VickySilver

I haven't worked out the chemistry yet, but on copper-nickel coins like this submersion in a half-strength ammonia solution will tend to decrease the oxidation. It would be interesting to give it a go.

That is a lovely coin indeed. I will have to go for a "58" as there is essentially the most minimal of WEAR. The strike is not as a proof, but I suggest that key areas reflect this: brow, cheek, nose, drapery below bust and hair on the obverse, and the top shield (left and right margins) as well as the crown on reverse show what is IMO incomplete striking and NOT wear. The denticles are also high points that many descriptors omit, and these not completely struck up either which is giving the false impression of wear. There is an odd "bag" contact, but the fields very clean overall with lustre muted as one would expect. In short, I must admit this coin is not in the foci of what I collect, but if so would buy (at least with the usual caveat of it being a photo and not in hand) this coin priced as an AEF all day long.

These newer seem a bit better to me in hand, but thought (??) I had read somewhere about a change of plastic. I'll have a look and see..

I believe the "Gold Shield" PCGS slabs are hardened and more scratch resistant. Not advertising for them and they have their shortcomings, but I rather prefer the look of these newest generation of slabs from them.

You have to go with the extremely rare Canadian pattern dollar of that year.... Maybe INA struck one as a "private" pattern?

I agree with above: on first reading of it, I thought this might be a nice matte like the 1902 (sans the wiping) but instead they parade out a pink monstrosity. Also, is it just me, or do the features of George look a bit different, and uglier and cruder?

Yes, very good information and the basis for my own collecting. LOL on the 1927 Lion 6d as we had a auction shootout a couple of years ago - I lost on the silver version but won the copper-nickel "pattern". I can maybe do the 1979 article but it is not as good; the original 1983 article had some decent pictures that I couldn't get through so many generations of copying.

Yes, one time I waited SIX MONTHS! And they got it wrong!!!! After I had tried to steer them in the right direction!! I think that was on one of those 1920 "duck tailed" milling specimens....

The citations are as follows: The Numismatist, December 1983 Harry E. Spencer is the author. Pages: 2504-2519 There is a lesser leadup article: The Numismatist, August 1979, pp. 1662-1668. I can try to photograph these and send from my iPhone if interested I believe Mr. Spencer has likely passed away at this point as he would be 92 years old.

Sales tax is State by State. Virginia has none, Maryland 5%. So I use a Virginia address and don't pay shipping or tax - 2019 Britannia platinum was 872 USD as an example.

Yes, my point as well. I get the silver two pounds, the silver 10 oz, the gold one oz. and the platinum 1 oz. Very low premiums when bought on pre-sale, occasionally less than 20 USD per gold or pt. coin....

I will look it up on the weekend. Many years ago I was given a copy and it is really EXCELLENT reading, even mandatory for the collector or others interested in proof 20th C. issues of the Royal Mint (predecimal).

Yes, the 1945 year seems particularly elusive and in 25 years of collecting have seen only the 6d offered (and I think it is the same piece shunted around). The 1942-44 years are difficult with some denominations as the specimen format with a slightly satin appearance is much more common - see the Spencer article in the J. of the ANA from 1982 which remains one of the best ever written regarding this subject IMO.

Yikes, nada for me & seems not as many offerings there. Iannich - do you mean the 1854?

Could be, but suspect it to be a "real" picture that shows a coin similar to my own. BTW, Craigy, have you ever seen any 1945 specimen or proof issues than the 6d?

Wow, that is an impressive result as the original is not all that spectacular. On a related note: I hope we can at some time get an idea of mintages. I am not sure that the TPG population reports are that accurate as there are many resubmissions on the hope that upgrades be achieved. Also, as I have said before, in the case of Wreath crowns that there are many that IMO are not actually proofs (another example would be the 1942-1946 issues wherein many are specimen and not proof).

Actually, here in the States, Britannia bullion issue such as the gold or platinum are quite near to bullion value so not much out really.

Nice overall appearance, very pleasant. The field toward 5 o'clock has some friction as do the high points. I am more in the 58 camp.

LOL, yes you are right there; I have gone after RM proofs and patterns where I could afford them & OMS circulation strikes (ie 20th C.) which have in many cases rather increased in value also.

I just haven't been able to love these private patterns, but more power to those that do.

Wow! Was that a surface find or a metal detector find? Why sad, as it seems better to have it than not?

No telling motives but just the snippet posted screams "fake"!

Ok, I think a round of drinks is in order..... I didn't like the drubbing I took in trying to register either, and was never successful. However another member helped me with bidding and so was able to get the main lot I was looking for. However, I do fear the next time around. So maybe will try to get registered 24 hours ahead of time - more maybe?

Thanks for that bit; I also would like to get such. I think his specimen was that from the Arielle collection then sold at Baldwin in I believe 2014. The currency 1882 "No H" is listed at 375 USD in Krause, but maybe they were missing a "0" at the end of that value? LOL

I have the app and still was not able to get on, but did on the previous auction!