VickySilver

I agree with Rob that the consignor is all important when it comes to grade, even and despite the protestations of blind grading. One really interesting example is when it comes to matte proof grading, both the "Standard year" 1902 and the much rarer mattes of years like 1926, 1927, 1937, 1951 and 1953. The '02s were nearly all rubbed by mint workers with some sort of cloth evidently and show hairlines to smaller or greater extent. How much is deducted for these varies tremendously by PCGS and NGC in my opinion. I have also seen in the later much scarcer bits some ridiculous grading, both high and low. Another example is with 19th C proof gold and silver where the buyer needs to really look at the coins - I have seen lowly 62s clearly better than 64s (see for example, 1853 proof florins and half crowns, or even the 1862 & 1864 proof half crowns). Caveat emptor!

Quite, key word "general". I can think of at least one expert who agrees with my thoughts on this issue - unfortunately to remain unnamed at this juncture. I think it quite right that people buy coins based on slab or history and not de facto the coins themselves.

In my opinion it is somewhat dangerous to rule out the existence of a particular piece(s) based on characteristics of the opposite side of coin. IMO, not strictly logical. We have pieces confirmed with obv 11 and then other pieces evidently not tampered with that are obv. 12 that seemingly show "no H". I just do not see how we can be certain that obv. 12 dies may not have been used in a few instances. I do however agree that an increased level of alertness should be the case in the event of an obv 12 specimen.

Looks plugged to me as well. The OP coin looks to be rather high relief with well struck devices, but not my series.

Especially 5 guinea pieces! Nada for me there; it seems I remember many of these pieces almost as old friends...

The ordinary 2015 Britannia lost a bit of the reverse appeal with the "pebbly/rough" background IMO. I liked the last Proof 2014 Britannia complete with Pipa Middleton (sp?) rendition of Britannia.

Ah yes, well you answered my question. Interestingly, I was able to get the '99 set from BoJ but they did not seem to know anything about anything which was a bit of a shame. I actually have an extra 2000 set I have aside for you if we can figure an economic way to get it to you.

Very good! Since I posted I was able to obtain the '97 set, which I believe is probably fairly rare. I have been looking for the 2002 set which I believe to exist as well. The '02 crown was sold on eBay earlier this year and I missed it. BTW, have you seen any of the matte 1975-77 issues - either gold or copper-nickel? Feel free to PM me any time you 'd like as these are something of a sidelight for me....

Oh, can't we go more back to coins and the market and what may or may not be going on with the Bunhead market. There may in fact be only a few buyers at the top of the pyramid (at least as far as prices paid) with saturation point possibly reached even with nicer coins such as the proofs or '64s starting to lag a bit....??

Uhhh, those were top flight coins off of the Spink Numismatic Circular in their absolute heydey. These were and are superior coins, just high priced IMO.

Yikes, those coins would have gone for maybe 40% that even in the Heritage sale!

Meanwhile, nicer Bunheads like the 1864s and some proofs of that era and later languished. How deep is the market for top end pennies?

I would imagine there to be some adjustments coming. One thing I noticed is that they ran through the lots with rapidity, without fanfare or announcements save for the above-mentioned Una.

With the "juice", an evidently nicer specimen of the famed Una and the Lion went for over 250,000 Dollars at Heritage yesterday. As usual fancy gold bits went high, and copper relatively languished with multiple Lots unsold. The 1851 florin, which sadly I guess I will never own went for about 25k USD by memory. Interesting that Colonial bits such as New Zealand in many instances went for less than half low estimate or went unsold. Reserves/starting prices on many lots seemed very high in many instances IMO.

I will have to post the currency A4 although its on loan at the moment. I bought it in the UK some years ago, complete with a flowery description by the seller who I gather had been a collector, proclaiming it as the "discovery piece". Honestly I don't even remember what I paid for it!

Hope you were able to get that lot. I have an "ordinary" Maundy 3d of that date in satin variety. I guess I wouldn't necessarily have thought of Heritage for an obscure varietal.

Wow, nice bit of research there Nick. That looks Maundy to me as well. So that seems to support that there are Maundy. The Heritage bit does not look quite as nice as the DNW piece which ended up not selling in 2012 but did sell as Lot 580 in March of 2013. Can you give away the trade secret as to your search function?

This date of threepence is a bit of a rascal, and very hard to run down in the sources such as ESC, Davies, Spink & Krause. There was a DNW lot, supposedly proof and NOT Maundy. DNW Sale specimen was 18 Sept. 2012, Lot 2727 evidently proof, certainly not currency that fits best to Spink cat. 3914C. The lot description states Maundy was only of the first A2 type (same as first currency type). Can anyone verify that all Maundy was of the A2 type? OK, I admit I usually don't like the microvarietals but it is Victorian silver after all! According to DNW the revision for 1866 3d should be: A2 Currency Maundy Unknown in Proof * A4 Currency Proof (unique?) Both A4s are quite rare, if anybody cares but just wondering how it can be said that there are NO Maundies of this type?

BTW, the listed mintage for this last bit is 30k (!), and even with concentrated looking have seen only ONE for sale in 12 years. As stated BoJ does not even know anything about their own issue. So I still do not know whether the whole set was made in 2002. PM me if you should ever see one for sale, PLEASE. I think this begs the question about domestic Proof sets for the UK - how many actually released to public as opposed to how many authorised and yet again how many struck. I have noted that the Central Bank of Barbados states on their site indicate that the actual number they took delivery of is many times 1/10 the amount made, more sometimes and less others.

Uh, I am a STRONG crown collector of 20th C. predecimal and wouldn't touch that Foley above 200 pounds max. The Wyon crowns of 1910 private, but were nicely (IMO) redone in the Patina series at quite a discount and in gold as well (I got one of those for 550 quid for 40+ gms of gold).

Still like that '08 date. OZ, is that a bit of PVC on the obverse. Your specimen is well struck IMO with a bit of bag handling. I think it too may have been a bit cleaned with some retoning. The OP coin is on the lower fringe of EF, not what Glendining would have called it "back in the day" however! Still a nice date.

Nice! Specimen 3 looks to have been through a bit of it. From the pictures the first is convincing as a possible currency and the second looks proof. Very nice & wish the guides could have such pictures. If you EVER get tired of that first bit, I'd be glad to help. LOL!

That Foley pattern result is just fine for the buyer and seller IMO. Find each some more junk to buy and sell. If a Royal Mint product, I would have been in the fight - this piece was meaningless and certainly no better than a Hearn pattern crown. The execution of the reverse absolutely awful so no points for artistic merit. At least the Patina pieces were (some of them anyway) more pleasant products...

Looks a bit like the obverse from the Indian Rupees as well.... IMO quite unpleasant...

That. No wizard meeting put those prices together, mere humans....