VickySilver

Some of the lettering and the Britannia device itself looks suspect, and would assume Pobjoy, INA, or some such...

Interesting piece, the caveat as always is that it is best seen in hand. I have seen similar that apparently were cleaned & thereby stripped down to raw copper alloy, then retoned in an envelope with then "retoning" on the high points of devices and rim. I still, however, can not totally rule out original surfaces with differential toning. Lustre is a tricky thing and does not IMO always appear stereotypically.

They use those tridents down in Louisiana to hunt bullfrogs...Think they call them "gigs" or something to that effect. Rob, I take it then that you are not in particular a Royalist? LOL

Hi Nick. Yes, you are right about the Skipton sale. Interestingly, the focus seems so much on the high grade pieces that sometimes rarities in just slightly lesser grade can be had in such sales at good prices. I think I bragged previously about picking up an 1889 small head shilling in "only" MS66 for the same price as the lesser bits because there were some MS67 pieces of common dates that drew bidders' interest. Oops, let that cat out of the bag...

I don't think it so bad. Actually, her visage is MUCH NICER than as she appeared on the reverse of the E7 florin - have you ever looked at that Britannia's face under magnification, say on the matte proof? Yikes, that's a mug!

Ugggh, near nil there...

Well, that is true about what I collect personally but just saying edge orientation doesn't fall in that category. Started with 20th C. crowns (pre-decimal, of course!) and did well except for the E8 of course...

No, just experience over the last 20 years. It looks to my eyes that this coin has a bit of "bagging" as opposed to wear, which I would expect in modest amounts at the high points (esp. Obv). Actually, this coin would probably have been EF in the "Grand Olde Dayes" of Glendining, et al. Based on photo alone, I wouldn't be surprised to see this in an AU58 holder...

Yes, I like to check them out. Not a lot of success bidding with them but have gotten a couple of Vicks in the past from them that were nice coins & fairly graded at sensible (?) prices..

Wow, Garrett you are tough. I'm obviously not here to defend the seller, and have had a couple less than desirable transactions with him but IMO this coin in the GEF category as best as I can make out from my laptop image. Let me know if you have some Vicky shillings for sale with your standards! LOL

As much as I Love Vicky silver (can you tell?), I have avoided this coin like the plague because of price vs. rarity issues mainly. But the price looks decent - not outrageously cheap; CC has had a few somewhere in this range by recollection as well. It would be important to know - is the coin attractive? There are many coins in AU category that fall either way. Do you detect any hairlines, and how does it appear in GOOD light...I agree edges are very important as well.

Wow, as much as I love 20th C. predecimal crowns, I just can't seem to be passionate enough to collect by edge lettering up or down. How about the matte piece? I guess for naughtiness, you could go for PL, DMPL, Cameo and Deep cameo on the Unc. and proof pieces as well!

Oh, go ahead and post them with ID markings etc for a reference...

These have a bit of look of ex-Gerald Jackson to me (i.e. Spink NY sale of last year)....

Tom, sorry I missed your post which was evidently in the "net" prior to my response.I agree, your 1916 has a nice reverse; the obverse, even if softly struck has large issues with the aforementioned brow, beard and hair detail that severely limit its value. I tend to think (IMO) that the TPGs may respect or give more weight to the obverse, but this is obviously just a guess. Last point:: the lustre on this piece may be better than obvious from the photo...

IMO, the technical grade for reverse is quite HIGH, definitely uncirculated but with the usual strike. Continuing positive, the toning is somewhat attractive, and the cheek & brow very free of hits. As Dave has pointed out, the mark at neck is a detriment. As they are usually strict, I am surprised this was not "net graded" to a 75, but 60 is a bit mean. The value probably 50% high. I had to work very hard to get a presentable set of G5 2/6s, but with persistence nicer bits can be found.

Only slightly related but Rick Snow ("Eagle Eye") on PCGS US Coins forum has just posted an interesting essay on grade inflation of slabbed bits, using the AU50 1877 Indian Head cent as an example....

Wow, I would also be interested in that with regards to the Caribbean issues of Cayman and Jamaica & also the odd ?Philippine proof?

As Nick seems to imply, don't be too quick to condemn it - and from the sounds of it, I don't think you are - I like to play detective and in this case assume for argument authentic and then disprove it. IMO, this can not be done from this photo as the surfaces a bit hard to make out details like a high def might. 0.500 fine silver can have some downright ugly toning on occasion, especially if storing not optimal. Please try an acetone treatment at least and have another go at pictures if possible. You may still have a steal, but have to reserve judgement. (the 28gm. +/- bit is a good start). Wouldn't bother with the magnet as was stated above.

Bit hard to see surfaces in your photos but would suggest the time-honoured acetone bath....Maybe even ammonia 1:2 solution if that doesn't do anything. I have occ. seen these Wreaths with some odd toning with that "pot-metal" silver composition. From arm's length, other than the odd oxidation, it doesn't look too bad and I can not right away put it in the faker category. edit: "questionable origin" does not impugn the quality of the product, only its source.

And how about the "retro" 25 P collection of garbage now on sale by the Royal Mint? Yikes!

I agree with jacin that the submitter is all-important if they have the money, influence or connection based on their own graded coins coming up for sale. I think PCGS may do likewise on occasion as well; NGC not sure, but see that they don't seem to be able to identify even milled patterns and proofs. And sadly, we have but the pictures to go by that are occasionally misleading. That having been said, I did see a couple of coins of marginal interest if no have-to-haves...

I see that as planchet issues in areas not struck up, the flatness and the apparent scratches not IMO post mint damage. Mark free fields, relatively. I can see a bit of discolouration to the device high points but think that may be from cabinet contact/oxidation as opposed to mechanical. If you take B's head, for example, it is entirely smooth if discoloured without evidence of mark. The marks lower on the device are not substantially different to those on the obverse, and not wear.

To play devil's advocate: an MS coin is defined as being just as it was when it was ejected from the dies, with perhaps bag or bin contact being allowed but dropping the absolute number. On this basis I don't have an issue with the OP coin which if graded technically only might even merit a HIGHER grade; obviously some deduction was taken even from this scheme. I see only worn and rusted die strike with some of the "damage" being in the planchet itself. So, as has been alluded to, how should a grade be derived? Technical versus/and aesthetics????

Funny how I gave up on that too some while ago. Glenn Onishi there can sometimes help out.