VickySilver

I note that on the same Facebook group there are great pictures of some coins including the aforementioned 1952 2/6 as well as a very nice 1956....

The original October of 1997 Baldwin 125th Anniversary Sale had the proof halfcrown and 1952 proof penny as well. I knew some of the principles at the time and may have a picture somewhere and think I have the catalogue which I saved as well. Will have a looksee tomorrow.

Yes, good point as they do miss these & the latest example which I will try to picture if I get hold of it is a proof 1853 Penny that came right from the set with the brown toning on the exposed side from the set and relatively "red" on the down side (obverse)...They really screw up mattes as well which hold their values up and rising if graded highly (off year). Beware of these and opportunity is likely there: one example are the proof 1839 and 1853 halfcrowns as some of the "Proof 63 Cam(eo)" coins may actually be much higher grades....

I have since found out that the 1952 2/6 proof is also unique, this from impeccable source.

Ok, let me just start by saying that I am not able technically (old-fashioned me!) but perhaps someone can assist with possibly screenshooting some of the commentary where on Facebook there is a fellow on "Half crown Appreciation Society" group that somehow thinks he has a GENUINE 1952 Half crown. It is one of those knock-off poor copies not labelled as such with the atrocious bust of G6. The reverse is alright and the toning suspect but I could not believe some of the comments. Although it does make me wonder about the actual currency piece that Colin Cooke had for a bit and is written up still on his site. How in the world did it get out into circulation and even more strange how did it manage to be out in channels long enough to pick up that much wear and not be discovered; I also note that it does not appear to be a circulated proof or to be of any special manufacture.

I think, as has been hinted at in this post, that many place just too much on the slab grade. HOWEVER, when it comes time to sell (if and when that time comes) that the number is absolutely huge. That is really a shame but no matter how much we ramp and rave, this is just the new reality when it comes to pounds or dollars fetched. The other part of it is the "subjectivity" of grading which in itself has so many different facets ranging from accuracy or lack thereof to the questions behind influence of submitters to the grading process itself; how dare we question this. But as I see it, three positives in slabbing are: 1 - protecting the coin 2 - helping in resale value for marquee coins 3 - providing some rationalization in grading Overall back to the OP point (yet again): there are definitely price rises in coins like the Una and the Lion, Gothic Crown, etc. If you look at the Heritage ANA sale coming up next month, there are two Unas and more Gothic than I can count with huge estimates. On the other hand, true rarities like the sixpences of 1854 or the 1893 Jub head or the 1850 shilling or the 1854 & 1863 florins or the currency 1839 2/6 are not to be seen. These coins relatively languish and IMHO do not seem to have huge rise in value. And let's not go there with other coins that were once thought a little special like the 1932 florin, etc.

LOL, yes pretty crazy there..... Although I like proofs and patterns these did not hold appeal to me. I like the 1961 and 1963 decimal patterns that actually have designs.....

I also wrote Wayne at E-sylum -BTW, check their website. Let's see if he publishes anything about that.

How again did they conclude this was a 25P and not a 20P pattern?

I too am confused by this new volume, and this with TWO versions of the 7th Edition of the Bull ESC. Which now is ESC? And I am miffed by mistakingly getting the abbreviated 7th Edition as at the time of purchase did not know this. Another issue is that in the proofs and patterns of the 20th C. predecimal series have been in many cases mucked up.....I know, I sound the crybaby.

I seem to recall as this coin came up for auction and looked at it. With all due respect rejected it sadly as a specimen or proof. As I have said, and have had both of the 1924 satin specimen halfpennies had some interest in it. But not to be a killjoy and hope you enjoy this one...

IMHO a nice currency strike, but I have seen a number of 1923 and 1924 halfpennies that look quite nice. BTW, the other satin specimen 1924 looks a lot better....

I hadn’t thought the issue as big for the halfpennies or farthings compared with the pennies

Obverse

Here is the reverse of one specimen 1924 half penny.

I concur. The reverse in particular at the helm, drapery, arm and breastplate. The 1924 satin specimen halfpenny was struck as such and will see if I can find a picture If Richard can not, but it looks quite different as you will likely see. From the label it sounds good, but the actual coin even if better than average does not seem to fit.

The fellow over at Coin and Medal News answered me and said they'd discuss it. I think that would be an important addition...

I just wrote them on Facebook and see what they say. Predecimal currency coins don't get a lot of appreciation in the mad rush for all of the SOTD sovereigns and the schlock that the RM has been peddling for a good decade or so....

Can't download at the info limit. This is Krause KM - 1110

I think it may be a true rarity and ought to be written up in Coin News or similar - very interesting.

Hard to tell but this looks a bit like a specimen set coin also, but could be wrong. I laughed a bit as I thought about it - this is the analogy to the 1913 Liberty Nickel in the USA series - a 5 million dollar coin or so. It does not seem to be an error but rather a mule, and could it be intentional & how many struck?

Ah, wish I could tell you exactly but I recall it was early to mid 90s. It was very large and included such as gold strikes of all the "silver" denominations that are attributed to the LONDON mint! Also matte proof sets of all the 1927-1953 years, and BOTH 1922/4 LONDON mint satin specimen/proof sets, and proof sets of many other years (so called VIP record proofs). Even at that time with relatively low interest in proofs of George V and VI, all of these sold relatively rapidly at what today would be bargain prices. I was desperate to pull together funds to get what I could as I knew that there could not be too many such hordes out there. Again what was remarkable is not that many were very rare (which they were) but in some cases represented the sole source of some coins, and these also again London mint issues! Nobody has ever been able to explain to me how in the world that occurred. As far as I know there was no official announcement of these sales and although I can not prove it, am of the understand that these left under somewhat nefarious circumstances with "insiders" walking away with many for but a song. As a side note it is and was very difficult to get sets from the 1928-1936 years that included TRUE Wreath crowns in proof; parenthetically I regret to say that many of the slabbed Wreath proofs IMHO, as well as Steve Hills, and M. Rasmussen are not actually proofs.

LOL, I am an inveterate collector and almost never sell unless I have a double. Thanks though.

Indeed, and IMHO they are cheapening "the Brand". They are really starting to drive me away and there are few bits I order from them, whilst confessing to getting a couple of the Great Sculptor coins. I have even gotten some of their clearance items in the past - which should have remained duly on the shelves of the RM warehouse. I think I was getting not so much as authenticity but on the notion that coins at their auction somehow now have a RM provenance - almost hinting at the buyer at such auctions could be latter day Norwebs & all. A bit of a diversion: of course some of us remember when the Pretoria Branch Mint DID INDEED deaqusition their holdings, or at least a substantial portion & don't think the RM will be doing so....

Which I understand - the clearance of "junque" but please note the last bit I wrote about concerning their endorsement, not to mention the possible deception as to the origin of some lots..