VickySilver

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".

Yea, I saw that as well. Pass.....One day that might be a good value, but think seller possibly optimistic by about 200 or so.

That mixed lot above would likely find no takers (I think the Netherlands 1 G. is silver by recall).

I don't think I can substantially disagree as the BN has die rust strike characteristics on the obverse rather than actual wear and though the blowup is larger of it, the reverse possibly somewhat better struck than yours (e.g. lighthouse detail, center of breast chainmail area and ship hull). I think that yours is lovely though, and overall has a better obverse aesthetically. I liked especially the Gerald Jackson specimen of about 2-3 years ago which was only 64RB by recall.

On my iPhone I see reverse rim damage at 9 & 10 o'clock but the rest doesn't look too bad. Will have a look on laptop later this evening.

As most readers are likely aware, DNW had a sale today - which is still ongoing in fact. The rarer Vicky (well, Billy too) fared rather well with aggressive buying evidently by the Japanese contingent. The gold Willy 1836 went for 8.5k pounds, as did the finer of the 1837 Vicky proofs. The lesser of the 1837s still fetched 3200! Way out of my league and so bowed out. The 1842 & 1853 proofs went around 8 & 1200 by memory; there also was an 1838 proof at 1100 and a circulated grained edge 1838 that went near to 400 - I just found not see this as all the special given that there are some very proof-like appearing currencies available to the market on occasion. I was surprised that the 1852s did not do better at around 460 by memory. The 1853 two currency lot went for 700 - and I let it go also. Possibly the collector buy of the day was the 1857 lightly circulated specimen that went 1900, the THREE 1862s went for 1300-1800 which were prices I thought fairly reasonable (though I left them alone). All in all, definitely the best collection of groats I have ever seen.

Wonder if some of the OMS G5 half crowns for sale recently are counterfeit - they have awful detail, and have disagreed with statements such as: "detail weak due to harder metal of flans", or "excellent milling demonstrates Royal Mint product", etc. PS Any idea how much metal weight might be added with an average silver plate to a penny - I have one overweight by 0.16 gm.

These have been attributed to the Royal Mint and NOT KN.

Almost looks burnt, surface altered post-mint IMO.

Acetone first. Then 1/2 strength ammonia with quick soap and water surface treatment to follow and then quick rinse with tamp dry. Always tamp dry with a high nap white cotton towel. NO RUBBING! It might take a quick dip in actual EZ-est or some other similar dip with the same light soap and water, and then more water rinse with tamping.

Those at DNW hopefully affordable. The Heritage lesser so I'd imagine.

This medal reminds me of the RM treatment of the 1902 matte proofs - a good wipe or two to shine it up! LOL. Well, other than a few contact marks that is a solid GEF piece there. One possibility is to dip it and then retone on window sill or in brown paper napkin with sun exposure that will lightly sulfur tone it to a golden brown and then maybe a bit of colour which you can monitor by checking periodically.

gVF a fair guess IMO. Decent detail but see things like the orb atop the crown on reverse and the top of ear on obverse It looks like a bit of cameo wear (only slight) as the surfaces of central lettering on reverse looks to have mild wear just as does the hair & mustache and beard details on obverse. Almost as though it had been put in a bowl with other coins for a short while AFTER the main black toning had taken place.

Looks the real deal to me. And those lines don't look to be scrapes from photos, but rather toning streaks. Don't think many of us would shoot you for a dip. Have to check the weight bit... Addendum: weight is correct as well.

Ok, I confess that I still like the 1970 set - perhaps a bit sentimental!

Yikes, that would be your coin? Pictures please, kind Sir! Have you posted it before? Can't remember!

Can't answer the first bits, as to the value that would be IMO no added & perhaps a tenner or so. You'd need a better level of preservation and even a mint specimen would not be much if any added value to the 100-150 in that better grade.

"I" over "I". This is how they appear. There are many more lettering variants on earlier Victorian small silver inc. 3ds and Maundy sets...

Yes, I agree in general although a few issues thought scarce have since proved not and vice versa. Glad to have that as a reference.

I love a nice Vick obverse, regardless of the date. The second-to-last of Non-mort looks to have been hit with fingerprint IMO with subsequent attempt at cleaning or light dip. Parts of the obverse fields have some proof like qualities.

Yes, and the centers of the flowers (stamen). The details in G5's hair just is not there on any of the three and as you say they've been knocked about. If you compare them to the 1936 I posted up here, you may see the differences.

I just had a look at the upcoming Goldberg's catalogue, and was quite disappointed by the overall offerings, but more than this really have to question the three "VIP Record Proof" Wreaths dated 1928, 1932, and 1936. The latter looks perhaps the best, but the obverse of KG5 is very poorly struck in all three, the rims/edges just not there for proofs, and the reverse wreath details (i.e. stamens and flower details esp.) quite poor, at least to the accepted proofs that I have seen. I vote against all three, what say you dear readers? You may want to look at the Proof 65 1927 just prior in this auction or the 1936 I had posted [with help] earlier on these boards.