VickySilver

Yikes, bit of a distraction there & here's to her bottom staying UP! I think supporting the original topic that it was interesting that the 1952 penny went only for 80k. I really thought that would be a 100k coin. What say you all?

I agree with all of the nonsense above, but at last had a look.... Lot 195 is an 1839 Half Crown, evidently currency & a bit mishandled to be sure - but quite a rare bit. Wonder what it will fetch?I already have a decent specimen so not for me. They have it wrong in that the finest specimen we are aware of is the ex-Glens 2000 auction specimen now slabbed as the PCGS 64 example on their census..

Wear, secondary, over toning (ie circulated, sat and toned, reentered circulation). IMO not cleaned though.

Keep us posted on any "scores"!

Yes, I am rather hoping that there are not too many hairlines [that I could not see]. At least they are much more honest than Spink was in that October sale last year - I forgot the vendor but I think he got the cleaning brush out on nearly his entire collection. Dummy me bought a couple of the coins based on Spinks poor pictures and descriptions & should really have sent them back... I will share pics of the Halfcrown if someone might help me when it arrives.

I ended up getting the 1874 shilling after looking at the one in my collection that was not nice enough. I also got the 1874 Halfcrown, but it may have hairlines that are not obvious on internet site - so it went cheap...

I guess I really don't understand why they wait so close to the auction to release information about the coins coming up in the sale.

Ah thanks for looking out fellas! I have three of those (LOL).....It is that darn whole 2002 set in proof - and the 1984 specimen set - these are the bugaboos....

LOL, yea the thrill of the hunt. I know they are out there somewhere. I am thinking maybe try to run an ad in. a Jamaican paper. Don't want them getting hold of my accounts information though.

Update: Nothing! These little suckers are very elusive. I did find an internet photo of the Jamaica Gleaner newspaper from I think October of 1984 where the proofs and uncirculated sets along with solo proof 10 dollar coins were offered. From a different source there were evidently the struck totals on the 1984 Jammy Proof set were 268, with only 67 individual 10 Dollar coins struck - no records of how many specimen sets though.

Perhaps that is true. I doubt that the RM ever was of the opinion that Wreath crowns would circulate, as an example since as has been pointed out, there really was no demand for them as commercial articles. However, they were struck to a circulating (or "currency") standard and this is quite clear. They were not struck as proofs or specimens as you say. However, striking a coin at accession does not at all necessarily mean that it is technically a commemorative in the usual or certainly in the modern festooned sense at all, but rather as I had written earlier struck as a physical demonstration the right of coinage and declaration of the sovereign status of the issuer.

My understanding, and judging from the RMs own emails is that they are now marketing coins from collector sources for sale, either directly or through auction. As has been pointed out this specimen appears to not be from their own sources.

Wow, very impressive that you press on with this. I have to confess that even though I very much like the Vicky half sovereign series, I have not recorded the die numbers as it was just beyond my interest level. Please continue with your enthusiastic studies!

Ah, thanks. Well, perhaps I do get a bit technical but will stand on my point. It changes not one whit by what ended up happening with coins that were struck as currency, and were NOT of specimen or proof status, not having been prepped or struck to that standard. They were intended as being struck for circulation and were struck and handled to that standard. To diverge slightly, then such a coin as the CURRENCY 1952 half crown is exactly that - it was prepared and struck as a circulating coin even if it really never did, except for possibly a couple of exchanges of the only specimen known. But back to the crowns: I have no doubt that most of the coins struck as currency type and NOT designated as commemoratives (but struck for the reasons already cited) were saved as momentos and so may have psychologically been kept as commemoratives of the event. So, to rephrase my carefully constructed discussion: the coins I cited WERE struck for circulation and were "currency" pieces. Whether or not they were actually spent or circulated is another point, and I NEVER suggested that they widely circulated. I do recall a Churchill commem or two being spent, and even in the case of the Wreath crowns with rather limited mintages we see any number of extant specimens that have wear that is not consistent with "pocket pieces" (although I have seen some of those as well). To repeat also, the coins cited were not commemoratives by strict definition and so please reread what I have said. So certainly not a huge issue, but in my opinion we might as well be correct in what we say or how we refer to these coins.

Technically that would not be correct, and as I said, other than being struck in the first year of the reign there is NO indication of it being a commemorative but rather a physical demonstration of the right to strike coinage. If we were referring to the 1951 Crown, then I would agree. Plenty of coins were struck for another COMMEMORITVE - the 1935 Jubilee. Incidentally, crowns WERE struck for circulation, this being the intended purpose for 1902, 1928-1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1951, 1953, 1960, 1965 in the predecimal series.

No, not specifically a commemorative.

Okay, funny. These were issued to circulation, and am trying to figure out the commemoration? None is expressed and was simply the first year of reign, not so indicated that I can see. Other than mild abrasion, it is actually quite nice. I don't see major rim issues and the "ding" at 8 o'clock on the obverse on blowup looks to be ??plastic or some such on the coin.

Let me know when like quality shows up at 30 quid, I’m a buyer. These come with unfortunate bag marks on almost all occasions.

No on the grading unless you are just curious. About 40 USD per coin.

That looks to be a rather exceptional currency piece that probably would have been a good buy at 3x the price

I’ll venture additional opinion - this coin in the OP is very near to uncirculated as far as wear, and this after blowing the coin up - it is nearly free from circulation signs in the devices, fields and rims. Certainly not of the posted MS64 coon’s quality, but very nice. So it IMO would net grade down slightly on tone and soft strike, and that is why I hazarded the EF45 grade. I do strongly urge others to magnify the coin as I did and not be fooled by the soft strike but to look to see signs of wear such as marks, nicks, gouge in miniature , etc.

Hmmmm - not sure I agree as we did leave out the margins. Many times I look at edge detail to help in deciding points such as this and obverse rom detail is quite good, the reverse not as sharp. Loss of central detail articulation on reverse is IMO more related to strike . And the fields are really just too good to grade this as any sort of VF. I would venture the EF45 grade based on the pictures.

BTW, the census at NGC is likely wrong as they have SIX 1882 “ no H” pennies listed - and only ONE “H”. When I inquired they told me that their numbers were correct and I had no idea of what I was talking! Quite rude and likely wrong with no evidence of checking.

Not much to contribute, but did get a worn 1928 6d in 1968 whilst passing through as a lad..

I agree that there is a bit of dogma in the approach to this date and somewhat slavish mentality about there being only one obverse. I just don't see how that can be proved, though I do agree that many purported "no H" examples on close inspection appear to be "weak H" or possibly moved metal. I have seen a couple that looked good to me under scope - as far as the lack of "H" mintmark. And if the die was filled or worn? So what, if it doesn't appear that metal has been (re)moved then it is a "no H" much like the USA 1922 "no D" cent coin...