VickySilver

Uhh, buying I take it? Cpl nice pieces there....

Ah, yes, tread lightly there grasshopper. There were very few overall Wreaths struck and PL specimens abound. Since many proofs of that era did not have cameo devices, they appear rather specimen-like. I have known this series for over 25 years and managed what I believe to be a complete set in proof incl. the 1927 matte (but sadly not the 1926 pattern reverse!). I have seen a number that were slabbed as proof and in fact, were not. Also, grading on these seem to be all over the map even on those that likely are proof. There are in many sources quoted to be 5-10 made of the 1928-1934 and the 1936 & I think it may be double that. I had tried to arrange a rarity scale in terms of which were least to most common of the proofs at one time; here goes my current estimates: 1930, 1929, 1931, 1936, 1934, 1932, 1933, 1928. You'll notice that the two scarcest currency dates, 1934 and 1932 seem to be more common as proof. I think that is because a number are in fact not and are early die stage currency strikes. BTW, George's cheek, brow ridge, and mustache corner are vulnerable to poor strike and frequent bag and handling marks as are the reverse flower stamens and the orb cross or inverted "T" - not the cross that surmounts it as much.

Although I have seen some NCG64 coins that are crazy nice!

Correct term is : matrix for singular, matrices plural. This is the en relief positive image that these show. I am lucky enough to have one of the reverse of the English 1937 shilling.

These are not recorded to my knowledge for either piece. The 1951 was stated in proof by ESC (I believe) and recently sold for - I think - 3600 quid!!!! I believe I have seen one other for sale and do not have one, sad to say. The matte proofs are perhaps more common than has been stated in catalogues such as ESC, Coincraft, and the like where it is commonly stated to be 1-2. I have seen enough sales to feel confident in stating there are likely above 5 in PRIVATE hands alone, let alone fixed collections such as the BM, Ashmolean, etc. I would feel more comfortable minteage was listed as "est. 10"

They look to be matrices....

I may at that. The window sill beckons as I'm really not a fan of "bright cleaning". I think these coins lose just that little bit of lustre with cleaning, even dipping - they do not have original mint appearance IMO, as has been stated, and reasons given many other times (please see Weimar White's book on Coin Chemistry).

I was rather disappointed at the state of several of my "winnings" as the coins obviously had been dipped but not mentioned in their descriptions and not obvious from the online pictures I saw - the 1858/9 and the more important 1863/1. Was also true of the 1878 that was part of a two coin lot. Will keep them, but surely demonstrates the importance of either seeing the lots in person or having a representative do so (my usual arrangements fell through). Additionally there were a couple bits that went a bit higher than estimated: the proof 1839s (esp. the "WW") and proof 1867. As a friend of mine rephrased: "shiny sells"! And guilty I was as well for even unwittingly buying a couple of shiny bits

I sometimes think that as well, not to mention the unknown to the observer consignor. These are supposed to be blind gradings but never altogether sure of that bit. The crown in question IMO does not have real wear but suffers from enough rub that I would have expected it to be "body bagged", especially on the reverse. In any case that is the net grading that is likely occurring .

Wow, you really did well. I certainly was not willing to fess up with a bid to beat that 1300 on the DNW piece in any case (I did get the 1863/1 shilling however).

Well, NO RESPONSE from the Royal Mint so no surprise. That was a waste writing them....

ESC has them at R3 which IMO may be a bit of a stretch. I do have one but the question just came to mind.

Jaggy, what did the other 1863 6d in MS65 go for?

OK, DNW had an 1888 (not 1888/7 overdate as is the more common bit) yesterday. Despite my nomen, I haven't really kept track of these as I don't care for the Jub head & still find them ridiculous, never mind the rarity in higher preservation of the 1889 small head shilling and the evidently supreme rarity of the 1893 Jub sixpence in top condition. How rare are these? A quick scan of ebay showed a couple of examples and they are hard to tell on more worn specimens there - the 8's look different on the non-overdate to me.... Any other comments??

Sorry, no answer here... Jaggy, what happened with the 1863 6d? My computer conked out its internet and so was not able to bid, though did get a couple of shillings...

Quite.

Don't really know the series but don't like the flatness on crown...Might still go F tho.

No, only on copper alloy with prolonged exposure. Notum: must be pure acetone as has been discussed elsewhere. Here we call them hardware stores (like Home Depot) and a quart is about USD7.00 or so.

Don't think I'd bother with the lower grade bits if there is not adherent surface contamination. You'll not make proofs out of VGs! LOL!

Don't look to remove all the patina, as much is oxidized surface and will not be affected by the acetone. I don't see that this has done a lot after the acetone as we have many times seen. I think you will not venture a lot to experiment yourself with acetone on lesser valued bits. You will not ruin them. Bright "red" copper may be affected by prolonged exposure to alcohol for complex chemical reasons. Obvious green, gunky, and greasy surfaces can be improved a lot as you will likely see and especially on higher silver content coins (0.835+).

Funny, I agree with that - you have a nice bit and then another comes along that seems just that little bit better. I really don't recommend looking at these under high power mag as the hairlines start to appear as canyons...They are IMO truly lovely.

Hi Paulus, Had a look over your set there. I would say about an average set, which is not to say unattractive. They look to have the usual wipe, esp. the shilling near the lion on reverse. IMO, probably the most important surface of all of these would be the Crown obverse, and then the Crown reverse - the former looks good on this site. The florin is rather attractive as well. Obviously I like proofs and so am a bit biased here (even a bad proof on a bad day is a good coin) so this is a bit price dependent - and not that I would expect you to share this bit. Proofs are also seemingly on the move, though the earlier Vicky (!!) bits a bit steeper; I lean toward thinking that the later Eddie and Georgie 5 plus maybe the George 6 Crowns may follow.

Thanks for posting! This is actually an ebay purchase that was about 25 USD by recollection. I still did not take credit for a currency 1853 on it, should I? Regardless, this overdate is far more rare than what seems to be inferred from Spink. PS I managed to secure the 1853 currency groat from the last major Heritage sale, and even with it in hand can not say with certainty that it is not a lightly circulated proof, though I lean toward that coin being currency.

Yikes! OK, I'm impressed. I haven't bought that many in 5 years. Have you a census of them that you can share with us?

Yes, like those as well. I have a bunch of patterns as well as the unintentional OMS.