VickySilver

Please see my second post above wherein I tried politely to point out how bad they can be. This is not to say they are always, but that particular performance was borderline shameful. These are coins of a series that I have more than some knowledge of, but then also took pictures FROM THEIR OWN SITE and then also cited my sources, etc. I also gave up on PCGS with variety designations when they repeatedly blew the call on an 1866 with fourth head when I submitted the FOUR major types that are designated in Spink including Maundy - they whiffed and missed all four, and kept sending me coins back in slabs until I finally gave up. I don't care if they have 59 graders if they are that ignorant. Although I do appreciate their efforts ordinarily, they possibly ought to consider the possibility of fallibility.

Yes, more or less my opinion as well although there were what were proof/specimen strikes of the 1920 silver issues and have seen the shilling, florin, and half crown which I have posted and listed in Bull.

The pickling process in effect leaches out the lesser metals and leaves a higher purity of the surface metal silver. Perhaps Rob may know but I'm not aware that the RM plated and then struck or plated previously struck coins.

Yes, Zoo, that is a nice one....The reverse almost has that pickled appearance where the planchets were sometimes acid bathed to increase the surface percentage of silver. Nice!!!

Thanks, Nick (as usual!). As stated, IMO, a coin with nice or top cameo has more visual appeal or snap & also would likely gain a premium - point being that is why cameo is important, especially an unmessed with original coin. I'll take a look as I recall a couple of later G6 proof pennies...

Please see half crown in pcgs report for coin #504887 Although this is silver and not copper or bronze, it seems that this coin would bring a premium over a coin without such cameo.

I believe this has been stated many times but confess to not having a citation at the moment.

The general production of proofs to my understanding is for there to be special care in die production, whatever that means - presumably that means the choice of die , the engraving of the design. Then the die is "pickled" in a strong acid giving an overall frosted appearance to the die. The die is then polished; the high points/surfaces will be the field, the lower points on the die are the devices and lettering, mottos, etc. which will remain frosted. As the die is used to strike successive planchets, there is die wear and eventual loss of frosting even of the devices. This then results in the loss of cameo frosting unless the die is reprepped. Presumably the first struck coins have the most cameo frosting which is then lost. This is also the reason that different lighting can make a particular specimen to appear to retain more frosting or cameo to the devices, etc.

There is another thread now on the subject, but I would say that I have definitely seen cameo contrast crowns of 1951 with mirror-black fields that I would not necessarily number amongst the "VIP". Or if they are, then the population of what some consider VIP will have to expand. I bought one labelled VIP from Spink many years ago that probably would be considered such. But, to belabour the point, I think many would feel comfortable about those that are NOT VIP, but the same could not be said for those considered by some to be VIP. There IMO is a spectrum of presentation and strike for this 1951 crown, with much the same to be said about the 1953. 5,000+ quid for one of these? Spare me! Although this may portend well for later proof coins....

Yikes, this bit about frosting is always disconcerting and repeated on these Boards ad infinitum. I think it arbitrary but convenient to define ex post facto what is and is not "VIP (Record)". The 1937 Crown is particularly problematic if one lets it bother him/herself. I am fine with a nice mark free 65 proof in Cam or DCam as a decent proof, and save the arguments for when there is little else to do. Frosting on a particular coin is a function of so many processes, and many were not always fastidiously employed and so hate to use that as a sole criteria. I like metal and strike quality as well, and though I admit some pieces are a bit better than even a 65Cam (not sure if that is so with a DCam though), can not fathom a huge price differential. I'll be impressed when somebody shows me an XRF done on a specimen that shows sterling rather than 0.500 content. Proofs are quite something in the silver/CuNi series from Vicky to E2 as quality is all over. I think I have shown before my 1839 half crown that is much finer in presentation than proofs struck 125 years later, but coins such as the Wreaths that are almost always better described as "Specimen" IMO than proof leave much to be desired. This VIP status thing has its limits. I might also add that I have had some discussion with Steve Hill about the Bull apparent attempt at dividing "regular" from "VIP version" proofs of G6, particular to the non-standard year proofs of the 1940s, and we are both of the opinion that the latter is not a separate category and is erroneous as his are listings for many coins from the 1940s that are listed as mattes but yet to be confirmed...

And doesn't seem to match another "old school" VIP 1951 Crown I know.....Nice crown, yes. VIP, I don't see it.

I am not at all sure from the pictures provided that this is a "VIP" set. IMO, this term is overused and many more coins are seeming to fall into that category.

Literally nothing for me either.

IMO, that was a planchet flake off another coin that was off the obverse surface and then flipped and struck into this coin with subsequent "freeing" of the fragment. The planchet of this coin ought to weigh close to the 9.4 gm standard.

India half rupee should be about .17 ounce, sixpence about .010 or a little less.

Yikes, you've got better eyes than mine. IMO the '63 just has too much wear post minting as well as possible striking damage/irregularity, and even any PMD would also be significantly worn. Now I have a 1981 and a 1983 penny struck over 1950s sixpences but even the worst of those are AU58 so that even the date of the underlying coin is plainly readable. I don't pretend to be encyclopedic in my knowledge but I am somewhat familiar with the Vicky 6d series and have yet to positively identify any overstrikes on foreign coins. What would be helpful is some initial metal composition and weight workup. What do your coins weigh to the nearest 1/10 gm? If possible a specific gravity or metal content reading would be great. Maybe a blowup of the areas to which you refer also. Anyway, let's see where this thread goes.

I have bought an unrecognised proof milled edge 1838 sovereign off eBay for less than 10% what it eventually went for when I resold it.....One of the best coins I ever got.

Yes, I tend to agree with you Newhart as even in the presence of plenty of dross, there are some very nice coins occasionally on sale there. I really have gotten some unbelievable coins on the 'bay, even done not so well on a few and ducked the junque (LOL).

Yes, good and it really is not rocket science if there are no contaminants in the acetone. I still wouldn't let it soak or tamp it (NOT rub it) for more than 20 or so minutes. In my experience, you'll know if its working within 30-60 seconds. The tamping bit is quite helpful as well. However, mild oxidation will not be affected and this is where potentially the ammonia can come in. Please do post pictures. The specimen pictured on the PCGS census site is dubious IMO. If you PM me your email I'll see if I can post you a picture or two of a real satin. About a year ago I got a PCGS slabbed MS65 that was very nice for about 25 USD.

As was said in Forrest Gump: "Run, Forrest, Run". That looks a load of junk!

Oh, pardon me, didn't mean any harm. Much appreciated is your help and all the others. I don't understand why they have two different numbers anyway. Sorry again for any misunderstanding. Eric

Wow, I like that one. Not a satin IMO, but much above average. You may want to try a dip first in pure acetone and then in 50% ammonia with liberal rinse afterward and tamp dry. Hell, I'd buy that one if you want to sell but more in the 40 quid range.

The 69 ultra cameo is a superb coin that is quite a bit above 65. It as fine as you IMO should try for in modern issues. It is not always clear that even the vaunted 70 grade is any better (that allegedly perfect). A 65 is gem and beautiful, especially if you are talking about Victorian silver (LOL), but not by comparison to the 69 UC in a modern issue.

Excellent.It was a coin number and NOT the verification ID #. Thats confusing....There are no contacts other that very minimal matte loss at G6 upper lip, and those are planchet lines with variable toning seen at bust of G. Notice on reverse the "blasting material" still adhering to the central devices. That is an original coin which probably ought to be regraded by them and sent in by Heritage or the likes with possible conservation - this to bring the big bucks!

I think that I have seen so many copper and bronze issues that have been fingered (wow, that is now rude sounding with the Weinstein business) by hamfisted collectors and dealers that it has influenced me a bit.... IMO, the Millennium Sale pieces received the benefit(s) of the doubt shall we say and received pushes of 1-2 points. Here is one that the submitter was punished on (1951 matte proof half crown), PCGS #432498 - help on posting pictures please.... This coin received a 61! Wow, note as a side interest the original sandblasting material still adheres to the devices on reverse. A rare coin, this is IMO superior to the 1950 matte half crown sold by Goldbergs as a "65".