VickySilver

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.

No need for my answer now that our gentlemen have done so; still a nice coin and am not taking away from it. Cheers!

Wow, very nice bit there! Nice reverse strike as well. ?Dipped , but acceptable.

Yes, or PM me with the photo. LOL. I do however collect such ephemera. Most of these are not legit as you know, and have had the "assistance" of a machinist. The letter should be photoed also....

And really some coins are grossly over- or under-valued, even in volumes such as Spink or Roto....Also, grading from pictures can be a bit deceptive....If i know a coin is special I will occasionally throw out a "nuclear" bid as well, but either use snipe if I can not be there on the computer or self-snipe.

Interesting that I have a weight of the 2P (1971) as 7.12 gm. so that on a mass/weight basis is NOT supportive of off metal strike (OMS). However, still looks on examination of pictures to be just that. Also, for some reason I have seen multiples of both the 1P and 2P 1971 dates....

Funny how everybody I know of did well when Billy was president - as opposed to the Republican administrations that bracketed him.

Bernie's my man....OK, guilty!

I can't fathom a thinking person voting for Trump, who in my opinion has come completely unhinged. I do understand that Hilary seems a bit stiff and not necessarily likable, but Trump is erratic to say the least and still has yet to unveil any concrete plans to us poor slobs to mention being very erratic and completely off the rails with his commentary about Mexicans, Muslims, Women, etc. - how in the world has not 1% of this crap gotten him disqualified in the minds of sentient individuals. This latest bit about questioning the validity of voting and poling is yet another example of shear lunacy (and that's putting it nicely) and interesting in light of the Republican advantages gained by, ahem, articulating this very process - like Florida?? I mean really, what does he even stand for? I'm not convinced that even he knows. Quite amusing at times, and definitely not someone to be taken seriously except that he is running for president. It seemed for a while like if he could pull his act together that he would have a chance to be elected. Shooting himself repeatedly in the foot has not really helped IMO, but even more amusing is how anyone could even vote for him - based on what? If he was consistently Right Wing, that might be dislikable to some (i.e. me), but at least voters would have an idea of what he is about. I really want somebody to point out to me what he really is for the average person in America (USA); this is something that I imagine a supporter would have to speculate on since there is nothing consistent. Loose cannon? I'd say so. Really, I've had enough of him but I guess we hopefully only have another month or so of him??

Yea, best to keep it under that hat for a bit, just in case. I could recently scarce contain my excitement on winning a bit from eBay that was evidently recognised but certainly not appreciated for the unique item that it is.

I suppose not really adding much than a seconding. This is the type of thing that happens as a progression of reaction due to residuals on the surface of the coin & most likely culprit being incomplete dipping wherein either dip residual is allowed to act OR that material the dip was to remove was not itself completely removed and is reacting anew on the surface. Another alternative is that the environment may still be penetrating the slab in the form of moisture or gasses. I do not suspect the polymer plastic of the slab itself - this is a very hard material that seems to lack the plasticiser we see in the PVC-laden flips. It breaks with very "hard" delineated fractures.

Wow, really love that golden lustre when found - I just bought a 1912 farthing that has it (for a princely total of USD 3.25).

I have always rather liked the Isle of Man Viking series of coins, especially the gold viking on horseback. The 1987 is a rather curious rendition with a somewhat goofy facial expression on the viking as opposed to the earlier 1973-83 gold series. Just wonder if anyone has ever seen or heard of the gold or platinum versions - I suspect they would sell near to bullion if found! I got the piedfort silver and regular silver versions of this (authorised mintage of the silver piedfort was 4950 but would guess its about 1/10 that actually struck).

Bit much information there, I should say. Don't recall coins being collected in that manner previously....

OK, I admit, I liked the "before" better...

One of the things I find interesting is the basic orientation of the Royal Mint vis-a-vis this coin in comparison with the U.S. Treasury and their attitude toward the 20 Dollar gold piece of 1933. The RM could find no evidence of it being stolen so it must be OK, whereas the US has stated because there are no records of the gold piece being issued that it must be stolen - even though all weights and counts were correct at the time, and that there was technically a window that these could be exchanged for.... And how about the various VIP proofs such as the 1952 half crown where no records available as to how or circumstances of it leaving the mint. What do readers think that the 1954 penny would make in an auction today; or the 1952 penny or the mentioned half crown??

Followed a couple of lots at St. J today: 1838 Halfcrown 1700 pounds plus 20% = 2040 1854 Shilling 4400 pounds plus 20% = 5280 What think readers? I think the former possibly about right, with a bit of gain. The latter is close to what I had predicted & about the equivalent of the NGC64 that sold earlier in the year.