VickySilver

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!

Ah, pictures, my Achilles heel. I've shown a few with Dave's help - maybe I can put up the 1893 Jub 6d in PCGS64 and quite (I like that word) proof-like. Will send it over this weekend if I can dig it out of SDB. 1926 Pattern Wood Peace Crown?

Looks a lot better, and quite good. Hard to tell from photos, and likely best in hand - to nitpick there are some toning (hair)lines in and around the devices in the fields of the reverse which is actually quite normal for issue as most are aware. There is a funny die break on George's upper thigh with what might be a small hit down to the right of that. Those are likely die dimples on George's deltoid so not detracting. Possibly a tick on dragon's thigh above "knee". The obverse appears nearly mark-free with very nice ding and dent-free edges. I'd be proud to own that were I you. PCGS seems quite variable on the grading of this one, not to mention other matte proofs. I suspect this would get a 64, but depending on if those are hairlines on rev. would go 65

Well that is a bit better than average provenance. And a beautiful coin to boot. I'm thinking 4k or a bit less than above Dave's estimate.

Yes, I have finished with them as one year at one auction I sent back 5 out of 6 coins "won"!

Yes, ought to go for a pretty penny! I don't have the proofs, but that one is quite tempting - the anticipated fight for it not so much.

OK, haven't looked at mine recently (or even thought about it!). Will have a look this evening...

I was just looking at LCA and note that the Lot 791 is listed as Proof 1932 Wreath. I just don't see a "proof" in this coin's photos, and not that IMO it appears as many Wreaths, esp. of the lower mintage 1932, '34 and '36 issues that many are Proof-like but just don't measure up. IMO, some of those slabbed by TPGs also do not qualify. Not to diverge, but this is also true for non-1902 "matte" issues that simply are not.

I agree with the above in that quality, as represented in the photographs is spotty in that it is sometimes there and sometimes not. There are a couple of pieces that appear attractive to me, but really need to be seen "in hand". PM me if anybody going to sale please.

They had gone into a steep decline after about 1980 (as far as coin operations go - they were still making lots of plates & dolls, etc.) The output gradually diminished on so many of the proof sets, but esp. mint (specimen) sets in the 1982-1984 period. Adding to the mystery is that the mintage figures that they had kept so scrupulously all the sudden were lost or not recorded for many of the sets, and have not been recovered since. As you probably know the designs and engraving were first rate and certainly better than government contemporary or even modern issues. Many of the engravers were either US Mint personnel retired, or went on to work for US Mint. Occasionally very, very rare bits show up and this set is in that number. I actually collected what I could afford in the early 80s - this amounted mainly to getting mint sets each year as they were much cheaper and not of precious metals in the later years. Despite being on their mailing list, but not a member of the Franklin Mint society, I NEVER got notification of the 1984 mint set and had not seen one in all the intervening years. Although I have vastly more expensive items, it is these that I maybe like the best. In later years I filled in many of the proof sets at essentially bullion prices, and got some of the gold to boot. Anyway, for those with an interest, do PM me....

I'm with Jaggy on that '54 6d. The obverse may or may not have been cleaned; I'll not compete on that in any case as I have the Cheshire '54...

OK, be nice now! I think I can find an RB higher graded '12H for a competitive price! LOL!

Have to say, wishing best to you Bob but that even at "65RB", that seems high by a couple hundred pounds. By recall I have a slabbed "65" though can't remember the firm bought at 200 USD (may have been ANACS) and is a very nice bit. I just can't get excited by this date. Of the 20th C mint marked pennies, maybe a 1919H would bring big money if fully struck and mostly original mint red (read RB).

Yes, although much the same could be said about purchase from anywhere I suppose. I have taken a stab at a few from the continent and been burned a couple of times but done much better on several (including a 1939 proof penny not identified as such and a COPPER NICKEL 1946 E Shilling!). You takes your chances; for some reason, and it makes no sense, I just don't care for Atlas. I am sure they are fine I just don't/won't deal with them and not esp. fond of their business practices...

This should be right up my alley as well! Can't rate this with the 1862 or 63, I'm afraid. I'd be all over a true "RRITANNIAR", as in the 1868 3d. Overstruck lettering is nice but just not there IMO. At the right price I'd be a buyer but not at the level of the former.

I should add that the packaging, wallet and coins are the same as earlier sets with PL "currency" issue pieces. Purchase price: USD 29.95; I try to think what might have been paid in an open auction rather than "buy it now" - maybe 20x or more that price in all likelihood. Certainly not up to Dave's wonderful recent halfpenny with "A"!

No good picture to show, but I just got on the Bay of E, a 1984 Belize Specimen set that was heretofore unknown (as are ANY other FM specimen sets of 1984). This looked to have just had a spot in Krause for convenience but had not seen one since issue!

Ah, but Dear Eddie (8) did NOT have decimal silver struck to the best I am aware!

I agree with YLYL in that there may be three relevant numbers when it comes to Royal Mint issues: 1 - Number authorised 2 - Number Struck 3 - Number released There may be a 4th and most important: 4 - Net number sold (out the door) As I stated in the foreign coins section of this site with regards to Jamaica - I'm fairly certain these numbers are not all the same. RM have NOT responded to three inquiries and I've nearly given up.

IMO, the only thing that saved the OP coin from the AU58 status was the very nice reverse. The obv. just has a lot of "action" as far as friction in the hair and beard especially.

Well, I like having great huge runs of unc. coins to pull out and look at on occasion and I do recall how hard I chased them - so that is really appreciating both!

Hmmm, seem to recall the stronger acid "donating" H+ to the weaker acid (i.e. pushing it onto the weaker). What does that mean? Very strange reactions with some of these organic acids, where they will combine with each other, have polar moments and all kind of craziness in that a part of the molecule may be differentially charged. So which is reacting with the metal and are there any irreversible reactions taking place? I don't know, just that its not straight acid/base reactions...

IMO, cleaned and retoning around the lettering, devices appear free of such and on,near and around the rim nicks. Central devices free of such, residual fingerprints at reverse 2 o'clock and also reverse just below and behind horse's arse. These don't IMO appear to be new but rather residual of older toning. Also slightly funky toning behind bust in field. Anything is possible, but even taking into account photo exposures/artifacts, etc. Looks like lightly dipped coin with either some residual of old tone, a bit of new tone or both. Still say this is a nice coin indeed. Possible 62 at NGC is my best guess as the reverse well struck and no overly distracting marks.

Occasionally and in the past they have been accused of dipping, but think that uncommon these days as many seem to (naturally enough) take pictures of their coins before submitting. NGC and to some extent PCGS have "conservation services" whereby they may clean up a coin. There is a famous case of an incredibly valuable 1893 S Dollar that was dipped by the TPG, perhaps at the submitter's request (?) and lost its beautiful natural toning as well as value in that instance. Dipping not always bad and I have IMO judiciously dipped a couple of bits, but would not recommend it to the beginner. I would recommend experimenting with bits of no or little value if you've an interest to learn what it is about. As Rob and others have implied appearance is entirely an individual matter, one which may evolve over time as well.