VickySilver

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.

At 6500 quid plus the juice! I do know these quite well, and they are quite rare, albeit more common than the R7 listed in ESC. I would rate them about as follows (all outside museums) 1926 Pattern Peace Crown 3-4 1926 Pattern Wreath 2-3 1927 3-4 likely 1937 3-4 likely 1951 6-8 1953 6-8 1965 (satin) 8-10 Actually I rather like the 1927 and 1937 mattes and find them rather handsome!

Yes, Nick that is exactly mine as well..

Yes a picture would be essential and would "up the pike" of my interests as well.

Nice picture! Mine has a distinct dot just to the clockwise of that of the first over struck "I"

The usual caveats about coin in hand not withstanding - the coin is simply not a proof and can't see how except in the most ignorant of circumstances that a well-respected TPG slabber would certify it as such. I would gladly buya nice example of the 1963 in proof for about that amount. This coin I would not buy for a quid.

Yikes, if he WAS a respected dealer, s/he lost points on this NON-proof. P-L-E-A-S-E!!!!!!

A bit of an update: there are confirmed instances of both the 1997 and 1999 sets, as I have had a communication with an individual who has one of the latter and sent pictures (the crown is a millennium ), and referred pictures of 1997 set with a World Wildlife Crown. Has anybody heard of a Royal Mint Collector's Bulletin?

I do NOT trust the TPGs when they say they have three graders or seven or whatever...

Let me start by saying I have not verified this story. However it does ring a bit scary in the current paranoid environment, combining those "evil" Chinese AND the TPGs! What? Well, I was just yesterday at the Baltimore show (rather small Summer version), and heard a snippet: "Have you heard the latest about the PCGS office in China?" The unnamed dealer proceeded to outline what may be the latest scam. Evidently one of the Chinese graders has been buying [at least] Fat Man Dollars graded MS64, and then having friends submit them whereupon he delivers out "66" and "67" grades... I tried to listen in for more details without appearing to be the nosey that I was, and could only gather that the grader had some sort of nickname with "dragon" in it... OK, I apologise for shameless gossip, but even as a sometime supporter of the TPG concept was a bit disturbed by this - although, not all that surprised and thankful that at least if true that it was not more counterfeits being passed off. All, of which yet again confirms that the buyer should buy the coin first, not the labelled number slab...