Nick

I was reading an article about the 1882 no-H penny which provided a reference to regulations introduced at the Mint in 1864. The reference is to B.M.C. page 417. Can anybody provide the details of the reference, as I don't have access to a copy of Peck's book?

It's a perfectly decent coin, but £700 is way too strong - it would probably make about half of that at auction.

I know of another three for certain, so the population will eventually turn out to be in double figures (if not three figures). I've got two, one of which I've had for several years without realizing they were that scarce. Hi Nick - two of what? The Halfcrown, Crown or the mule penny? Or two proof sets? There are (now I believe) three different proof sets - the standard set issued for general population (40,000 made); the VIP Set (as names implies) for special gifts and I suspect less than 100 made but could be as low as 20 and the (as far as I have been able to find) pre-production proof set that was given to advisers to the Bank of England. For the latter it is estimated that there are no more than six produced (but finding out details is quite difficult). Hi Bill, I highlighted in bold the relevant part of the reply, but in case it isn't that clear on some displays - I know of three (in addition to those known to CGS) of the 1+A proof halfcrowns. Gary D has two of them and I have another one. I find it hard to believe that there are so few of them. I found one within a few weeks of starting to look.

I've never heard of a 'shift' + key combination being used in that way, it's usually Ctrl or Ctrl-Shift etc. Is that an I-phone thing? Anyway, pressing Shift-R or A makes no difference to my web browsing experience. Yes its to do with phone browsers, some networks reduce the bandwidth by limiting the picture size until you request an improved image. i have never had it happen on my i-phone, but I have heard of other mobile users having similar issues. Thanks Colin. I just did a quick google to find out about it and it seems to be that some mobile internet providers have enabled high image compression by default to reduce the amount of bandwidth eaten up by downloading hi-res pictures. It also appears that it can be turned off if so desired and you're happy to pay for the consequences.

I've never heard of a 'shift' + key combination being used in that way, it's usually Ctrl or Ctrl-Shift etc. Is that an I-phone thing? Anyway, pressing Shift-R or A makes no difference to my web browsing experience.

I know of another three for certain, so the population will eventually turn out to be in double figures (if not three figures). I've got two, one of which I've had for several years without realizing they were that scarce. Of the three that I mentioned, two belong to you and the third is mine.

Thank you Peter, I joined this chat group because after looking at the posts over the last month or so, you all seem like nice people with interesting things to say and knowledge to share. Yes the predecimal proof coins are rare and expensive - thats OK its actually the contemporary cases that give me the most trouble they are virtually uncollectable. I am actually a researcher by trade and do numismatic research as part of my hobby I really look forward to working more and sharing in this area of early proof coinage - particularly their methods of manufacture. Has anyone noticed that the horse on the 1893 proof crown reverse comes in with and without teeth versions- yes its true . This is not noted in the varities listed on the CGS website http://www.coingradingservices.co.uk/?page=valuations_by_grade_list but I expect its covered by one of the other die descriptions. I'd never noticed that before. Nice. Just looked at my pictures of currency crowns and the 1893 LVII has teeth.

I know of another three for certain, so the population will eventually turn out to be in double figures (if not three figures).

I'm guessing the potential bidders were distracted somehow...

Hi Bill, I'll ask the question again. Where are the terms and conditions for this guarentee defined? The T+C's attached to the coin submission form make no mention of any guarentee for slabbed coins with problems.

You'd need an accurate set of scales but the specific gravities are far enough apart to be able to work out which is which.

The slab plastic costs pennies! Even at non-commercial rates, you can buy the plastic shells for around 50p (I think it was something like that, I do remember it being insignificant when I looked) from the US (made me consider encapsulating my own coins, if the main argument is 'protection'). Without the post, £11 fee, or petrol costs involved, it wouldn't be a such bad day-job, sticking a £2 coin in a slab and calling it AU/UNC etc, and then firing it out to the masses at £20+ a throw. In my view it's only economically viable for one source! I've never heard of any collector submitting a 1967 1d for encapsulation, but I bet they're out there! I bet someone somewhere once had a mint roll of them, and just sat up all night with a tube of glue and a cup of coffee, just before a holiday in Mauritius? According to the CGS population report, they've slabbed 62 of them.

Evaluating the specific gravity for each would tell them apart.

The dull/bright distinction is about as difficult to spot as the smaller/larger reverse design in the G5 series.

I do too, but not quite as much as I do the 2005 sovereign design.

The face, leg detail and blanket binding all looks less than perfect to me. Not that I know anything about milled coin grading , but VF ish? Whatever average number that might be. High 50s? You can definitely buckle THAT boot up! Where's that one for sale, see if I can't beat Dave in the CGS League Tables? It went for $3000 at Heritage a couple of months ago. It's also supposedly one of the .925 silver proofs. Funny, I thought all the raised edge proofs were .925 silver.

Hack-saw through the top corner, then lever apart with a screwdriver, moving slowly and carefully all the way around.

The face, leg detail and blanket binding all looks less than perfect to me. Not that I know anything about milled coin grading , but VF ish? Whatever average number that might be. High 50s? Now here's a nice one: Nice. But that's a proper proof, rather than a proof-like specimen.

It's really difficult to tell a grade from the picture, but I'll take a stab at UNC82.

Nothing fake about those pandas.

Oh dear, oh, dear! That can only have developed in the slab if it's CGS! You're going to have to crack it out to arrest it surely? From some of the previous statements made in the other CGS thread, I'm assuming if you return it to CGS you'll get compensation (not!) but, at the very least, you'd think they'd be happy to re-slab for free and cover your postage costs, once you've neutralised the verd? Re the grade, at that end of the scale you really do need some serious close-ups. I did mention in another thread about the buckles on the side of the boot, are they still proud/struck-up? Or have they been pushed back into the seam? Actually, I'm really looking forward to a major close-up on the boot of Dave's proof, must remember to ask him! I'm certain that CGS don't pay compensation for any deterioration in the slab. They only pay market value if you can prove that it's a fake, and even then you have to be the original submitter and also prove it's fake without removing it or tampering with the slab - so you have zero chance of that. Surely, they would refuse to re-slab after removing the 'green' as it has been cleaned.

I thought when I saw your photos, that it looked like a 'bright' variety, but I just don't know whether you can judge by the colour or not. Perhaps Dave G. (or anybody else for that matter) can enlighten us? Would be great if it was a 'bright', as I'm led to believe it's the scarcer variety? It definitely is the scarcer of the two. Probably about the same scarcity as the ME 1926 3d.

I thought when I saw your photos, that it looked like a 'bright' variety, but I just don't know whether you can judge by the colour or not. Perhaps Dave G. (or anybody else for that matter) can enlighten us?

Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller. As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies). Interesting - it's counter-intuitive, you'd almost expect the opposite, that small coins would not wear out dies as quick as halfcrowns and pennies. But maybe it has something to do with the force of the blow applied by the machinery? I'm assuming it was equal for all denominations and therefore was higher than it really needed to be for the small ones. I'd have to disagree about your 3d Nick - it's a stronger strike for sure, but I'd say it is actually brighter than Coinery's, not duller. Or so it seems to me, comparing the pictures. The dull or bright quality is difficult to judge. I believe that the bright finish coins were blanched and should therefore look rather silvery, whereas the dull ones should look that yellowy colour of the early 1920's silver. Therefore I tend to try and judge by colour rather than brightness, but I may be completely wrong.

Ah, 1922 is an interesting date. For pennies, it was the second occurrence of the redesigned portrait (which had been done for silver coins in 1920-1). However, the problem with G5 obverse strikes - 1st series - is confined to the larger denominations. It doesn't apply to the 6d, farthing, or 3d, which had no obverse redesign until the Modified Effigy, as they didn't need it. You will see the same portrait design on those from 1911 to 1926, with slight variations in 1911 : all denominations, and 1914 onwards : farthings. Therefore I would suggest your 1922 3d is simply a wearing die for the obverse. But do also bear in mind that getting crisp detail on such small denomination dies was extremely difficult, and you will see a lot less detail on the sixpence lion reverse than you do on the shilling reverse, even though it's the same design! Just for reference: the difficult dates in high grade for GV 3d are : 1925, 1926, 1928, and 1930 (though oddly, I've seen more high grade 1928s than the other dates mentioned). Thanks, P, I don't know how you remember all this stuff! I've started copying and pasting these types of posts to Word! Agree with Peck about the wearing die on the obverse. The reverse also looks a bit weak on the left side of the wreath. Yours looks to be on the brighter side of dull than most and is certainly brighter than mine (attached). Most that I have seen are dull or even duller. As an aside, looking at the statistics contained within the Royal Mint annual reports shows that of all the silver coins (excluding Maundy) the threepence invariably gives the lowest coins per die pair strike average. For example, in 1873 when the Royal Mint were struggling to obtain good quality steel for dies, the figures show that it took 763 obverse and 193 reverse dies to produce just over 4 million threepences (or 8,462 threepences per pair of dies).