VickySilver

Your 1937 is quite pleasant and although hairlines can be obscured by photos, appears to be a very nice Cameo example with nicely frosted devices! Even the 1927 Wreath with frosting is likely quite hard to find. My best is the 1936. The later dates in proof quite expensive and some of the proofs are likely not proof strikes but rather ProofLike - neither do these have cameo effect.

Dave, hate to say it, but I also see doubling (see the adjacent letters as well) with small die break at the vulnerable part of the lettering which IMO lends itself to seeing a bottom loop; not a BB sadly.

For us lazy slobs, can you post or PM me what the remainder half crowns are?

Goodness! Please see my post from May of SEVEN years ago. And also, perhaps register a request that unfounded generalities contemplated before promulgated. Many Maundies were in fact spent in circulation. Prooflike specimens are, if well (or better) struck are indeed likely Maundies. The problem arises with satin type strikes & in fact, there were many Maundies struck with such surfaces & many with poorly struck obverses to boot. Anyway, this has been discussed as a look through old posts will reveal...

Looks to be a copper seam around the reverse on both. Machined? But can't explain the imagery of the reverse.

She does seem to be leaving Europe behind, well maybe heading to Norway.

But this is a currency piece....

What do readers think of the new 2017 Britannia in proof - they went with a totally different design featuring the body of Brit as the outline of the island. Head of Brit alright IMO, but the body, well, that takes some getting used to? Also there are a bunch of 20th anniversary bullion Brits: the "regular", the trident privy marked variety, the roost privy marked variety, and the charioteer resurrected (ala 1997 & 2009). The latter may only me available from ONE distributor (?!). I think goldco.com or some such.

Nice add on that Dave. Looks a bit more palatable, though wonder if Taco Bell napkins were utilised?

Several others he has for sale have similar toning. Surprise, surprise...Wonder if he was the submitter (JB)?

Another factor is that the different proof coins are released in different formats: singly, in sets of different sizes (e.g. three coin sets, five, with other denominations, in different packaging). So while there may only be 350 released singly, there may be another 250 released in different combinations.

Paulus has a decent one there! The OP coin likely has little wear but sadly has had that wipe and some differential toning that, horror of horrors, IMO would dip lightly for about 5 seconds with the mandatory light detergent and then water rinse & tamp with cotton cloth.....Prob not quite as bad as its appearance as far as wear, and the toning detracts certainly.

May have been BOTH with the original mint wipe somewhat obscured by later rub. The obverse is much more obvious than reverse but plenty none the less.

Craigy, these were in previous postings, and the reason I say that is I just never seem to be able to post pictures without help. If you email me I can send them to you & you may either look and/or repost them. The '51 still has the material they use for blasting the matte finish adhering to the devices on reverse...

I have shown a few coin previously that I have severe doubts on the grading - see the 1920 specimen half crown previously posted (at 61) & a matte 1951 also at MS61. Can't see how they are within even 3 points conservatively of grade after seeing them in all lights and magnification up to 30x. I have seen '02 matte crowns at 64 and 5 with wipes clearly visible and 62s that had none under any light or magnification.

Although I am one of those somewhat on middle ground with regard to TPGs and their function in the market as well as personally in a collection, I find the grading of these mattes by the major TPGs nearly laughable as it seems depending on their mood of the day, or perhaps other factors (LOL), grading seems to be all over the map. To some extant, I have also seen this with the currency half crowns and especially the currency crowns of this date - well, also the gold...

Yes, classical wipe appearance on the shilling.

Yes. The proof gold of this year is even more problematic....Not that it matters but I like the shilling, half crown, and crowns of this set if nicely preserved & yours pleasant enough. The lion on rev. a bit regal (if perplexed) & Eddie looks the wise old dignified man (not the partier/bon vivant).

Rob, I have several 20th C. common coins from Norweb in the Salmon coloured envelopes, but also a 1940 proof set in the blue.

Rehash: half crown a Pf63, the shilling more a Pf62 IMO. The problem is that both major TPGs in USA appear to be a bit spread on these; how much to deduct for the wipe? I have seen them really ding a coin and others to not. It does not mean a coin is not attractive just because it is at the lower end of the scale however, and the buyer would be advised to look closely under good lighting. Those wipes did in most cases seem to affect more than just toning and have seen some very light abrasion with them under magnification.

Yes, similar to my experience as well - I think the conversions are a bit optimistic in favor of the CGS by a couple of points, sometimes more. I think I trotted out the 1935 specimen Jub crown graded CGS85 that was vastly inferior to the PCGS65 specimen. Others as well....

OK, I'll take the last one Rob. LOL.

Yes, good buy there! Haven't seen another.

Wow, good looking out. I tend to agree with Richard that from photos the numerals appear artefactual though.

Yes, do stay on the dealer. That is a pleasant coin but not so rare as you might have been led to believe. I am inclined to not even give credit to the varietal half crown proof which seems to show up relatively frequently and might have been worth that money to some. I really don't think it all that ethical what he did, trying to pass of such at that "value".