VickySilver

49er - Can you please post pictures of the 1905 shilling once in hand? Thanks

Oops, that was a late night ERROR. Don't know what I was thinking of, as those are the designations for Prooflke and Deep Mirror Prooflike. I think light cameo is Cam[eo] and more heavily frosted is Deep Cam[eo]. Sorry!

LOL Well, they have P01, or AG1 for poor 1 by recollection. Cameo and deep cameo have designation in that there should be newsprint reflected from 6 and 9 inches, respectively.

Perhaps part of the problem is that there are no convenient "pigeon holes" and that they are something of a spectrum. I guess I just like to look at cameo/device frostiness (?) as an individual characteristic of a coin. I believe they do impart some value if giving the coin a nicer appearance & would guess the example I showed would bring a premium over a non-cameo piece & that Terry's coin would as well. My understanding is that this is entirely a property of die preparation and subsequent wear & that a simple explanation would be either pickling or sandblasting the die surface and then polishing the high points which of course would strike as the field into the flans. Subsequent wear would to some degree polish the recessed devices and they would tend to lose both detail and the ability to impart a cameo device to the flans. Simple pickling with acid would not necessarily give as pleasant a cameo as later methods. As was pointed out, George V & VI pieces usually lack a cameo (we did show a 1936 Wreath crown with nice cameo). and these I know.

Wow, thanks. I was lucky to get this from Spink in the "grande olde dayes". Vick's hair looks to be re-engraved almost as post mint damage & horrifically clashed.

Please provide photo help: 1868 RRITANNIAR 3d, perhaps the nicest I've seen (well I bought it). This is PCGS # 536335

PS - I will look up my proof 1934 and do a denticle count as well as see the other details. Hadn't seen this post till now. Sorry.

Yes those do most certainly appear to be rust spots on the die that have struck the flans leaving the raised spots.

Thanks for the complement & bought for much more than an ordinary one - about 12 years ago if memory serves. IMHO yes, you are mostly correct although I have seen some toned Morgan $ coins that appeared to have "DC" designation.

The obverses look really bad. I have seen on spurious that they are frequently worn to hide poor die work, etc. Interesting that the alloy may be different & that you must have a small magnet to pick up specific areas on the coin's surface. The denticles look quite bad on the reverses as well, with that on the right worst. The magnetism suggesting nickel, which would be a part of the genuine .500 alloy by recollection. I believe that there were extensive alloy testing going on with coins that went into circulation.

So true! I apologise for digressing as I was really only trying (with Nick's help) to show an example of cameo.

I concur with Rob and CK in that there are IMO more likely a number closer to 20 than 10, and CK in that cameo is usually more desirable. In some series such as in my post elsewhere, cameo contrast is very rare which I attempted to show in the 1936 Wreath. There is also DC for deep cameo, as in my 1839 half crown & will post the coin number from the PCGS pop site for Great Britain: 504887. I know it is only a photo, but please tell me how this is only a "63". BTW, the coin is at least as nice in hand!

US bidders are naturally bidding in dollars so to them this more a price of about 600 pounds over the last several years.

I believe the florin above is ex-Norweb: 7.8M yen is above 71k USD. Another was sold by Spink about 10 years ago for 15k USD.

Unless its the same piece, there was another specimen being batted about a couple of years ago...I seem to recall it having a bit more marking on it. I love the 6d series but this coin unreachable for those of us on an ordinary budget....

Well you are more the photo expert than I, but it seems that this would still not excuse the first for a softer obverse strike and even so the reverse as middle lion on bottom right quadrant of shield better struck on second than first. Obverse on second snaps because of better hair, ear, the second tie (which is almost invisible on the first!), brow detail and the lack of nose "hits" on the tip and naris that the first has. The first also has some modest rim damage at the 7 and 11 O'clock positions with the NGC restraining tabs making the second appear a bit worse IMO.

Thanks for the picks, Nick. LOL. Yes, my point as the second only 2/3 price of first. Just prior to the first was an 1842 that looked to be overgraded & sold for 3.3k with commission.

There was an 1918KN in 65 that was especially nice....

OK, I watched the Heritage Auction thoroughly and probably need help in posting pics, etc. but here is what I saw: - Saturday auction saw (Lot 30849) 1845 Halfcrown in PCGS63 sell for 1527 USD - Today saw (Lot 32651) 1845 Halfcrown in NGC62 sell for 1057 USD My commentary is that I looked at these two lots on HA site and noted that the first had original somewhat ugly toning and was not fully struck on obverse or reverse, with the hair and brow line weak and marks to sensitive area such as NOSE! The second coin was probably dipped at one point, lustre OK with MUCH better strike in these sensitive areas without as much crucial area marks. I believe that the second represented a better buy if such can be said, although with the recent runup of many coin prices it is hard to determine what is fair and what is not. Proof gold of the 19th through mid-20th C. is off the charts as far as price increases, I think it was the 1826 ?? proof set that went for 280 K USD and the 1893 for above 65k! Yikes. Anyway, buyer beware and shop the actual coin and not the slab as has been said many times on these boards.

The rims, denticles and devices look very poor and not regular; the weight loss is about 10%. Admittedly but a picture and not in hand but this still looks bad. The color off even for a putative 50% silver content coin. Appears counterfeit to me.

It certainly looks it, although toning/aging can be done artificially. Haven't seen one this late on before.

That looks distinctly UNLIKE a Royal Mint product. Garbage comes to mind.

Likely so. Or occasionally one side is milled out just inside the rim, and then another coin milled down to fit in the space & then joined together so the seam is just inside the rim rather than on the edge. The earlier posts on this were not so good. Values tend to be quite a bit higher for the real thing.

Wow, congratulations on a Great Coin! Grade is nice, but it's the coin that deserves it!

Nice way of saying the OP coin is NOT a proof, I would think. Better struck, yes. Proof standard, no Details still not sharp enough, field not right, rim just not close..