Peckris

Yes there are quite probably a few VIP proofs (ultra rare) that surface once in a while. Someone here will quote chapter and verse on when the last one was up for sale.

I can only see the obverse and reverse, that gives me no clue as to how thin it is. could we have a side view ?. Unfortunately not - I only got my scanner working with great difficulty and there is NO way I can scan an edge!! You don't seem to have read any of my posts? I suggested that acid has eroded away the metal to such an extent that the underlying stress patterns caused by the teeth area of the strike (normally invisible) have been exposed to view. I concur 100% with your posts and theory! My thread echos exactly what you have been saying, mine's just a proposed idea of the processes involved! Sorry, you're quite right. It was actually me that didn't read the post carefully enough!

It's been polished. Look at the raised parts of the design : 1. They are as shiny as the fields, which COULD occur on a proof, if it's a 'mirror proof', but ... 2. See the 'gunk' around all the raised parts? That shows where inexpert polishing hasn't got close enough to the edges of the design - look particularly between the teeth. There's nothing about that coin that suggests a genuine proof, and the starting bid of $0.99 - which hasn't even been met yet! - shows that.

"I'm Dave. And I'm a ... NUMISMATIST."

Here is my 1929 shilling. As you can see, ALL the detail is present (unlike a normal worn coin) but in a very faded and ghostly form. I'd guess that the original was at least VF when it was 'acid bathed'. One thing you can't see is the wafer thin-ness of it, nor the milling still visible on what's left of the edge. What you can see however, is that the rim has all but disappeared on both faces, which seems to be one of the areas of metal that goes first.

I'm largely housebound ( ) which gives me lots of time to spend on the net. And when you don't find the time, Peckris, everyone asks where the hell you got to! Haha - very true!!

You don't seem to have read any of my posts? I suggested that acid has eroded away the metal to such an extent that the underlying stress patterns caused by the teeth area of the strike (normally invisible) have been exposed to view.

I'm largely housebound ( ) which gives me lots of time to spend on the net.

Why not the loft, I thought that would be quite a good place !. Not safe from burglars of course, but if it's DRY (it doesn't matter about the temperature) it could be a good storage place.

The penny hasn't quite dropped. The RM produced proof sets in 1826, 1831, 1839, 1853, 1887, 1893, 1902, 1911, 1927, 1937, 1950, 1951 and 1970, plus each year subsequent to this date for collectors. Single coins from these years that you may encounter are usually from broken up sets. They are struck from polished dies and blanks with the exception of the 1902 which had a matte finish - a silky non-mirror finish. The effigies may be brilliant and smooth or frosted. Early pieces are frosted, whilst the common years of the 20th century tend not to be. From the recoinage of 1816 onwards and many years in between the above, there were a handful of each denomination struck from specially prepared dies. These are anything from rare to excessively so. Rare in this instance refers to a maximum of a couple dozen pieces struck, with excessively rare being one or two known examples. Prior to 1816, proofs were generally struck at the beginning of each issue, but not all. The exception being 1746 when rather more proof crowns, halfcrowns, shillings and sixpences were struck. As Peck said, the 20th century silver may or may not be actually silver and will depend on the metal used for currency at the time. The proofs will be very reflective and brilliant as that is how they were made. They will not have been made from silver automatically, though some issues are now produced in both gold and silver. The mint will issue these in a presentation box with a certificate. Trust no one who says it is a silver issue when not accompanied by all the relevant documentation, and even then be wary as there is nothing to stop an unscrupulous person substituting a cupro-nickel example. On its own, you probably wouldn't be able to tell. I notice in your instance, the 1990 5p was produced in both silver and cupro-nickel, but both as part of sets. The former was a two coin set with the old and new sizes/designs. If you want a silver 1990 5p, I suggest you acquire an intact set in its original packaging. There are also a good number of off-metal strikes and patterns, particularly in the 19th century. Patterns are prospective designs that were not adopted. They tend to be expensive and not normally encountered. They may be struck in silver, or alternatively may be off-metal strikes in a number of other materials such as gold, silver, copper, bronze, tin, aluminium, nickel, Barton's metal etc. Off-metal strikes are those metals other than the normal currency pieces. Yes, very true. But I did take Debbie literally when she asked about "modern proofs", which to my mind are postwar - none of the regular year sets (1950, 51, 53, 1970 to the modern day) include real silver. As for coins sold on their own, as I said, only cased items with a certificate are silver (though unscrupulous dealers might substitute, as you say). I'm not sure about "you couldn't tell just from looking" - the exception perhaps being the 1972 commemorative crown which was probably the first modern commem to be issued in silver form as well as cupro-nickel. Those really are hard to tell apart, unless you have the case and the certificate; but if someone made a swap around, it would be quite difficult to detect without doing a metal test. From 1977 crowns onwards (the 2nd modern proof item where some were struck in silver) it should be far easier to tell, as those links above should demonstrate. As a brief run down - all silver proofs pre-WW2 are at least 50% silver, and before 1920 are solid silver. Between 1950 and 1971, no proofs were struck in silver. From 1972 onwards, SOME items (such as new denominations or new sizes, or higher face value commemorative items like 50p, £1, £2, £5) have a silver issue which may or may not include piedforts - all such items are cased with a certificate from the Royal Mint. Hope that helps without confusing!

All that chocolate would be bad for your waist line Gary. So is there any way of distiguishing which modern proofs are actually made from silver and which are made from cupro-nickel if they are sold individually? Are they more likely to be VIP proofs for example? The genuine silver proofs always come in a separate case, and usually have their certificate from the Mint stating they are 92.5% silver. If it's in a Mint proof set, it isn't silver. And if you compared them side by side, you would very easily tell which are real silver (it has a whitish appearance, and is often less shiny than a cupro-nickel proof.) Here's an example of each on eBay : Cupro-nickel 1977 Silver 1977

You mean, the hole isn't really there?

1 The real inflation was after the Arab-Israeli war in 1973 and the massive rise in oil prices. Decimalisation caused very little inflation, and only affected 'coppers', and only for a month or two. 2 How about this - in one 1970 price guide, a BU 1932 penny is listed at £50 (two weeks' wages then) while a BU 1797 twopence is listed at £35 !!!

What you do with them really does depend on how much verdigris. Tiny spots can be removed mechanically but from my point of view a coin encrusted with the stuff just isn't worth the candle. Thank you Red, their mostly just paper weights then. Its quite bad on most of them. I suppose in this instance I would not be slapped around the forum for cleaning them or such with Brasso to see whats under it... Try the balsamic vinegar treatment then - the worst you will do is lighten the coin quite a lot.

Yes, I've always thought that weird. After all, we've uploaded the image and therefore it's on the server and can be viewed in perpetuity by anyone browsing that thread. So why isn't there an accessible "library" of our uploaded images that we can use again if we want to?

It depends what you mean by "silver"! What we call silver is actually cupro-nickel, and so are the proofs of those denominations in the sets. However, the Mint often produces silver proofs of individual coins, and advertises them as such. If it's called "silver" by the Royal Mint, that's what it is. And you have to pay much more for it. But if it's a "silver denomination" in the proof sets, it isn't. To give a practical example.. Jubilee Crowns dated 1977 are one of the commonest commemoratives ever, and were produced in these forms : Cupro-nickel, available in their millions through banks and post offices at face value. Cupro-nickel proofs, in the 1977 proof sets. Silver proofs, sold in special cases for somewhere around £10 at the time. (They're barely worth twice that now, i.e. less in real terms).

That's Latin for "what". No, I'm none the wiser! There was once a squid that caught a cold and sneezed and snuffled at the bottom of the ocean. While incapacitated, an octopus came along, swept it up and dropped it off at another octopus's home, saying "Here's that sick squid I owe you".

Don't forget, that was the preparation of proofs, which use polished blanks as well as polished dies.

Every megapixel is sacred. Don't waste 'em. Wear on her plait is what we're looking for here and the lions/harp show wear on the reverse. Good strike though as frequently the lions are pretty poorly defined. I would micrograde and go NEF-EF. If Victoria really had looked like that she would have had all the crowned heads of Europe forming a disorderly queue outside Buckingham Palace. By all aqccounts though (mostly her own), she made up in enthusiasm for what she lacked in star quality. Her diary entry concerning her wedding night is very revealing... Sorry to be so un-PC but it is Christmas! Wow, I never knew there were diary documents out there re queen Vic! Are they compiled in a book or online resource somewhere, I'd love to read it! They're unlikely to be the undiluted thoughts of Victoria - apparently after her death Edward (VII) and Princess Alice fought in the Courts over the Royal letters and diaries; Alice won and spent the rest of her life editing them.

Yes, that was very interesting. I'd not realised quite how many stages were involved in preparing proofs.

Yes - I have a 1929 shilling like this. Once I'd learned it was acid, I can now recognise them almost instantly. I thought acid erodes and not stretch metal? Yes. But the elongated teeth may be underlying stress patterns from the strike which are normally invisible but which have been uncovered by the metal erosion.

You can console yourself with the thought that the HD recorder might be used for educational documentaries, the Kindle for lots of historical works, which will all leave too little time for the Xbox - on the other hand, pigs might fly

It's so badly worn and damaged that all one can say with any certainty is that it's an early milled copper farthing, which were produced from the 1670s to the 1770s. Worth its own weight in copper. Do you not think the bust is too close to the edge top and bottom for a farthing? Coupled with the weight which is at the top end of the range for farthings and with undoubted metal loss given the irregular flan, I thought a halfpenny might be a better option. Yes, you could well be right Rob - a cut-down halfpenny makes more sense. The bust - which is the only recognisable surviving shape - is too big on the planchet for a farthing.

In all those cases, I would ascribe it to either poor design (the downstroke of the R coincides with a milling groove - you can still make out the top of it, it's not really a P) or collar wear. In neither case would I call it an error as such.

The only proof for 1946 (if any exist) would a be a very rare VIP proof, which exist for many dates in the series. However, I've not heard of one circulating as (1) they were only issued to VIPs and (2) why would anyone spend something whose face value was only one penny but obviously worth a great deal more as a rare proof? I'm not sure why you believe yours is a proof, as it looks like a bog-standard circulated 1946.