VickySilver

Which is a point well made. However, toning that is neon green, yellow, pink, etc. is WAY beyond the normal spectrum (pun intended). You really need to see some of these. Try a google search of the "Battle Creek" morgan dollars...

OK, still not a great picture but maybe shows the area below the date better? I do not see spots like the two little areas I see on the photo on the coin...

And Rob, your point is so well made as not only are there labelling issues (not just with this farthing but the 1848 3d which the cataloguer correctly points out is likely Maundy-sourced), but also psychologic differences that can be played. For example in the last Heritage sale there were some "hyper graded" 6d and 1/- coins that were very nice but lost in the mix were the [quite few] rarities that were just not quite as highly graded & how I got that '89 small head shilling for what I thought was a very reasonable price. Ultimately, another version of what we see in auctions in England; if you are knowledgeable and lucky to some extent, bargains are still to be had.

They are having a bit of a battle on the PCGS US Coins forum on this at the moment. It appears the gallant attempt to crack into this crap is being vigorously attacked by staunch defenders of this outrageous "Coin Doctoring" and toning effort - well that is IMO.

Yes, do apologise for being such a dolt. I have I-phone and Mac so hadn't pasted on them before. Have to put some bonus pictures in as well if I can manage. Thanks, Michael.

First is a Model/Play piece loosely modelled on the sovereign. Negliigible value.

More pictures coming I promise. I think this may prove to be an interesting coin - it actually has some prooflike surfaces on the field that need to be captured.

OK, this is a reverse of a Jubilee 6d, dated 1893 - awful photo.

NO scuffing, I need a better picture. Paulus, yours is the simplest.... OK this is an out of focus obverse of the 1903 2/6.

OK, fellas, I used the "Debbie Does Dallas" YouTube method

Yes I see that in the picture that does not appear in the specimen. I will try to get some other pictures this week as at least I can do that even though not a posting master. LOL!!

I tried the "Control" plus the "v" both at the same time and in sequence but nothing happened. When I tried the IMG thing, nothing seemed to happen so not sure what bit I left out. Think I'm getting a mental block so try it again. I will go back to step to step this week just to try to get this. Thanks for the patience of all.

Yes it's PCGS65RB Truly best I've seen and IMO undergraded as we all like to say about our own.

Please check the "Test" posting on this forum. I do need constructive help with attribution of the 1882 which even under 30+ magnification shows no sign of an H or one taken off. Funky alloy in the flan but generally better preserved than many.

My thoughts are that even if this is not the exact procedure, it brings to the point of feasible that such type of thing is possible. I had pointed out some time ago, and to no avail on the PCGS boards that coins with these appearances did not seem IMO to appear until the last 12 to 15 years. Also, I do have some chemical background and the appearance of this "neon" toning is just not like normal oxidation. I am wondering if there is a way to layer other metal oxides on to the surface of silver coins in particular. I asked a couple of the champions of these coins to submit them to spectroscopic and this was all poo-pooed.... It might just be my sensation, but I get the feeling that the market for this type of thing may [hopefully] be panning out...

Can I send the photobucket to an email to someone? Wow, that is a lazy thing to say...

1131.photobucket.com Yikes, I couldn't copy it onto here so put it "direct" Reverse only of 1893 6d.

Umm, don't get the bit about paste and can't find the "Direct Link" Duhh, feel like Homer Simpson.

OK, I am not getting this. How does one use photo bucket in an idiot's form?

I think this is a very interesting specimen despite getting only a "62". It is a bit limited by no reverse, and no date, and by being in copper nickel, and without the standard "MODEL" on what would be the oberse. Perhaps others could pitch in, but therefore I think ballpark - WAG: wholesale 600 retail 1200 This is the type of coin that Baldwin would list for BIG money. I have no trouble with an offer on PM to me.

OK, I am going to lose the laziness and check my '68s this weekend also. I think this date in unc. is not so very common. Homework assignment will be to try to figure out how to get pictures up...

Yes, those last two are showstoppers in unc. I won't say I traded the farm, but kind of... Dritanniar of 1878 in unc. almost impossible, and some other dates as well. Have to settle on less than fantastic unc.s sometimes (well, for a while as it just gnaws at you).

Uhhh, yea that would be the excuse for no London 1882 in the collection. I think I have one, but have got to figure out how to picture it and see if you guys can massacre it for problems....Pretty much GVF but does not match the die combo with NO microscopic evidence of H or erasure. I gotta find it and put it up here to get crushed. PS Bought it from a very good source as well...

Yes, I did do that and maybe should have held it (the '03 2/6) but it was beautiful. Maybe Spink vintage early '90s? Can't remember, but the one I have is quite pleasant.

And maybe that will stimulate me to take it to another level. I want one of the new ones. Who will the authors be? I thought maybe Baldwin's might turn an effort in. Congratulations on following through with these dies...