VickySilver

That crown is a very nice one!

Yes, good thought there. I have some difficulty getting such. I have an another inquiry out to the Royal Mint submitted through their net site, now out several weeks with a promised response time of one month (yeah, right!). Actually, I was not only trying to find out about this set but also their habit of not being clear as to how many of their sets of this country and year and others as well were actually struck and DELIVERED. In other words, how many were released. I asked this bit because many reported mintages are actually the number authorised, not how many struck or released. Some coins with pointless commemoration like the 1980s Jamaica Tyco Brahe (the ?Danish astronomer) had mintages authorised up to 10,000 or so and yet I very much doubt that many were released. I would guess there were not a lot of fans of the [very ugly] later date Jamaica proof sets with droll National Heroes and dubious commemorative crowns such as the World Junior Track and Field (Athletics) Championships - so that an authorised max mintage of 500 may be very inaccurate as far as the numbers actually released. I had some luck in the past by contacting Bank of Jamaica directly, and had gotten from them sets well over 20 years old! I was also able to locate one of the rarities in the form of a 1999 set, which at first they said they did not have. They could tell me nothing of the 2002 sets, even though I have seen on eBay at least the mentioned crown offered separately.

Yes, nice bit there. I have seen some with very good hair and beard detail struck up well. I have one with almost a matte proof appearance that may have been a special strike and then there is the extraordinary example that listed on the PCGS site which is some sort of specimen: #512833 - that one looks to be considerably BETTER than 61.... Click on the image as it comes up for a very nice enlargement; I like to do that on their site and is a nice feature.

I think they may have gotten carried away by the reverse - from the in-slab and slightly less closeup photo it looks to have very nice lustre of a type sometimes known as "hard lustre". I really don't see wear on the obverse as much as bagmarking and a bit of softer strike in the usual areas. I think I could see it as a 63 if that self-same lustre is as good as it hints at. My understanding of the "plus" grade is that it is mainly based on aesthetics like lustre, and strike (which this seems IMO not to have).

Interesting as I was just looking over my shillings to see if there were possible upgrades and see Proolike strikes on most years from 1838-1849 & then some more in the 1850s as well. Also, the 1880s and right on through the Jubs - some of those that have been listed as Record proofs from non-standard years such as 1889-91 IMO are not fully proof; nor are they substantially different or better from some of the PLs I've seen.

Please save yourself some quid and duck buying from the LC sales site - those are high. The 1859 is not rare either but can come very nice and almost proof-like. I will go ahead and hold out for the obverse of the Young Head earlier issues and they IMO are a lot more pleasing than Vick with that crazy Jub crown or the sour and dour Widow Head. I'll concede the reverse of the earlier shillings as being a bit plain, even of higher relief than the later bits...

FWIW, I will go EF on this one and am "net" grading it because of the relatively bad cheek gash.

Oops, meant 1851 as the 1852 is one of the more common dates. Yikes!

Yes, I concur with that bit. Also such dates as 1858, many in the mid-1870s. As per the shilling post, you better duck if you want a top 1854 or 1863!

Think I'd stick to the Young Heads, the Jubs and Widows just don't do anything for most people (well, me at least). The earlier Young Heads appear much more crisply executed - which they were - and are a lot more attractive. I suppose it comes down to a matter of budget, but some years are not all that dear: 1842, 1864, 1866, etc. Attractive and well preserved examples are out there. Might have to don a suit of armour to compete for the 1848/6s and 1850, 52, 54, 63, etc. in top grade.

I should think that would be of value at bullion....Not that scarce. Still if good gold, you can't argue with that!

??Real but polished, esp. the obverse.

Hmm, PM me for a better offer. LOL, but true. OK, the obverse on this coin (date) comes absolutely terrible, so just a bit of wear on a bad strike/worn die is gonna drop it in grade. I might even go gVF as a grade because of this particular coin and its traits - that would be more of a technical grade in terms of actual wear.

This has been reviewed before though your answer will appear shortly no doubt. My recollection was that if legitimate that it was a filled die. Oops see that SS beat me to it just now.

And do you know that I have had coins rejected with the most minuscule of planchet defects, not strike or wear deficiencies as well as other such.... Yes, please do look at the coin itself; I think the holders are pretty good but not impervious to nasty environments of moisture and chemicals.

Ach! That's a beauty! PW - can you post the verd pennies? I think oftentimes the pinpoint type of verd is the result of human spittle flecks (yuck!) or worse yet, sneeze flecks...These are just as hard to remove once the excrescence is "popped" off as there is basically oxidation of the underlying metal alloy. As others no doubt have, I have seen many otherwise lovely copper/bronze coins spoiled by such.

Agreed. I do think that if grease-filled that some of these lettering "errors" might improve with successive strikes rather than increase as presumably the heat and contact of striking would gradually lessen the grease filling the lettering...

OK, will repeat: the '94 dipped. Who was the culprit? I don't presume to guess. I'll stick to my guns on this - that is dipped, based on the photos. That is not the right appearance for 120+ year old silver even if wrapped in the finest Queen's silks (or I should imagine!). Still will likely slab at CGS, and my guess is 75/78 or in the generally more accepted grading schema: ~62. Too much "action" for a "63".

Yes, bit of clanky conversation between the occupants! Never quite sure how this tends to concentrate on the obverse but guess the rims are not protecting...

Still looking for this set - rumoured but not confirmed by either Royal Mint or the Bank of Jamaica. It is my recall that the RM had a collector's bulletein and wonder if it might have been pictured in that at some juncture. On many occasions they are not all that timely and may not even have issued this set (if they ever did) as late as midway or so into 2003...

Dippity dip on the last. I really like the first coin's reverse but as has been stated, lots of bag chatter on the obv. That would probably go 55 at the TPGs...

Hmm, not my experience, although not sure what contaminants you've run into! Another method is to flood a white cotton high nap (and very clean) towel with acetone and tamp the surface....I guess writing procedures down on the internet is one thing, the doing another. A bit far away, but PM me if you are ever on this side of the pond and see if I can arrange a demo. I will confess to having quite a bit of chemistry along the way, so the use of solvents a bit of second nature. The dangerous method I would NOT recommend is electrolysis - and I don't mean hair removal. I've had good results, and disastrous results; the best was a proof 1936 penny that came out superbly, the worst an unfortunate currency1886 half crown that was spoiled.

OK, I admit, I clean proofs with acetone and dish detergent (not at the same time) but use the best grade acetone - never a rub or smear and rinse liberally with aforementioned mild dish detergent and then much more water and tamp dry with very good results, if I can self-report. However, I would on first instinct NOT TOUCH a proof and am very careful on a coin by coin basis which I might use these techniques on. I have had very good results if using sense on this...

IMO, fake!! Real ones in uncirculated still bring about 4k quid, sometimes more & sometimes less.

Dipped. This coin by photo has actually IMO lost some of its original lustre even though bright. Has a bit of a bleached appearance which overlapping may do - not just remove toning....