. Also, it is likely just the pictures but the top coin appears to have better lustre even if struck more softly than the second coin. On what I have heard a "technical" basis, aside from strike the first coin would then get the higher grade. I think this is something that both NGC and PCGS tend to go with more strongly.

Sorry Rob as I was concentrating on the silver series 6d-5Sh (no 3d other than Maundy struck).... have seen the bronze as you've said. I have had a press on trying to get the smaller silver as I have the crown in definitive proof. They did not have any bronze proofs illustrated however and you are quite correct.

Looked back over this site some more and a couple of observations: - did not see ANY 1929 proofs, even of the crown - there is no 1945 currency threepence, or proof of that type (non-Maundy) - the 1945 year coins did not show any proofs to my eyes - there is no 1952 currency or proof halfcrown - there is a proof 1963 halfcrown, none for 1964-67 - there are some proofs of pennies and larger denominations up into the 1960s (Hello Richard!) - some of the coins from the 1960s whilst not proof are either early strikes or somewhat "specimenish" but not well care for - this site may not be complete but seems to support my hypothesis that there were no proofs (or at least no evidence) for the years 1929, save the crown, or for 1945 and helps to explain why I have not seen any in all these years.

Oh, thanks Richard I messed it up. I wish they would have put a little bit more into the labelling....