VickySilver

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..

Although not strictly British coins in topic, there is of course a bit of a link: - What has become ultimately of them? I seem to recall them being ?absorbed by ICI or some such... - Are their minting records, such as of the specimen trials they struck for foreign governments (presumable with the Royal Mint's blessing) available? The reason I ask is that I was not only generally curious, but saw that the recent DNW lot of the 1977 Seychelles 1 Rupee and 50c appear to be very similar to "specimen strikes" that are being slabbed by PCGS (evidently by the ebay vendor and well known American foreign coin seller Margulies). I think that perhaps these were marketing pieces possibly related to them attempting to ramp up business between the 30s/40s and later 1990s. In the Seychelles case cited, these are of interest because I am not sure that currency 1977 with the defunct obverse portrait of Mancham are unknown - or at least to the best of my knowledge & so those at DNW appear as what I would term "specimen" strike, and not quite proof. Just how rare or common are these?

Note that just this last week, DNW sold a Seychelles pattern/trial informal set of two coins with 1977 date and J. Mancham obverse. These were never thought to have been issued as he was overthrown as PM and coins all switched to an obverse that features the Republic coat of arms. Relatively common is a collector silver crown in the 25R denomination that was contracted out evidently before the overthrow, but these are relatively unknown with the only internet searchable results are similar two coin lots sold by DNW in 2014 and 2015 - all six coins are different specimens so not the same lot being re-offerred. These coins appear much as the KN specimen pieces that have come on market in the last several years but have not yet been able to locate the minting source of these coins.

I still say RIDICULOUS and still post minting damage no matter how it is couched. For that money, there should at least be a DNA traceable bit of Victoria spittle on the coin!

Hey, I love those Vicky (surprise!) 3ds!!! there were really nice bits in DNW today.

Looks like you're "Green" for tomorrow!

Yes, I finally got in also and got several of the currency Vick 3ds I've been trying for. The 1853 3d was listed as a proof, but looked rather like a currency to me - but let it go at 850 plus the juice...

Wow, I can only barely get on DNW site,but not to live bidding - anybody else with that problem this morning (afternoon in London)?

Soon (hopefully) to follow courtesy of Dave are a few of the proofs. The 1936 which shows modest cameo is the best Wreath proof of any date I have seen, but I threw in the mattes of 1926, 1927 and even 1937 - well, only got the obverse on that one as I was in a rush at the bank. I do not recall ever seeing the crowns to come in boxes; I got the REP 1935 in cello that came with the other proofs of that year but was not in a package. The 1926 Wood Pattern did come in a box quite similar to that the cardboard case that 1927 sets were issued in along with the other patterns that were given to the widow of the designer, Wood, evidently by Paget.

Thanks, Brad...That one is above my pay grade. I actually had the money many years ago, but none were on offer, so I don't think I'll ever get that one.

I had it custom made about 10-12 years ago; I like their presentation and really for me, so no slabs. Those are hand held iPhone pictures so kinda grab bag. I sold away another currency set that was about equal, these just a bit better. As as far as wear, to me the key areas aren't a lot different than strike with the cheekbone, mustache, brow edge and ear top being key - the obverse the decider. Lower margin of Crown seems to attract hits as well...

This is a matter of some debate amongst those who are interested. Some are loathe to call the best proof and at one time called them specimen. Few are frosted, though on the proofs the field and devices are not quite IMO of the same finish. The edges are squared and the device details crisper. I once tried to describe this and point out examples: the cross on the orb itself (really more of an inverted "T" should be fully detailed and clear (NOT the cross that surmounts the orb), the flower stamens should all be clear and separate. On the obverse, the moustache, eyebrow corner, beard, and ear lobe all the way round should be crisp with excellent detail. There are other bits, but these are important and key areas. The denticles and edge milling should be sharp and defined. Simply a reflective field is just not good enough, and I think viewers (and graders sometimes) can be deceived. Actually hard to capture in but a few words.

Proofs are all locked up in bank, matte and Peace (1926) I will try to show. That darned "Tokyo-A" collector was somehow able to beat me to the 1926 Wreath model obverse pattern & the family, I believe, is holding it still. That I'm sure would be above 25k pounds - so lost likely forevermore. ?‍♀️

Two lil probs: coins in safe deposit box piss A-- camera skills will see what I can do though

I'd feel differently if it was into THE DIE, but in reality is post minting damage that IMHO just not significant enough. Good for a dealer if he has a next buyer on the hook.

Wow, nice pictures there. On the 1849, the colour appears to be metal oxidation - too late for organic solvent rescue. I agree, have to leave it alone but at least you tried. The second piece almost appears as though some liquid dropped on surface with secondary oxidation.

Looks CuNi, not silver to me, and struck on a thinner and/or smaller flans. I love the off-metal strikes but I think this not. Now if you can only find a 1946 florin struck in copper-nickel!