VickySilver

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!

Go Gary - I confess to leaving the "hypervarietals" alone, so can't comment. I always thought the "large and small ball on 3" types of 1904 would be about as far as I would go. Guess I'll get off my arse and see which I have!

Let's not forget the 1935 specimen crowns that I posted - wherein the CGS 85 was vastly inferior to a PCGS 65...

And we can heap it on: this is really such a fine collection you've put together that it has nearly intimidated the rest of us (well, speak for myself). The attention to detail and getting off into the various types really great stuff.

Unbelievable breadth to that collection Henley! I noted that the just-sold-at-Heritage 1926 ME penny is included....

Yes, that appears to be Maundy. Please see the definition and depth of strike on the leaves on reverse. Also the hair detail. Always hate to venture opinion on pictures, but again as best as I can tell this is a Maundy of the PL type.

A funny thing that has already been alluded to: if a price of a coin is determined by supply and demand, then a catalogue should reflect somewhat of an average if it is accurate. For various reasons these numbers can be very hard to derive, especially with coins that are rare, since there will be infrequent sales that are determined by the buyer and seller. The problem is that these transactions may not be "tested" in a well publicised environment such as a big international auction. And the price may or may not reflect underpaid/overpaid as it is the price. Another sale of the very same coin right away might yield a price higher or lower or similar. If a coin does not sell at St. James for lack of reaching reserve, it may pop up at Heritage, etc. Of course, all this especially on less rare coins is determined by quality and grade of the specimen as well. There can be different 'environments' of the sale, with it being person-to-person, the seller might be pressed to raise funds, it might be part of a multi-coin deal, or trade, etc....

Likely.Pictures?

Yikes, I've been over this before. The main difference is in the sharpness of the devices and edges, the "finish" or surface of the coin, especially of Eddie 7 issues can either be satin like or prooflike as both are known. There are occasional lapses in quality of Maundy that will make it impossible to tell, and obviously if they are circulated it may also be impossible. On Eddie, even in the smaller modulus of the 3d, there are differences for example in the sharpness and edge of the mustache and the hair detail above and forward to the ear as well as his hair detail in general... 1906 in currency if well preserved is actually one of the scarcer Eddie dates and I mean GEF/UNC.

Yes, and hated their pics in the Yearly book - very confusing and I think there are mistakes, possibly more than would be warranted.

I don't think it ever was "in stock" at Amazon or other venues to date...I still will get it and liked the previous even though it was missing a lot and was by denomination. Rob, did they have good pictures of things like Victoria obverse and reverse types in the threepence series??

That would not be in this lifetime. Why is it that these delicacies seem to show up at least 5-6 times per year? Can't afford to hold such I'd imagine, or else they are much more common than some think??

Wow, you brought up a tricky one. Besides the proof Maundy sets from years like 1839 or 1853 there are also a few actual proofs of other years. But back to the central part of your question: I would term these specimen (even though this is a slightly nebulous term) because there was a bit more effort put into them than the standard currency coins. The threepence is a good example: these are more sharply struck, but a slight confusion arises because they could be struck in a "finish" that ranges from satin-like to more mirror prooflike, and not just one or the other but on a spectrum. Unfortunately, and because of this we see 3ds from years like 1847, 1848 and 1852 (others too) that were either not struck in currency form, or in small numbers for "Colonial usage". In fact, the coins we may see occasionally on sale directly or by auction are nearly always liberated examples from Maundy sets that are leaning toward the satin finish and this even includes coins sold by the likes of Spink in their grand old days. The giveaway? They are better struck [nearly always] than the ordinary currency pieces. This shows up on the regularity and sharpness of the denticles and the outline of the devices - I said it this way because even the central part of Vick's effigy can be slightly mushy even on these better prepped and usually better prepped specimens. Steve Hill and I some years ago had a lengthy discussion, and this is also his opinion....

This is just an addition to the Proof/specimen topic: See Lot 910 (hope I remembered the number). Many times there are coins that can fool, and I believe this "proof" 1891 shilling is an example. It appears to be early die state of a CURRENCY piece to me, complete with prooflike fields and nice micro-pebbly appearance of Vick's bust device. Many coins from the Victoria period, spanning all the way back to first issue demonstrate this, and my opinion most common in the 6d and shilling denominations.

Yes, indeed, excellent addition!

Also quality/strength of the strike. Hate to drum up the poor ole 1953 crown again, but the strength of detail reflects this as does the [overated] knife edge.

Rob would know, but it is my recall that proofs are referred to as such when mentioned in the annual mint reports... In the Bowers (?) sale of the Canadian portion of Norweb, there was a lengthy discussion on proof and specimen, etc..... Also, the Spencer article in the 1982/83 Journal of the American Numismatic Association covered it in some very nice detail (I'd like to have seen his collection if he had one)...

IMO, not as valuable obviously as an original coin, but better than the holed artifact.