VickySilver

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!

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.