VickySilver

From the pictures which are not quite as resolved as we might like, it is hard to tell. The "plating" or layering appears to be quite flush to the surface of the coin & it really can not be told. Many years ago, I used to try to save silver coins by wrapping them in aluminium foil (which BTW did NOT work as it set up a battery) and really could not adhere to the surface. I have some post-decimal pennies bought as part of larger lots that have plating that also does not appear as your 5p does. Is it possible to email higher resolution quality pictures through the PM contact function?

Certainly agreed on that! I used to always find a couple of bits I had to have at what were even then moderately highly priced. I am overall worried for Baldwin as with the departure of Steve, they seem to be following in some of the steps of Spink who in an associated sense was degraded much after losing him also and the departure of Mark Rasmussen - but perhaps for different reasons. Gibbons seem the corporate monster that inhaled the smaller Baldwin's & I no longer see the latter as a somewhat maverick independent (which it is not of course).

However, this one seems to show up pretty frequently - I wonder if some were minted in 1829 or later and not included? Please do not leave out the following 19th C. coins - groat: 1847/6 in top condition (because this is the "1847 coin in the series), 1853 currency which is a BEAR to find sixpence: 1848 is likely the 2nd toughest after the 1854 in top condition, top-notch '93 Jub is a "name your price" coin probably shilling: 1848 in mint is very tough, 1850 is as well (not publicised: I think top 1848s are the second toughest in the Vick shilling series and def. harder than the 1854) ,1851 pretty scarce in top condition florin: the 1854 in EF and above is well-nigh impossible, 1863 in better preserved states is very rare half crown: the true currency 1839 is perhaps top of the heap, although the 54 florin in the running. the 1841 mentioned & the 1843,1848s are nothing to sneeze at, please don't forget the proof-only 1862 and 1864 in plain and milled edge iterations PS - left out all the patterns & all as I tried to keep out overdates. The 3d series is rife with scarcities but because of the continuing Maundy issues, would leave them out. If true currency: 1841, 1842, 1847, 1848, 1852, 1853, (cheating with the 1868 RRITANNIAR)

Exactly, I like OMS like the 1946 copper nickel 6d, shillings through halfcrown and the Nicholson nickel 1920 1/2d - those are relatively big money items.

Wow, that could be almost anything, and not necessarily intended (i.e. Die chip, etc.)

Reminds me of what they like to say in auto racing circles: "how fast do you want to go" when they really mean "how much money do you want to spend"? Why not do all of the above? Some of us, well me, don't have to much to sort out in our series so find other bits and bobs to collect....

I think his response is rather a good one - not to advertise for Coin Talk. I likewise would not be at peace with NGC's own evaluation of how they did unless specifics were given, and that he is correct in stating they (NGC) should specifically address points brought up by him there and a few here as well as running down the basics. I like him (the poster on CoinTalk) referencing the resubmission to NGC and asking them to assess their own assessment as there would naturally tend to be a bit of bias on their part as some have previously said here - a bit hollow like his own mother or sister praising his school recital. Smacks a bit of drinking the Koolaide as I have seen them say on the PCGS boards. Possibly insulting someone is not so brilliant a move. Understandable if you have parted with your monies for such a coin & nobody likes to be challenged. However, he did discuss what research should be done and there so far is no evidence that it was. That last bit you tossed in there was likely not called for. Further, I had suggested you consider an alternate authentication to NGC as well and doubt a commercially-driven enterprise of their likes would "find" against themselves either.

I do agree with Rob as I got a jobber lot from London Coins that included about 30 major errors - including Off metal strikes, multiple clips, both of the 3ds that I mentioned above for about 100 quid.

Which according to my research should put the planchet at about 3.25 gm? Please check. The ordinary Brit 3d is about 6.6; however, the RM was fast and furious with planchet production on these and I have near piefort examples approaching 9 gm down to about 4 gm by recollection. Nice bit there, but don't get overexcited.

I don't know why they are so circumspect. The Cayman sets of 1986-88 are about 60% of reported "authorised" mintages 310-320 sets (vs. 500). As I've said some of the Jamaica sets are MUCH scarcer than the authorised mintages would seem to imply. I would say to keep an eye out for all 1996-2002 and myself would tender a very decent offer on the '02.

The '52 2/- is rubbed a bit with retone, not so crazy about it. The '00 a bit finer of course with what look to be only a trace of rub in obv. field to right. BRG as usual with very beautiful bits...

The 1918 KN was "boddybagged" by PCGS for colour! IMO this is not altered. The '18H does not come off as well in photos as in hand as it is very well struck indeed.

And silly me tried contacting them twice through Facebook with no response. I still think it interesting and that even though people may not care, there may be some true rarities, not just Jamaica struck by the Royal Mint in the mid-80s to mid-90s period. There would be authorised mintages but then, at least at times, many fewer actually struck and released to collectors (key word "and" since they may have struck more than actually released. Unfortunately, so many bits are now struck that nobody may care about a coin with actual release numbers 100 or less. One example is a more blatant so-called "hockey puck" of Alderney, the 2005 kilo coin (forget the denomination) with authorised 200 mintage & only 45 actually struck.

Many times not struck up, this does not mean the coin is actually worn - at least to that level. I would not quite give an American MS, but rather AU55-8. Still lovely though.

Wow, that picture really shows some lovely toning. IMO, preferred to the technically higher ranked/numbered pieces that have been mucked with or dipped.

Hey I like the fake! Good job Stuntman!

Well, I did get the 1863/1 shilling that was actually quite prooflike. Some numby years ago fingered it though. Also I got the 1841 shilling more recently that was quite proofy looking as well. A while back I have to confess to getting the MS64 1854 shilling (now I note Stack's has one in "65"! But have to see it). Jaggy hunts down the 6ds, but these I've largely finished so he does not have a lot of competition.The shillings I have been busy upgrading and pretty well know that series up, down, and sideways. Of cours I also got that "golden sixpence" 1843 half sov that Azda hosted a pic of on the Recent Aquisition thread.

LOL! Well, pennies are a rough go in competition for the better bits & DNW got my bank on a few of the silvers....

Nope, not a big player this time and only got some Ed7's. Really more into Vick silver ! LOL! But will chase some penny date rarities - not hypervarietals though, and SS got the only one I really bid on, which he wanted more than I....

Uh, well, they were presented with a bit more lustre than the actual items...Which were nicely struck, just that the metal surfaces on the actual coins are not as nice as the CC pictures.

Wow, that is excellent news. What numerical was it given? Are you to keep or sell? Which venue? I can see it quite possibly selling for somewhere above 6k.

The lettering is to my view clearly less distinct - follow the shape of the "legs" of the "W" in EDWARDUS as one example. Also, the shape of the top of the "I" and its top to bottom taper in "SOIT" is different. Also the top of the "H" in "HONI" left upright/leg terminus is different. I could point out more....

VFs not all that bad?

InterNumi - please find a better example when you can.

Maybe red arsed monkeys eating peanuts more exciting? LOL> Yikes, I think I might have skipped that hike!