VickySilver

I have had a "full court press on" as they say in basketball for about 25 years trying to locate a specimen, and the currency coin (yes, with Britannia reverse) may not exist and that the reported 11,000 specimens struck may have been of another date as was known to be custom at the mint. For now, I think it may be in the same category as the 1854 half sovereign. To give you an idea, the 1862 Britannia groat in proof is thought to be very rare but is almost common in a relative sense, and at least I have one of those but it is this currency strike '53 that has eluded me along with the 1857 proof that has managed to come up twice at times of economic inconvenience. I'd be in at 20+ X the price of a pedestrian date specimen...

Dredge this bit up again - 1853 groats (non-Maundy, non-proof) - still no sign or evidence of any currency groats of this year. Nobody seems to ever have seen one either. Perhaps this is the rarest currency Victorian silver coin? Not that I would be interested in one, LOL!

Flat G5 hair & brow/moustache or shield details, you pick 'em. These do suffer, esp. in his florins but the answer already posted.

At 400k per copy, plenty of room down to even 200 though. Australia must still allow coins to be part of peoples' retirement package in terms of tax benefits? That really puts a heater to their market IMO.

Nice coin there. I wonder what would happen if another of similar quality were to emerge from the shadows and go on sale - what would be the price drop?

The mirrors are actually quite striking as are the device details, perhaps a bit better than the posted 1868 et al but it is interesting the edge detail is not what one would like - on the other hand, quite the blowup ("pie pan " size); also a bit of deflection/difraction of light as Brit's face is actually quite good on both pieces. Not that it matters, but Steve Hill did give them seal of approval when at Spink which is how they made the SNC.

Thanks for the link, BRG. Those are ex-SNC coins from the glory days of Spink!

OK, I'll probably get shot for saying this, but check the farthings in proof of 1863 and 1869 on the PCGS site as they are qutie pleasantly stuck firmly and nice colouration.

Wait till number three comes around! Seriously, that is exactly what happened to me with the 1871 bun.

A lot of sovereigns out there in the last little while...I have sometimes wondered if some such as the 1920 S, or especially the 1917 London are not just a bit overhyped and that there may be more out there than recognised - maybe not a lot more but another here or there?

I have had absolute nightmares finding a superb obv. and rev. 1919H, and have some that might be ok but most unsightly metal discolouration. Extras of the others not for sale here....

Well, they certainly facilitate bidder action so they IMO definately contribute.

Draw up your battlelines! Yikes, well there are a couple of bits I like there...

That's marketing, baby, and Heritage are masters of it!

Might you be able to post an example of picture(s)?

Wow, I follow and my point as well. At some point there is going to be some buyer "push back" over the increase in fees. I try (but fail) to calculate these costs into my bid, especially on items of middle interest.

Sorry, on vacation for a bit. Yes, I did mean EF45. Gary's comment is well taken, and certainly the case when price is factored in. That is quite a good grade. Also, I quite agree with the above in that disagreeable polished or cleaned surfaces can be readily toned. I have, and confess to, doing it myself. Favourite toning substance? Taco Bell napkins with plenty of sulfur, but not too much...LOL Lost my I-phone as I have quite nice examples of all the dates with a couple of spares not for sale. I think the 1902 matte can be obtained for a reasonable price and is to my eyes, quite nice in appearance.

Ouch! Well,guess time for me to retire with bits like this doing crazy price performance tricks....

I have a number of copper nickel penny and half penny strikes in CuNi and they don't look like this specimen. I am suspicious to say the least and did not bid, even though I like these bits.

I have a slabbed VIP proof that I know is in fact that and was originally a RAS coin. Looks quite different than the specimen in question. Copper nickel is a good harder than even .500 silver and a bit easier to find with better grades (either in or out of the slab). The harder bit as I've said before on another post or two is that a deep cameo proof designated coin looks very similar to the so-called VIP proof coin. Until the last five or so years a legit VIP 1951 or 1960 would go for the 300-450 quid, and now these much lesser pieces appear to be fetching such a price - I think it may depend on the venue and IMO do not believe this coin "worth the money". My value would be about 50 pounds, and that would be reasonable generous.

Hmmm, brings to mind the question as to whether the RM ever plated any of the later coins??? Does anybody know the answer? I have a few like the just pictured 1974 coin that are of original off-metal and one or two that look to be chrome or vanadium plated, all of which were gotten in a lot some while ago at extra-cheap price.

Certainly you would have the advantage over us having it in hand, but I still tend to concur. Firstly detail puts it IMO in the aEF category - kind of hedging - but that might get an MS45 on the graded TPG 70 point scale. The wear pattern indeed looks to be IMO cleaned though, and a soft strike on Brit's head and face as well as minimally so, and about average, for E7 bust. I tried for many years to get a superior specimen for strike and [lack of] wear and had not much success, as was the case with the '08 shilling. Also my opinion but that is a better date, however much this series languishes.

I have also seen a few higher grade 19KNs that have a brassy appearance that have managed to acquire some unpleasant dark fingerprinting. These would be otherwise gEF coins - well, two of them anyway. I don't believe, but can not prove they were cleaned either. I have one that I will try to post [eventually!].

Eddie's Britannia on the florin looks rather mean and not very feminine though the flowing robes are nice... Nice coins there Rob and AC.

As the Boards are a bit slow, I thought I'd toss this out there: These pennies, especially those of 1918 and 1919 are often stated to be scarcer and even rare in well struck and better preserved state. Perhaps members would like to comment. IMO, the 1912 H can occasionally come poorly struck but is readily available with excellent strike and lustre. Might be a bit overpriced even... The Heaton coins of the latter two years are usually panned for quality of strike and thought to be scarce. In my experience, the 1918 is indeed usually poorly struck with mushy details and recall there being a hoard of such coming to market in the latter '80s. Overall, the most common of the latter group of four. Somewhat scarcer in "full red", is pretty scarce well struck. The 1919 H, is IMO decidedly scarcer yet in well struck form and when of good alloy. Many times what looks to be perhaps a nicer specimen is spoiled by metal composition issues, directly or indirectly as there can be unpleasant toning which I have seen on the obverse especially. In my experience, this date in truly top condition may be as scarce as the 1918 KN. The KN issues generally come slightly better struck than their H counterparts, but a bit worse than London issues (which may also come poorly struck). Both the 1918 and 1919 appear to be overall scarcer in GEF or uncirculated condition than the Heaton pennies. Overall, I sure haven't seen much interest in these or the later 1926 ME penny, but appreciate them... PS - I don't seem to be able to post the example of the 1918 H penny on www.northeastcoin.com that is MS64 but of the usual poor strike