VickySilver

I definitely agree and put in the gVF at very best on this reverse. I've seen them to be quite liberal on grading previously.

Not sure, I got a copy from the ANA Library - really one of the very best articles on the subject I have ever seen with plenty of data. I might be able to photo these and send to email addy.

Yikes! These discussions are endless; I ended up by coming to the conclusion that it is not possible to "pigeonhole" currency, specimen, proof. Occasionally there are some borderline matte coins that I just can not accept as matte proof - I have seen a couple even slabbed by major TPGs. The Bower's Catalogue of Norweb Canadian collection had an extensive writeup on this. Also, see the Spencer Journal of American Numismatic Association articles with the best being December 1983 - this is an excellent article well worthy of Rob P. (Spencer, Harry E.: Proof-Record Coins Struck by the Royal Mint). Somebody ought to scan it and leave it on this site IMO - I am just too technically challenged although if someone sends email might be able to manage next week.

The liked the rims/denticles and the overall lustre - IMO these are nice, but not deserving the 65. I don't think I would be all that unhappy with a 63 but the date is certainly not special. This series in general has languished and even the proofs (save the 1927 matte) just don't seem to bring very much. Perhaps the uninspiring shields reverse. A bit of a word - they sometimes are using more technical grading in that if a coin left the dies relatively poorly struck but the coin perfectly preserved that way could theoretically reach an even higher grade. This coin has some other issues that limit grade IMO.

Should be sterling...

No, I meant MY SPECIMEN. Ex-Spink auction 1990s.

QE2 washed out of cameo. Def. prooflike, poss. proof - needs to be seen in hand. This has a silver tint/tone to it.

Excellent! I was that way for a while with the Rocking Horse & have I think 11 or so of those. I actually LIKE the Churchill crown in excellent preservation such as this specimen. Don't shoot me please.

Loss of detail is important when it comes to plating and the SG, if accurate, would def. mitigate against a full silver content; tin tends to look quite different and rather "crummy" when circulated and 115 years old! I would tend to favour exactly what was in my first post. Sorry I can't see a fortune in it for you though!

These both appear plated. I am careful in my choice of words, but assertions have no place; I do not believe you can state the 1/2d is NOT plated. I am somewhat of a specialist in both Victorian and E7 silver, but also love off metal strikes (OMS). The farthing is within tolerance on weight, the halfpenny is about 0.5 gm heavy compared to standard. However, the coin DOES appear heavily plated in the photograph with loss of detail secondary to this - a bit of blurring that I have seen often with heavier plating. I will add that heavy plating may be "resistant" to non-penetrating assays/tests, including chemical, scratching, XRF. Specific gravity will pick it up & would anticipate with some likelihood that this 1/2d will register as near copper, but slightly higher. By quick memory, bronze is somewhere around 8.8-8.9 and sterling silver about 10.36-10.39.

With Fortune's Grace, it should be able to tone to an acceptable brown given the tone apparnetly having been stripped off.

I like these as well at that price. I think I have non-packaged 2013 & '14 examples - I suspect some dates may be a bit scarcer than others.

Mintage does not reflect numbers released, or more importantly how many available to collector market....

I hope that doesn't include me as I did send pictures if my satin specimen.

JMHO, but the second coin in the OP is the better by a bit because of strike on reverse as was said but also on the obverse. The second coin may have some minor edge dings, or so it appears. In cases of soft or incomplete striking, the discoloration on "high" points may not always be wear, so be careful (beware, LOL). Newer NGC holders are of the tine type so that most of the edge can in fact be observed.

Yikes, I thought this one was put to bed already. There is a range from PL to more satiny finish that all came from normal dies, depending on die and die state, and different than the specimen satin strikes.

Bull also has some proposed issues for which numbers are given with no actual coins known. Also a small point but some of the later (George V through George VI) "VIP Record Proof" and "Matte Proof" bits are incorrect. PM if further info might be required.

Not far off the price for a real coin in decent preservation!

Without seeing the items, I believe these to be the PCGS and NGC designations for enhanced cameo and describe the same presentation.

I quite agree & like it so much that I got a Cameo66 not long ago as the price was decent IMO for what you got (well, mine was). I also like the crown in cameo but graded cameo '37 crowns have been going up quite a bit lately if 65 or above.

I think, but don't know based on other (uncited) readings that this "pure" silver was the result of acid pickling that enriched the surface by leaching out the lesser metals. I have the Nicholson 1920 specimen halfpenny in nickel that was one of the early attempts after the war to possibly move the standard away from silver all together. This was repeated with 3d and shilling in 1923 and the shilling in 1924 with examples of the latter recorded as struck to 5.0 and 5.7 gm standards. It would be possibly interesting to check the alloy of the Bull coins listed as "Duck tailed" specimens of the silver coins as these may have been experimental alloys, not to mention many others. The BM have quite a collection of different alloy specimens from this period as I recall.

My, my, that's strong stuff. I agree with you that they are not so very "clean", and amazed that they deal in coins that they themselves grade. Just too much profit incentive (well, that was a pleasant way of putting it). On the other hand, if you could by the specimen at a VF price then that would be good. Not to bore, but I have an very rare Vicky halfcrown in my collection that I bought at a Glens sale about 15 years ago that they had as gVF that graded out as MS64. And of course its my coin, but I tend to agree (as I would).

IMO not even a proof. Also, there is a die flaw on G6 cheek, nice reverse although out of focus could be hiding many hairlines, etc.

Nick, I quite agree. That coin appears to be uncirculated, but unfortunately quite softly struck as is seen for this date. I have an extremely well struck example that took some effort to find, so they are out there. IMO that coin obviously dipped however....

Which IMO deserve SOME premium but not 2k worth...Even if specimens were struck at different times and with slightly different techniques, if they can not be readily separated by experts side to side, or even by the very people that struck them, then perhaps many of our separations are arteficial at best. Spencer,who wrote the article in the 1982 Journal of the ANA about VIP Record proofs - and who did an excellent job IMO - struggled to differentiate specimen vs. proof, etc.