VickySilver

Not seen any of them - I agree a beautiful coin, both obverse and reverse. I hope you have a nice matte specimen!

These are very similar to pieforts, which is what they appear to be. And very "proofy" as well. In other words, sim to size of the 1 oz Britannias in size but twice the thickness.

Hard to tell from pics but generally LOOKS alright , if a bit scruffy ugly. That is a bit of weight difference but I might be ok if btwn 28.0 and 28.5 gms. The rims and devices as well as lettering appear close though I am viewing on iPhone.

Absolutely. I have seen cases where I had not an ax to grind and was shocked at how "good" the outcomes were! Buy this is not always the case, as I had at one time pointed out an example: Cheshire 1854 6d UNDERGRADED in my opinion at "63". Virtually all the marks were clash...

Hard one to explain - I think that by the ear might be a planchet "adjustment" if you follow it along its course. Those behind the ear on back of neck may also be some planchet issue. But I agree, even if they do a decent job in all, they sometimes seem to miss it either direction high or low (as you will recall with the Off Metal Strike pennies you put up for me).

I think he was referring to another specimen. I am OK to an extent with the halfpenny's softer strike through trident hand but am not OK with going gEF or better because of appearance of metal both at that hand and also the shoulder, arm, helm and thigh, and especially the King's hair that to me demonstrates slight wear taking it to EF, even with residual lustre.

Paulus, nice matte 3d there. For some reason, I never got one & also have a sneaking suspicion that they are just a bit harder to come by than might be recognised.

I seem to recall emailing them in. Spotty "dumping ground"quality, I have gotten some very nice pieces there over the years...

Ha ha! I collect both! I have in hand both the silver and gold 2017 griffin Queen's Beasts from JMBullion.

Which is precisely what got me to look as I had bought the 2016 bullion at 44 USD incl. postage and the 2017 griffin bullion at 38.90 incl postage. These are beautiful prooflike coins with excellent strike and no issues at about 40% the price of the new RM bits....Worthwhile at the lower price I think.

And I have NO excuse as my mom is a retired English Professor! Funny that back in the day at Nicosia Middle School in Cyprus I somehow did not get my knuckles rapped for such an error & been with me ever since. Well, made up for it as I got them attended to for other misdeeds.

Dave, nice to know I have company on the 3ds. I got four Vicks (surprise!) myself.

Gaccchhhhh! Have you a spare 8k in change laying around, and want a rare coin with 100 or so mintage? The Royal Mint Have The Proof Bullion Queen's Beasts for you - a Five Ounce Gold Chunk is only 8k! Or Hockey Puck 10 Oz. Silvers at only 1/10 that price. Also, just in case you missed the bullion Lion 2016 issue of the same design, they can now be had with the 2017 date as well as a "newer" bullion with griffin which will also be dated 2017 & surely proof versions of that to follow with only another EIGHT Beasts to go! Perhaps someone better at math than I can calculate how much a full set of all ten in both metals will run the "collector"?

And not to be boring but was wondering what the 1839 currency half crown went for??

As I said the picture does not do it justice, and it appeared ORIGINAL & not tampered with. I vote it a truly great coin - probably will ever regret not being able to get it.

I knew many of these would go for a song but was strapped at time of sale though did get the 1869 that was much better than the pictures..

Not to pirate, but does anybody know what the two 1905 half crowns fetched in today's St James (Lots 207 & 208)?

Please see the Gerald Jackson (ex-Spink) specimen that is by far the best I have seen.

Sorry, the CGS was 85 & should have been 65 probably.

You had me going with the 1852 date in OP title! PM with email me and will see what I can do as far as securing you a picture of the 1862.

No question the top is nicer. I have however seen some of the higher (L)CGS coins in higher grades to be OVERGRADED, those mostly modern and in the range of 85-92. At one point I posted specimen 1935 crowns, one raw, one PCGS65, one CGS65, and I think an NGC65. The CGS was definitely not up to the others, and had a worrisome verd spot growing to boot!

I have looked at all my 1848 groats (2 x regular date), a 48/6, a 48/7 and none have this "G over sideways G".

I returned 5 to W&W about 4-5 years ago with unacceptable cleaning/hairlines, etc. not visible on photos.

Yes, they have taken down beautiful coins with excellent strikes like this to the 62 level. I tend to think they would go 64. I had posted, or rather for me an 1843 half sov that was best I've seen and struck to nearly medallic standards come away with a 64 because of minor friction. A technical point and what has been referred to as technical grading: theoretically if a coin leaves the die even with soft strike but has NO post mint damage or handling that it would merit a "70". In practice it would be marked down but not as much as LCGS. As Dave says they are hard on this so-called PMD (post mint damage or handling) & that is why some hammered (IMO not their strong points as Rob has pointed out) coins get what appear to be unusually higher grades from US TPGs. I have gotten used to their grading to some extent, but think there are some limitations. I had once shown an 1849 shilling with scintillating surfaces that were proof like with excellent devices, lustre, milling, etc. and this got only a "62" from PCGS. The apparent hairlines were obviously die polish lines that followed the usual criteria and clearly seen on 30x mag; I still don't agree with this and think it more likely a 65 PL (PCGS does not use PL on most coins). They also, as I have pointed out, seem to not be able to deal with matte proof coins & especially those of 1927, 1937, 1950-1953, but also with regards to the 1902 issue. I have seen them go tough and go soft with no (to me) hairlines but rather die polish as well & also with respect to the mentioned wipes: I have a matte 1902 5 Sov. that was given a "60" by ANACS (a lesser tier TPG) that I bought about 15 years ago because it was near bullion in price and also because I would have graded it a "63". As a side point, you may read in the PCGS forums that some of the older small size ANACS grading has a tendency to be quite conservative. Overall, and please forgive the pre-coffee ramblings, I think Paulus that you would be well-served to expect something of a learning curve ( a bit expensive) but to keep these points in mind and to try to be your own harshest critic of your coins before you submit. I think the packing beyond reproach with excellent quality near optic plastics that will preserve the coin surfaces except from extreme heat and humidity. In reviewing non-matte late milled coinage it is a rare event that a coin graded "65" or above is not an excellent specimen, and would guess with experience that you would tend to agree with this point.

OK, I'm guilty. I really got to get off the arse and figure out how to post pictures!