VickySilver

I did see a contemporary transcription of parliamentary proceedings where such test coins were described - rather interesting to hear of the economic straits that led to such measures - basically a late sequelae of the Lend-Lease program wherein silver sent by the USA was to be paid back.... The 1946E I saw was not a proof, just a currency-type specimen that was bought in a Belgian auction at 800Euro in 2009-10 era. I'd like to see the SNC coin but don't seem to have that issue (coin given attribute of 1979: 11463). BTW, Bull references refers to the 1946S as an untraced proof with the notation in the index of "reserved"; what on Earth does that mean?

I rather fancy off metal strikes of the predecimal 20th C. period, some error and some probably not. One series that interests me are the 1946 "transitional" copper nickel specimens of these - I have not seen actual reference to specimens of them since a 2010 listing picture at Collector Universe of the 1946E shilling in CuNi, which looks rather like a currency version of the 1947. Bull states the 1946E was known from a 1979 SNC listing, but none of the others. Evidently there were 1947E and S struck to proof standard in the old 0.500 silver and Bull claims that he owns (owned?) the former. Can anyone fill out any other information on these coins?

Ah, good. Well, seems a bit curious overall in any case. Those were some very nice coins there in the sale however.

This is a bit of a continuation from another thread, but I am interested in just what the RM is doing with Sovereign Rarities. The last auction had some fabulous pieces that almost reminded me of Baldwin's Basement type coins. Were they sourced from the RM, or just where? Do the RM buy and sell now through Sovereign or other entities, or are these pieces from their "Basement"?

I will try to again post some of the Wreaths that may meet proof definition - including the 1936 that came as part of a set. Won't be for a couple of days as they are in safe deposit.

A couple of the larger ones appear to be present prior to "sandblasting". I don't understand how this one got a 66 and the other a 63 - matte grading is not a strong point of the TPGs.

I have what appears to be an original 1936 6 coin silver proof set with the crown IMO a fully proof coin. Most really are not as I've said however. I also have "probable " proofs bought from Spink 20 years ago - 1932 and 1934 - that have the blessing of Steve Hill, if that be of any comfort.

The non-1927 Wreath proofs were presumably distributed officially to museums - probably some found their way into private individuals hands on occasion as well I have never seen ANY record of montages of either these crowns or of the minor denominations. The proof Jubilee crown was available by subscription to 2500 montage with a lottery for the gold specimens. Lesser folk had to manage with so-called specimen coins that were special but just not so special. Some of the George V proofs are very much scarcer than others - the 1930 half crown comes to mind.

Sorry to derail the conversation on Wood! I’ve often laughed at the way they spew that term. I am unable to sign on to live bidding at DNW on Apple iPhone or iPad. Does anyone else have that problem? They don’t take Adobe or whatever system (can’t recall which) .

Technically they were currency, though mainly these were given as Christmas presents and so did not function that way. IMO proofs were struck but very hard to distinguish.

I have seen waay too many of these, and have on good authority agreement with me. I have known this series for 25 years and will state again: suspect most slabbed as “proof” to not be. I have currency specimens far superior in strike and surface to this one.

A pet peeve of mine are Wreath Crowns labelled as proof. Besides the 1927 Proof/Specimen Only date, the others are decidedly rare whether one chooses to call them specimen or proof and this has been a controversy since at least the LA Lawrence Sale of 1954. As an example the latest DNW catalogue has lot #995 slabbed by (L)CGS as a 1932 Proof. It is not. Strike is poor, the fields are not struck up how they should and even the rims/denticles, etc. are not right for a proof. I have seen multiples of the 1934 date that also fail most peoples' definition of proof....

BTW, colour differences on high points are not of necessity wear or rub - the crystalline structure in struck up areas tighter and may oxidize variably from the surround and yield differences.

No doubt you have seen the CGS graded 85 Specimen 1935 that I posted some while ago that was wracked with verdigris!

Yes I concur. That is very sad damage to a nice coin that really puts a major hit on value.

Wow, I would think not other than maybe it's whereabouts. That would have been a coin of interest to me at the time but missed it. This is from the era of much mint play/sport and there are quite a few examples of shoddy quality control. I have a brass and also copper nickel pennies of 1965, 66, 67 and the trial nickel halfpenny of 1970 but no lead pieces. Not quite sure of the anticipated function of a lead piece, but interesting. Is this your coin?

I am not always a fan of theirs but the idea of a technical grade IMO has merit. If a coin is essentially exactly as it left the dies with no wear at all, then it CAN be uncirculated. However a soft strike or dies that are corrupted can make details of a coin not crisp. That is not wear IMO, even if the appearance is such at first glance. An interesting point is that when a planchet is not fully struck, the scratches and galling, etc. on the planchet are not "removed" by the striking process.

I believe that Southall reference above will cover what is known or at least published. Many of the Pobjoy figures seem to not be accurate at least with respect to the Viking On Horseback issues. Unfortunately I am getting a figure of over 51 quid net to ship this book to the States. If anybody knows of a better source for book, do let me know.

Palladium is a catalyst for chemical reactions and exposure to certain substances will release gasses, etc. including hydrogen (H2) gas

What did it go for again? I have heard no bargains to be had - SURPRISE!

Ah, found it at lexicon books: Lexiconbookshop.co.im Mike Southall Coins of the Isle of Man L29.95 plus shipping

So how did it all sort out?

Ah, there is a coin shop on Man, and I forgot the name. The proprietor has written an excellent book that is a bit expensive that I mean to get one day. I'll see if I can find more in the next day or two....

The reason that I offer that opinion is that the surfaces are without the oxidation/toning of even a minimal sort that one would expect to see on a coin 90 years old.Or at least very little. Also even though the coin is base 0.500 silver and it is just seeing it from the photo, there is just that little bit of loss of lustre that one sees on a freshly minted coin or that can be seen under the light [usually] yellow to brown toning. I have a very nice set that I put in a Capitol Plastics Holder (done custom) and I did used to lightly ip many of my coins including some in that holder. PM me if you'd like pictures sent in an email...

LOL Well, dipped in any case but I don't see wear as much as bag marks.