VickySilver

I happen to like the designs, save the latest Bull. The proofs are IMO a bit overpriced but the others at just above bullion are rather nice. I hope a few will sneak in as scarcer bits.

Probably not of interest to all on here, but was wondering if the RM will ever release actual mintages RELEASED of these in either the currency or the proof. Reported mintages are very confusing, first because as far as I can tell there are none for the "bullion" silver, platinum or gold; even with the proofs of these coins, there are issue and set limits but there seems to be no confirmations as to the number actually released into collector channels.

Yikes, Rob, are you now coming after the shillings? LOL...I like that 1853 best there.

Does not IMO appear to be of Royal Mint manufacture...

As a followup - if anybody cares, PCGS will not certify the scarcer gold versions as they are not in Krause's "Unusual Coins" yet??? This despite being published in the Spink Patina Sale of 2001.

I'd second that one. I just don't think in this internet age that such coins not in premium condition can hold value - or even have much!

I wouldn't touch these with a very long pole. IMO, there are just too many around both graded and ungraded with likely some very nice ones out "in the wild". Even more mystifying are the proof late Vicky gold from 1887 and '93. Yikes!

Heritage sold a nearly identical (under graded?) Proof64 for USD $9600 in January....Last year a "66" went for USD $39.9!

Very nice appearance there OZ!

I do try to rinse with a bit of liquid dish soap, rinse VERY well, and tamp dry after the dip bit...

Nice coin there but should be under "Items for Sale"

As per Forrest Gump: " Run, Forrest, Run". I don't get these huge prices for coins that are very different than supposedly lesser siblings. I have a proof 64 Cameo that, even though is my coin is within spitting distance at 5% of the price. IMO, these hyper grade with huge price tags are enormous risks for most collectors, excepting of course the Tyrant collector...

Not proof IMO, the edges just not right and appearance not there. I don't think there is a huge price differential anyway.

Wow, we left that bit out, that is exactly right do the simple first ALWAYS.

The acid is over the whole die and then the high points/field polished leaving a bit of cameo to the recessed die spaces. So called matte coins are stuck as per "usual" VIP and then sandblasted. I have a couple of coins with sandblasting medium still adhering.

That groat has been scrubbed without mercy! I think that might be at best 150 quid. The 1852 groat is a bit overrated IMO - I have three and had to leave quite a few around. The proofs of 1857 and 1862, not to mention 1837 and 1838 are quite rare as you probably know!

Whole 1958 sets are bringing close to 10k pounds - or even above! That's a nice 6d there!

Try the old trick on a coin of similar metal (CuNi): household ammonia in 1:1 with water. Immersion or the aforesaid Q-tip (bud) tamping with this solution can remove much of the accumulated cra-. I have found this to work rather well although not perfect - usually get improvement. CuNi is much harder to work with than sterling silver!

Wow, sorry to have missed that as I have ALL of the others since 1969. But I now have word of another, the owner reluctant to sell (ie won't sell it). Mick, did you buy it? Ooops, I just saw that you asked if I bought it! LOL! No, I wish. Unwilling, thanks for posting that as I hadn't seen the set offered before. The RM and the BoJ are both clowns when it comes to information on this or almost any other set. The former may not even know how many were actually net sold to collectors, the latter doesn't seem to know their A-- from a hole in the ground. They still have on offer since issue the 1992 and 1993 sets with same mintage limits at 45 USD per. The designs are so ugly that only crazy collectors like me even are interested. As a sidelight, after much pleading to look at stock BoJ was able to find me a 1999 set which is likely equally rare with nobody really caring either.

That is machined in. A cavity made in the 2p with the 1/2p inserted, and you can see the milling marks around the inserted 1/2p.

OK, I've tried to respond twice and these have been lost in the internet ether... As the RM has suggested in the above letter, there is probably no good way to prove origin or intent of and for a particular coin or set. Although no doubt some coins were struck under special circumstances, there is a lot of variability in the actual proof coins themselves. Not only the time and conditions of when they were struck, but also how much care went into the production of a particular die(s) or planchet, and many other variables. It surprises me not that there is NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER. Some coins are clearly superior to others of a particular denomination or date, and most generally agree on the best of specimens that there is something "better" about them. Should such a particular coin or coins be considered ex post facto be determined to be a VIP Record specimen? IMO, I don't think so. To me the major variables in determining how special is a special (LOL) with a particular coin are: - planchet quality - "freshness" of strike or how early a coin was struck along with articulation of device details, lettering, details, lettering, denticles, rims, etc. - strike pressure or quality of strike. Not the same thing which can be further discussed - wear or marks post strike (not actually a mark of "special" status) but affecting its presentation - amount and quality of cameo contrast Naturally, I have seen individual coins that are clearly superior to others. Whether they are a more ordinary specimen struck with all of the above factors maximized, or a special originally designated VIP matters not, at least to me. The designation of such a coin or coins as VIP can then be seen to be arbitrary. With regards to a particular specimen, these are worthy of a premium compared to more pedestrian examples but the question is how much? I believe I recall one 1953 set bringing 10k sterling or thereabouts and I just can not see that....

I think the bottom of the three marked areas IS die clash as the marks appear raised, and agree the others may be delaminations but still do not IMO appear to be bag marks directly with there being either clash or peelback at QE 2 ear - that can not be a bag mark in any sort of way. This coin has plenty of other small bagmarks as well as what appears to be plenty of die polish lines throughout.

The 1957 half crown shown above has clash marks from the dies coming together without planchet in between leaving details of obv. on rev. and vice versa.These are NOT primarily bagmarks.

Honestly, and this comes from a fairly avid collector of Victorian silver currency issues, the die numbers probably don't matter a whole lot in the overall scheme of things - more of a curiosity thing I would say. Maybe you could do the research!

Yes, they are rather playing with us. Let's see, extra care in the engraving (though a bit plain in subject matter on this), cameo devices, sharp and raised defined edges and struck with firm "exactitude". That is pretty much proof to me also.