VickySilver

No toning mentioned on the original envelope from that 1807 (two) bits.

St George looks in "bad form" as well. The bit of pecking and then possible smoothing on G5 obverse seems a bit suspicious. IMO, subtracting the wear, the die prep just does not appear up to snuff.

I was looking through first the DNW catalogue, and then had a look at the LCA Highlights - which are all that are now available. The 1917 Sov looks, at least to me, to be an absolute fake. Sorry for the lack of linkage. What say you other readers?

My SINGLE purchase last time broke my bank! Hope they don't have any "must haves" for me - is that the final listing or just a partial of what will be on sale?

Dam-, just lost my first response... Nick that '69 is very nice and nicer than the (dipped) bit that Mark R. had on sale some while ago (?still does?), mine I bought as a slabbed "62". I think Paulus' '02 6d is illustrative as IMHO this coin may have been dipped some time ago and then followed the unfortunate colour oxidation scheme presented on the post about the toning on the -92 half crown in PCGS livery. It is just a bit too uniform in its yellow/light brown transition and something about the uniformity about especially the obverse device just a bit off. And this is not to say it is not an attractive piece, as it most certainly is. I think there are many coins, slabbed or not, CGS, PCGS, NGC or not that have been dipped or cleaned if it indeed was. A problem arises such as with the case of the famous dipped Norweb 1893 S Morgan dollar that probably lost 300-400k USD in value by so doing. The 1821 crown is a bit more blatant IMO as a dipped and lightly retoned and it along with the 1834 bit the most blatant of that category. Thankfully light toning sans the neon electric treatment! The 1806 - weill I don't collect bits so early as this but have noticed that certain older and sometimes ? original holders may lend to purplish an maybe slightly bluish tone to silver coins, with the slightly later copper proofs more like those shown by Accumulator and reminding a bit of chocolate. The infamous seller "greattoning" on ebay has in the past had some mainly US copper of a similar colour. His bits have almost always IMO been enhanced. So I apologise at including it, but do say that his (gt's) doctors would readily be able to replicate. I am sure it would have a very good chance at slabbing. Disclaimer on above ebay seller - he has pm'd me and informed me he does not do the work, which is not to say directly or indirectly he might know more than just a bit of how his bits got to be like that. The 1787 bit has a history that is good with no monkeying with since at least 1984 - that is nearly 30 years, and wow! I have occasionally seen dipped coins to retain cleaning residue possibly even after rinse and then to enhance later toning and IMO this may be the case. Confessional: Ah, running out of time here but will try to keep plugging away and do hope once again not to have offended. I will say that I proudly have some very nice coins in my own collection that have been dipped, some elsewhere and some my responsibility of later 20th Century vintage. BTW, only sold a few as I suffer from Packrat Syndrome! I admit I still occasionly use acetone to remove adherent residues such as tape or finger oils and the like. I love original lightly toned Victorian silver best as you might have guessed.

Uhhh, Nick how about bribing my silence by paying me off with the 1869 6d? LOL OK, I don't want to start a witch hunt with my hide the designated target, but IMO a couple of questionables (okay excepting Nick and Accumulator, with whose I can't quibble): the OP 1902 6d, cleaned and retoned the 1834 2/6 , cleaned or dipped. the 1787 jaggy bit cleaned/dipped and retoned the 1911 2/6 the 1821 crown that 1806 Colin G bit

Hmmm, don't want to call anybody out, as they say, but a couple of the examples posted are suspicious for cleaning and then retoning, AT or not....

Hmmm, that is questionable. Not a lot of wear and softly struck as well. Another interesting speculation is whether the coin has been blanched in an effort to clean it possibly as it has the appearance of that and then retoned a bit.

Ouch, must be a collector as I can not imagine how a dealer would scheme a profit out of that! I too would have tendered an offer on the low side and in line with what I have seen the 1922 (ordinary dies) in CuNi go for. Incidentally, the 1920 Nicholson PATTERN matte Nickel proof half penny complete with mint-applied "N" sold for 800 pounds.

Knee, breast and shoulder not too bad though. The whole reverse looks a bit like a worn die, does not snap how one would like a really nice unc. (if brown) coin to look. I don't thinks it is a date that people could not do better elsewhere obviously. I bought a lovely 1849 from St. James's many moons ago and I think that one ended up 63RB and was definately superior.

Yes, indeed. I think it may have been given on technical grounds - not a lot of wear. Still the surface colour is a bit objectionable. I really don't understand their grading on occasion and disagree with the main Brit grader with some frequency. On the opposite end of this coin was (and maybe I'll try to post a picture?!!) an old Spink shilling, 1849, that was given an MS62 for hairlines which were instead clearly on the die itself.

Don't forget the seller "greattoning"!

Wow, that is a hard to find bit. Not in Krause. I have not seen any sales of it but will tell you that collector interest is a bit limited - why not a lot were sold originally! If I may ask (and you may PM me if you like), where or how did you get your set? My guess is that the range of values would be from 40 pounds to 400 pounds! At the later figure, there likely would be no buyer. I got several sets of other years from Bank of Jamaica at 40 USD plus shipping, and these were of the rarer dates as well. My estimation would be that you could evaluate it at about 200 pounds. As you know, catalogue values are relative and a set at that price could languish on the one hand, but on the other go for a bit more with two determined bidders at the same place and time. Again PM me if you have more specific questions.

Yes, that's the table & reference to which I referred. Truisms, but DO NOT SUPPORT his (Mac's) assertion IMO, as the transitions can be doctored up as well from what I understand.

Without naming names/posters, the one with a Scotish nomen (okay, Mac- something or other) seems to back this coin up and reference a toning table that is ludicrous - it is a blatant attept to rationalise toning IMO....

Wow, a few dissenters on the PCGS site about this coin, notably Rob with the original poster getting quite testy even when the "opposition" was very mild. Hilarious! I posted several attacks on those a horrible neon Morgan toners over there before and was roundly attacked - even by one individual that supposedly is some sort of "surfaces chemist". Given up that line of reasoning as it was trying to extricate pigs from the mud...

And I have just obtained the 1999 set. This has the milennium crown and the complete set of [ugly] National Heroes. I can see why these were not popular. The 1997 set remains elusive and am still unable to confirm if a 2002 set was actually minted by the Royal Mint.

Oh, and of course it never happens in real life - not seen too many locked up recently.

Pictures of greatest value, if you can. Smith Pattern obverse?

Yes, will have to check them out as I had given them up for "Dead" for grading some LONG while ago.

Sixpences, perchance? I did not get any GB coins through their sales, and only a single at DNW - for which I paid too much in the excitement of competition on-line. BTW, I would have expected to pay LESS for it in a Heritage sale interestingly. Some of their (Heritage's) Thalers, etc. went for very cheap. BTW - I was quite disappointed by the late milled in Spink, Baldwin & St. James's.

Sticky mattress? Uhh, being ignorant of the term, I think I might have to leave that alone & was a bit concerned with it mentioned in the same reference frame as newlyweds!

Plain old VF seems a bit harsh when there is still some apparent lustre about the devices on reverse which is also much better in my opinion. 28.5 sounds a fair price there.

Speaking of the 1869 penny, and not to pirate the thread, but what do readers think of the price at near 10k USD? Seemed a bit high, but that was a nice piece and after the shock (at least to me) of the DNW Vicky prices - esp. silver maybe it was not so high. I just could not get myself to put in that last bid but I think another bidder would have caused a rise in any case....

Ah yes, I do seem to recall the earlier piece! LOL Thanks for that Derek