VickySilver

Absolutely. Storage is a real problem - I have many "lesser" coins in 2x2s with this cardboard outer & wish there was a better low cost solution.

IMO, there is sulfur in the cardboard portion of the holder - this subliminates (has a gaseous degradation) and will penetrate even "sealed" holders such as those you mentioned....

I like these collections, yours and Paddy's. I wish I had my blip together enough to do the same. Congratulations on a fine collection and presentation.

ESC, according to S. Hill (and myself, if that can be of value), is incorrect and that with the off year proofs that there is not separation between Proof and VIP Proof. I will try to post (with help) a picture of a 1928 Wreath in proof. IMO, the edges should be much sharper, the hair, cheekbone, and brow ridge should all be much better and sharper. I know they are just selling what PCGS has deemed proof, but I have had some issues with their grading before. They are NOT consistent with Record proofs and especially the matte proofs, both 1902 and the later scarcer bits struck for "photographic" purposes. The reverse on this coin is much better struck than normal for a currency and so are mustache and central beard detail. Value in such a venue would be, in dollars, up to maybe 400 for currency and up to 2k for proof.

I have touched on this many times, but IMO many of the "non-standard" year proofs are simply not, and this includes specimens graded by the TPGs. As one example, the Heritage Sale #3071(6 Jan., 2019) Lot 30670 coming up in two weeks is again IMO clearly NOT a proof. Many of the 1934s that have been slabbed are also suffering from the same inaccurate grading malady, so buyer beware. Someone, please help with the pictures.

Exactly on that last bit. However, I do think attractive high grade 1926MEs are very scarce indeed. Many seem to have toning issues or just something that isn't quite right. I regret that my own specimen has lost some of its original wonderful lustre that was still there in 1999 when I bought it. Some of the 62-64RB slabbed bits really are IMO just not there as examples...

I don't know, I put the 19H up there - but mainly because the metal fabric and toning seem so bad on higher grade examples of the latter.

Yes, Ultra Cameo it is but NOT Record (VIP) Proof. Not great quality photos but not as clearly defined as the "VIP"/Record proofs.

Good spot there - 16 bids, no less! Yikes, that is a bit of trash....

Yikes, I still have not been able to find either the 2002 Jamaica Proof set, or the 1984 Franklin Mint Specimen Set. I have managed to get TWO of the goofy crowns of the former, featuring a somewhat portly female runner - who the heck designed this? Maybe I will be able to trade at a later date. As always if anyone should locate any of this esoterica, or information please PM me. PS - As a footnote, I was just able to purchase both obverse and reverse DIES for the Panama 1985 gold 20 balboas - they are cancelled with but one central chisel mark.

I think that 1827 would have gone for great money if of gEF status in the current condition-conscious trade.

Do let us know; I have a dabbling interest in some of the coins and sets struck for foreign governments and was not able to get satisfactory information from the RM. And there is first the number authorised, then the number struck and then the net number released (because of returns, etc.). Even the net number released does not guarantee that the mint does not have some (or a lot) stashed in a warehouse somewhere.

The 1926ME was MS65RB, ex- Spink (about yr. 2000 from the late and lamented SNC).

Thanks, Nick! Quite a bit of colour LOST, I meant to say! Btw, NO rub on G5 nose or brow, don't know why it looks that way....

Please see coin in PCGS Pop Reports - 203006 under pennies Sad to say this has quite a bit of the original yellow golden colour...... (1926ME for your delight).

I too am a frequent and happy bidder with DNW. I would put them near the top as well...

I have posted on this many times, but in reference to those struck for foreign countries. Mintages are occasionally the following: Authorised limits Number Struck Number released, subtracting returns, etc. These are probably not important for releases that number in the tens of thousands, but more important with scarcer bits. That having been said, I wish they would release net figures for all the unc. and proof Queen's Beasts.....

That Sir, is a very crisp strike. Metal colour a little funky but the stike is excellent and amongst the best I've seen. Notice the lack of ghosting as well!!

I really had near-conniptive fits trying to find one. IMO the 1918 H is also harder to find in well struck condition with hair/moustache detail, etc. and not excessive ghosting. Please show some photos of 1918H and 1919H coins that are well struck of good metal and pleasing appearance if possible.

Yikes, I am scared of xylene and had just a bit too much chemistry to use that one. A possible "treatment" algorithm that I use is: Warm soapy water (with dish detergent) and use of fingers to work it into the crevices and then liberal wash with same tap water (if there are not too many minerals in it) and then tamp dry with a high nap white cotton towel. Acetone works well, but this is what I do: First buy it from Home Depot (or equivalent) - this works out in the States to be about 6-8 quid I soak one of those same high nap white cotton towels and then tamp the surface - NO RUB - and then use a soaked cotton bud (the kind with looser cotton head on it) and use the same tamp method. I then wash liberally with water and detergent and then just water. Tamp dry with towel. If these don't work, or there is oxidation on/in the surface metal, I pull out the household ammonia (the kind without dye) and use the soak method, then follow with the same old cotton bud tamp treatment; then the soap and water, followed by the water. Tamp dry with towel. The next choices are a bit tougher as I don't know what sorts of coin cleaning products are available in the UK now. I use the same tamp application method and always follow with the soap and water, then water and tamp dry procedures.... I have used MS70, Coin Care and Blue Ribbon....

You know, IMO, that the 1919 H if superb and WELL STRUCK of good metal should be considered amongst the best of these branch mint coins of this era. They are nearly always mushy, or of poor colour (possibly as a result of metal mix??) and seem to have problems of some sort. For some reason I have soaked up a few of these over the years and have rather nice 18 and 19 KNs with little sweat involved (and they were about equally priced). I am hard pressed to pick a value for a mint RB (OK that is for Red Brown) with good strike, metal and presentation. CC has about maxed that price IMO.

Thanks Nick and Sword, I am a nincompoop when it comes to pictures technology. I was still shocked when the grade was only 61 with NO HAIRLINES OR MARKS under magnification...

The coin is not tampered with and was a trial/proof strike. The coin came from an odd source and eventually was sourced through Mark Rasmussen. I was also able to get the shilling and florin, but not the sixpence. I would like to do an XRF to at least get a surface alloy read. The strike is superb quite naturally and IMO VERY UNDERGRADED. I think I had mentioned this on another post but the British Museum has an excellent collection of alloy trials from the period of of 1920-1924.....

Under the Pop Report, Great Britain. George V Halfcrowns proof (these are under the currency strikes). The PCGS # is on the Left hand side. If you select that blue number, which is 512833 the coin obverse and reverse photos will appear .

How's this for strike? (please help with image): 1920 Halfcrown PCGS Coin Number 512833