VickySilver

CC's was better than this one, but much of the detail on this specimen is rather sharp. Definitely better than VF, but not EF overall with the unfortunate rim dings - a better picture always nice but I'd stick my neck out to GVF. The thing is, Brit milled coins of this vintage seem to be pulled a bit by that American phenomenon whereby just a bit of grade or toning improvement can occasionally translate to multiples in value increase. This date seems to be all over the map in sales as far as prices as with the higher values given in catalogues and the Auction sales prices, more seem to emerge from the recesses. Very nice ones as well - check the Heritage specimen in MS64 that recently sold....

Seconded. But FWIW, the reverse in your second set of pictures appears MUCH better. I am inclined to push it more in the positive direction (genuine), but this is a valuable coin and "in hand" inspection quite frankly would be required. Keep us posted as there appears to be a good chance that you have the real thing, which if so would imply a value of a couple of thousand pounds!

Let's see if I can walk through it later in the week - visiting a "friend with benefits" right now. I think the proof that has been bandied about may have been an 1841 (?). Rather like the nicer '39 proofs, for some reason somewhat better than the 1853 proofs...

Hmmm, very interesting. Except for what looks to be verdigris, that appear to be a nice looking specimen there - can't really make out the cleaning extent. These should be looked at in detail, perhaps a reputable dealer near to you. Any keys in there?

Agreed, some of the obverse beading looks a bit dodgy though the central Vicky device not too bad and fairly crisp. The reverse, though blurry just does not look quite right. Not prepared to condemn though. As I posted with the 3d post [that nobody seems to care about], I believe a coin like this has to be confirmed as the real thing as opposed to assuming good and then finding problems with it. I know that is a bit pessimistic, but hopefully safe in this day of increasingly improved counterfeiting.

Wow, have not seen or heard of these...I got a proof 1860 bunhead lying around somewhere & don't (horror of horrors!!) know the F#.

Pictures would be nice, if you can manage. I'm really bad at that myself. This would critical as from your description it is hard to tell exactly what you are talking about.

Even fresh Toilet paper (LOL) has a lot of ugly compounds, mainly sulfur derived that may possibly layer out on coin surface. Please wait until you get that clean white cotton high nap cloth!

By all means yes. As I've said the residual olive oils can act on the metal surface (acidic components) . Mineral oil will be much less active to nearly inert....

This microvarietal thing appears to be relatively new, previously more an interest in major types such as Old Head/Jub Head and major changes or overdates. The books pointed out appear to be seminal in this, as is the drive to find more boxes to tick - if you look at old Spink Circulars, etc. from 30, 40 or more years ago, one does not see this level of "specialisation". I guess I must be really old fashioned as I just can not get into these & still go for date and major type changes, but more power to the new cadre!

Nice solvent/acid there. However, olive oil is not water soluble and will have to remove residual with detergent of some ilk - I use the dish detergents we have on this side of the pond. The residue if washed in any sort of water will continue to react with the surface of the coin, and copper alloy will start to go a bit pinkish. 0.500 silver seems to attract chloride oxidants, almost regardless of the alloy. This would include PVC, but also other chloride/chlorite oxidants. These in turn can be removed by the acid quotient of olive oil as well as the compounding agent by the solvent action of the oil. Likewise it is useful in other brass & copper bits as well, much as your reported experiments support. So olive oil has a virtual family of organic compounds in it that make it up, including both polar (water soluble and acid components) and non-polar (hydrocarbon chain components). Sorry to harp on this bit. My recommendation: continue to experiment with exposure times, etc. but that after each "treatment" to please remove the residual oil as stated. I always tamp dry with high nap white cotton toweling. PM me if you'd like...

OK, I have had a look at two coins on the 'net that have really irritated me [again]. The first is on the Heritage site in a preview of their Jan. 2016 NYINC Sale, wherein an 1845 3d is slabbed at MS68 by TPG. This is NOT currency, failing the standard of currency (something of a contradiction in that the currency pieces are generally not as well prepared). This will undoubtedly fetch an outrageous sum based on bidding for what it is represented as. The other is on London Coin's site on the fixed price list for 3ds - an 1848 MAUNDY!!! (but foisted as currency) @ 1500 quid! I have written on this before, or at least tried, but the relevant bits are: Maundy may be struck to satin or prooflike standard with the latter more common. The quality of strike usually better and this is better defined by stating that the device impression better, being Vick on the obverse and the central "3"; the denticles are also in general more regular and clearly impressed on the flan. Please note that even on Maundy, the center portion of Vick may be a bit weakly struck, and there may even be lettering errors on the legends - I have noticed this on 1848-51 issues in particular Toning may have a tendency to be more "wild" on the Maundy bits as well. I could go on and on, but the general idea with early Vick 3ds (1840-1870) is that a coin should be considered Maundy until demonstrated to be currency. Sorry if this concept is a bit of carryover from a science background, and I hope has been of some use.

Don't even know what to say - that you shared with us was quite a step & imagine you are still in shock. Sending you the very best from this side of the Atlantic Pond. Stay strong and hope it sorts out for you . Best, Eric

Mum's the word, I say...

Yes, the reverse in particular seals it.

IMO, not mint milling on edge there - highly irregular reeding and not just poorly imprinted/struck.

I just love this date (60/59) but think that coin is more in the AU55 category and more likely that he should drop that by 500 quid.

Just how did you figure the alloy on yours? XRF? Also, how rare can these be if there seem to be innumerable varieties showing? I suspect that overall there are quite a few more than reported. I think it a nice design, but despite my interest in Victorian silver I am just not able to develop enthusiasm over this coin or the other Young head crowns.

Rob, would you consider those two specimens near to each other in quality overall? As best I could tell the Spink specimen had a bit more lustre and the earlier piece possibly better struck....

Original Colin helped me get the Adams specimen, still a nice coin...

Nice! 60/59 in there? If so, please take a picture!

Funny how I have been looking for 25 years and none to show. Some of the other dates of G5 proof silver are very rare and really not recognised as such (ie 1930 halfcrown in proof with possibly only one in private hands, and interestingly such semi-obscure bits as the 1931 proof 3d just sold by DNW with either one or two known in private hands). I can pretty much recite all these by date and denomination as far as how common. I too have seen the bronze proofs of all dates G5.

Has anyone ever seen reference to the existence or sale of the proof 1929 sixpence, shilling, florin or half crown? I have had two definite proofs of the crown & sold one, but have never seen or heard of in private hands any of the other four. There was no currency 3d for that year and assume no proof exists. Likewise, the entire set of 1945 is elusive, though by memory Norweb had at least the halfcrown, and the sixpence made an appearance.

Hmm, maybe a couple - as in a couple. I think despite all the higher prices we pay for better bits, that the market is shrinking. Still there is a bit of excitement in the air on occasion with these things...

Ah, yes, the Royal Mint was supposedly testing alloys for the new gold Egyptian coinage and used florins struck in gold with the accepted alloy being .875 and having a counterstamp "A" affixed at the mint. That and the Norweb specimen are the only ones I know of in private hands. Just curious Richard, do you count the denticles on all your pennies? If so, that is true dedication!