VickySilver

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.

Oh, OK, I am quite aggressive on buying predecimal OMS as you may have gathered. Good that they went to a good home!

Are coins still available?

Don't know about how many bargains on key coins, but possibly on jobber lots...

Uggh! Please don' t use the words "shiny" or "polish(ed)" when it comes to proof, or maybe any coins. "Shiny" at best is imprecise, and implies lack of knowledge of coins. "Polish(ed)" evokes thoughts of the surface of coin being worked over with a cloth or other such. Anyway, a pleasing coin to be sure and nicer than that I have in my by date penny collection.

Edges not there and not quite as crisp as necessary in devices (see B's breast for example). Not proof sadly.

Hi Martin, PM me with email and i'll send it - i am not able to post on these pages for some reason...

Well, I have one in the GEF range. Overdates I think are just not that exciting, no matter how rare. Another bit even more rare IMO is the 1843/54 groat that looks like a corrupted 1853. To the Vicky silver collector (hmmm, possibly not just me) these are not all that significant no matter the rarity. I have seen a number for sale in the VF range and though I have not counted, and can not rule out listings of the same coin, believe it not as rare as advertised in any case.

Ah, Peter, I am but a grasshopper...You are right, just not here to speak [too] badly of anyone.

Hmmm, a couple of those sources have been questionable on occasion.... Best of luck. Post any pictures?

Does anybody know what Lot 2631 fetched (the 1951 plain edged crown)?

OK, I have to add this bit in as I have been collecting for a while myself and possibly have seen a coin or two. Although some coins are obvious as to their designation, some are IMO not. To put the cart before the horse, I would say that overall is that there is no clear borderline between many of the 19th C. proofs in silver and high quality specimen or even currency pieces. I know that complicates things a bit, but I have seen some come coins certified or offered in a major auction as proof that I would not accept as such and just the opposite as well. Another "corollary" set would be the currency/Maundy 3ds. What I have seen is individuals state that THEY would only accept a coin as proof if it demonstrated "X" quality. In no way does that fully exclude coins intended and apparently prepped as proofs by the mint itself. Why? No matter how seemingly rigid guidelines at the mint might be, I am not at all certain they were followed at all times. There are so many examples, but one would be the proof coinage of 1839 that was apparently struck and released under many circumstances over many years. Other issues could well be urgency of production: how soon sets or coins might be required for particular people or events. And what about other factors? Does a coin struck slowly with increased striking force with an early stage die produce equal or possibly even greater device detail, mirroring of fields, or crisp rims and milling compared with a coin struck twice or multiple times at a lower striking force? Because a coin is issued as part of a set, be it currency, specimen, or proof mean that it must match in quality or production its set mates? I have certainly seen sets that were apparently original with varied quality of coins within. I could go on and on....

Reverse looks very proofy, the obverse not. As I have posted elsewhere, this is a vintage for the Royal Mint that very prooflike silver was struck. I have seen some offered as proofs even from non-standard years that IMO are not. Not well-worded, but I feel a coin has to prove its proof status to be accepted as such. BTW, a nice coin there!

True, but sometimes an apparent pattern seems to mitigate toward the former. And I say this in the best possible way as with his help I have gotten some nearly impossible pieces at fair prices.

Most say 5x to 10x, erring toward the former.

How about Glens in the "good ole days"? Wow, that was conservative... Croydon, well, caveat emptor! Spink, I agree. Mark R. I like, but has recently shown some propensity to dip his silver (not in all cases). Steve H. & Baldwin I agree...

Ah yes, tried to get that off you! LOL I like the 1946 OMS trial strikes in copper nickel but can't seem to find even record of the florin and halfcrown. Anybody? Rob?

Very nice pictures, indeed. What I was trying to say in my earlier post is that some of the [IMO] polishing lines extend up into the lower relief portions of the devices such as on image 2. Also, it has probably erroneously been reported in various sources that polish lines should not be multidirectional - I think this not to be true and is seen particularly in the field of the image 12; those on the images 9 and 13 are not clear as I can not seem to make out whether these lines are raised or not. Image 11 also leaves me uncertain, but 10 seems to show die polish lines into the devicesThe ear prominences that are a bit rough are not wear but incompletely struck metal. There do appear to be some possible hairlines but none I can tell absolutely; I am still of the opinion as I see the photos that the vast majority are still die polish. It is interesting that some of these die polish lines remind me a bit of haymarking planchet adjustment marks made prior to striking on 17th and 18th C. issues.