VickySilver

Bernie, excellent! I know I have seen this one before and believe it was at Spink or Baldwin. Do you know its origin? Not a great quality coin, but at the price I guess I couldn't miss too badly...

Funny that in hand the coin has a very glossy appearance, and hard to tell from the photos but the fields do not appear to have been "smoothed". I believe that although certainly having suffered some wear that the original strike was very soft. I was a bit disappointed, but not terribly so, by the rim issues, etc. Very glad to have it. I will try to compare it to the 1922 specimen photos and see what I can make out - if anything (LOL).

OP coin looks "specimenish" to me. I like the overall appearance as being proof

1887 and 1893 5 sovs are ALWAYS available - not IMO rarities. This also makes me wonder how many actual collectors there are of these, so NOT a usual supply/demand situation.

I always cheer for the fools bidding on the gold 5 sovs. Spend, spend, spend. For what? I think one of the BSJ proofs was estimated at something like 60k quid

I found some really rare patterns there, some unknown previously or at least not published - and not for a lot at that. I really looked forward to their listings, even when I was not bidding. Sad to hear really....

Yes, very poor quality of imitation of an initially poorly designed Pobjoy product.

I'm not sure that at least a portion of the hairlines are die prep - I don't see them carrying over on to the devices or lettering. However, I do agree that they are very temperamental - or maybe worse. Some of their coins graded "62" need to be looked at as sometimes they are really nice!

LOL, that is what happened to me. Too late to bid on Auction 37 tho....

OK, I confess, I bought the 1922/27 penny. Had to at that price, LOL.

Yes, nice. I had to part with a lot more for one from Colin Cooke years ago - when the pound was HIGHER. Good work!

Can we (I) ask the crass question as to how much it went for. Out of curiosity, what would YOU grade it. Some of the Waterbird coins were grossly overgraded (such as the 1854 shilling and florin). I thought the 1922 penny a good deal at 1100...

Yes, please, helpful for those of us unable to attend the auction. NGC seemed IMO to give some of these coins a push so will look forward to seeing if buying the coin takes precedence over the plastic grade. One example: the 1854 florin. The shilling of like date also getting a couple of points.

Yikes, quite a diversion! Well, I am a late milled fan but always like to hear of other coins. However, I am interested in some of the coins coming from the 1960-70 period - knowledge, but if possible collecting them - this would exclude the halfpennies and pennies struck in gold!!! I have the 1964, 65, 66 and 1967 pennies struck in CuNi. Interesting that there should be such a run, but wonder what else was going on at the mint. Was it all "shenanigans" performed on after-hour shifts, or just what? But back to the original topic: I will likely get this coin certified as there is trouble in many quarters accepting it otherwise. Not that TPGs are infallible, but because that will give the coin somewhat greater plausibility.

Yes, they've graded a few bits and bobs but not particularly well thought of. I have gotten some nice ones they slabbed because the plastic/label put people off..

Ah, thanks for that. Will follow the lead. Thanks Richard for not running that price up then! LOL

I agree that if genuine that it was likely done on purpose. It was the final year of the predecimal penny and have no doubt this was the case. I have a 1970 halfpenny struck in nickel that is probably the same, or maybe test strike testing alloys or die compatibility. Whatever, certainly it was a lot cheaper than the 1949 double obverse and does have the dated side (Reverse) so prefer it. Given all the odd OMS coins known, I think they were busy at the RM with or without the consent of management, or maybe it was management.

I think that one was taken as legit by people that looked at it. I bought the Double Obverse 1970 proof penny at LondonCoins. Will see what I think of that on delivery.....

Yes, first information may not have been duly recorded, or lost (with all the changes of ownership of the mint, etc.), and then gathering whatever left a problem. I think initially most info was reported to Krause, and then that seemed to stop. I am with you and would love to have such. The RM also difficult with information at times.

Yes, coin number one for me - better struck on reverse & see lions on shield as example as well as hair detail on obverse as well as brow showing a bit less detail. Maybe just a bit of rub. Lustre better IMO on second.

Yikes, wives must be on the mild side! It will be interesting to see how some of these coins fare. Many really nice, some not quite up to the rest...

I agree with Azda about the 1854 shilling. Really now! I did get an MS64 some years ago that is the real deal and this is not in a league - I thought maybe a "61" The 1860/59 has a truly lovely obverse strike with the average reverse, [in]complete with missing pectoral/boob.

Ah, thanks for that. I rather like this type. Does anyone recall the Glendinning c. 2000 era coin coming up for sale? That is the one on the PCGS web site. 8k was probably a decent price for that.

Yikes, that doesn't sound good at all! Don't think that is standard practice other than for them....

Just a quick one: what did the currency 1839 half crown go for?