VickySilver

What 9.6 gm CuNi coins were being struck by the Royal Mint in 1901? Halfcrowns of post 1946 date should be about 14.1 gm +/-....

Oops, I think that is the one I was talking about Bernie...

I don't know about the estimate. It is a penny, but the Nicholson CuNI 1920 halfpenny struck to a specimen standard with the countermarked "N" sold for 800 quid. I purchased a 1922 CuNi penny of the Royal Mint (obv. and rev. unfortunately of 1922 for about 300-350 by memory) about 3-4 years ago.

Yes, good point, but it was the second high bid that determined the sale price - and I think (s)he and I knew the fair "collector price", and I was prepared to go even a bit higher. When the estimate is closer to true value of the coin, it does not prompt me to still bid multiples of the HIGHER price. Overall, I think the lower estimates catch interest initially and make a bidder feel like he's going to come through with a win at a relatively higher percentage price. I know as the relative estimate rises - and I have seen this on occasion as well - that my bids are much closer to estimate and I take the loss rather than go very high.

I know that I have bid as much as FIVE TIMES estimate to secure choice and rare bits....Took more than just me to do it however! I try to get them low, but really in a topline London auction of a rare coin, do any really believe there are low priced bargains to be had?

I have seen more than even quite a few with"Late Mint Stage Preparation Damage"...Most have these stigmata.

Not much for me, I really think not.

I wouldn't say I have seen LOTS of circulated '35s and '37s, but a few...

I don't recall any accounts of these Wreaths circulating. What was to be bought with a crown or why would a non-collector want one in the first place?I have collected these for nearly 20 years, and though have not purchased any for greater than 10 have seen in the main EF specimens that were likely clanking around in tellers drawers. A few gVF specimens with precious few at the F level, and a few "pocket pieces" every now and then. My own opinion is that they rarely circulated, were legal tender obviously, much as Nick says...

I might have a picture of it as I recall I took one of that coin as well as an 1863 proof farthing (no dot). Easier for me to email these than to post them for some reason.

Ah yes, and the 1926ME penny as well as a topnotch 1919KN with full strike or a 1922 Rev. 1927 (and all the scarcer iterations of that date) in, say, mint red uncirculated...Or marginally the 1934 Wreath?

Are the choices limited to farthings? If so, I am guilty as well... Like maybe the '93 Jub. 6d in high grade, etc.?

Yes, I have seen it. Was originally sold in an SNC circular about 10 years ago...I would think it would go 1250 or above if it came up for sale.

How about a proof 1863 or proof 1869 farthing - these are RARE!

Wonder if that was the Spink coin?

Just thought I would resurrect this thread. I DO like this denomination, but have had absolutely no success in confirming the 1854 & am inclined to think it does not exist after conversations with many milled predecimal experts. Interesting that the 1862 half sov evidently went unnoticed until 1979...Kind of like some of the new species that show up now and then in the natural world (oh please don't mention the "Megalodon" that sank the ship off South Africa in April of this year!).

Couple of bits (and bobs)....OK, well quarters and shillings for you numismatic types...LOL

I think I would go EF, or gVF for the weasels...Still lustre in the protected areas, and not a lot of wear.

Wow, and all this time I've been shopping in the wrong place for matte proofs! Could have saved a bundle too, darn... Hey, its got to be legit, 100% rating to boot.

Yes, I have seen the annual reports, but if we use the example of the 1839 proofs being struck in later years it seems we have no accounting. Was such done with the later 1887 and 1893s? Not sure if I have seen the answer to that. Interesting bit about die consumption on the gold as well..

Rick Tomaska has written some about proof dies in the American series of Franklin halves but also with regards to Morgan dollars and says essentially that the "cameo effect" may be lost with as few as 10 strikes of the die. He has said very little changed from the late 19th Century. Another fellow with some firsthand knowledge is Daniel Carr, who managed to purchase a slightly older Denver Mint press and now uses it to strike medals, overstrikes, etc. in matte, ordinary currency and proof format. He is quite a nice fellow IMO and may be able to share some information, at least as it applies to somewhat later technology - although I would imagine much may apply to later 19th C. technology. I am not as excited by specific technology or microvarieties but do find in interesting that old dies would be pulled up and reused - the 1839s were an extreme example. I also wonder how accurate minting statistics, even with proofs might actually be. Where, for example did they come up with the figures for 1887 and 1893? Let alone, off years of record proofs!

Although rumoured to exist and was pictured on a Royal Mint Bulletin, I have not seen these nor are they catalogued by Krause or others. Has anybody seen the proof set of 1997 or the individual crown - 25 dollar size?

Hi Shagreen, Not quite sure if I am following you on the last post. My opinion would be that the second specimen is an earlier strike as the cameo effect is still demonstrated. My understanding is that it is lost with subsequent strikes as the acid etched device is gradually micro worn ..

I second Azda on the obverse picture - I think it is hiding some unfortunate details on the obverse - rub??, etc... The edge on this bit looks a lot better than our other choices and think I could go for slightly mishandled proof. The others are thumbs down on edge characteristics.

Not proof.These come with proof like strikes very frequently.