coinsandmedals

15 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

 

Hey! I'll have you know that after I retire from state government service, I hope to resemble that remark! 

Haha, I am sure you will fit right in with the eclectic crowd! I may even join you in a few decades after I finish my career.

As a general rule, I try to avoid buying a coin simply to have an example of it in my collection. This was not always the case and there are a few coins I plan to upgrade at some point. Like most others, this comes down to obtaining the best example I can within my budget. With that said there are some coins which I just have to accept what I can get. For example, the coin pictured below is a pattern halfpenny issued under William and Mary. NGC has only one graded (an MS-65!!) and my coin is the only example at PCGS. Two of the three auction results I was able to locate for examples of Peck-594 are for the coin that is now in my collection. The other auction record was for a better-preserved example that sold on Heritage 5 years ago. I was able to add this example for cheap and even though it is a very low grade it is essentially the best example I can hope to pick up for the foreseeable future. So I suppose the answer to your question is that it depends.

3 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

So then why, when I check the certification number on your slab, does it come up as a CLEANED Peruvian 8 escudo coin, you scammer you? Try another scam, sir.

The Cert number is fine but the story is still complete bogus. He said he just got this coin back and yet the same exact one sold back in 2014. 

Welcome to the boards. Let me start by asking you a question. Do you know what the term “proof” refers to. It’s not simply a shiny a coin and you may be able to answer your own question by making sure you understand that term first and foremost.

This should contain the information you need. The MM is a cow. 

Link to NGC world price guide

Our hosts have a digital copy of Krause available that can be found easily by googling “NGC world coin guide”. Hope this helps! 

2 hours ago, Greenstang said:

Your choice, suggest phoning first as some are closed weekends

https://www.yellowpages.ca/search/si/1/Coin+Dealers+&+Supplies/Montreal+QC ur cho

Thanks, Greenstang! I found a few googling but I was really hoping someone had experience dealing with them. As I am sure you know, coin dealers can be a very odd breed. 

I will be traveling to Montreal this November to present at a conference, and I will undoubtedly have some free time over the weekend while there. This is my first time visiting and although I am more than happy to hear any general tips, I am very interested to know if anyone has experience with the coin shops in the area. Any and all tidbits, comments, or thoughts are greatly appreciated.

It is definitely not a 65 by any means and the pictures really make me doubt it is a proof either. This is not my series so will let someone else more knowledgeable on the subject chime in. In the meantime here is a link to a website that may be helpful (Link to 1858 proof dime info). The interesting thing will be to look at the 5 once you get in hand.

3 hours ago, Prethen said:

How many were minted?

This is a fair, but unlikely to be answered question. I have not been able to locate mint records for the time and none the reference materials I have are useful for this information. I would hazard to say not many bronzed proof examples exist. The regular proof strikes are found with some frequency but I was only able to locate 3 prior sales of the 1822 bronzed pieces. And two of those were the same coin that was sold twice. There are none at NGC and PCGS only lists my coin. Of course, I do not put a lot of stock in the PCGS reports for these coins. I have found countless inconsistencies. For example, the other sold 1822 bronzed proof was graded by PR-64 by PCGS and it does not show in their reports. Granted the last time the coin sold was 13 years ago and it could have been removed from the holder and the label returned to PCGS.

31 minutes ago, thebeav said:

I'm not familiar with the term 'bronzed'.....I assume it's like a gilt, only with bronze ?

It is essentially the same idea but the planchet is brushed with a bronze rub before striking. I think I go into a little more detail in the write up of my registry set listed in my signature.  

Thanks everyone for the compliments/likes. 

2 hours ago, Weidel Legacy Collection said:

Beautiful looking coin!  It has to be gorgeous in hand.

The pictures are good but are nothing compared to it in hand. It makes all my other Irish copper look bad. 

I agree with Greenstang. Good job with the pictures. It can be difficult to get closeup images like that and you seem to have it down. 

Welcome to the forum! Let me start by saying that this is a Mercury dime and not a Barber dime. I am not the best with errors so I will not chime in on that topic, but I know the others will be able to help you better if you post a clear close-up picture of the entire coin. 

So long as the folders are dry and not moldy it should be fine. Judging by their appearance I don’t think you’ll have any issues. You may want to pop one out and just make sure the backside of the album looks fine under the coin. 

6 hours ago, MIKE BYRNE said:

Go to a dealer but a red book and weigh it it. It doesn't get any simpler.

 

Mike, weighing the coin will do no good. A war nickel should weigh 5 grams which is the same weight of a 1946 nickel. Not to mention traveling 3 hours to a dealer would be a wasted trip when a rebook can be purchased online and would be essentially useless for the original question. 

Wow, the last few days have been so crazy I forgot it! I suppose enough time has passed. 

1. NGC gave this one a VF-30 BN grade. I graded it at a 35 when I first purchased it but I like it better in the 30 holder. The coin suits the grade well. 
2. This came back as PF-35 which is fair but I had originally graded it as a 40. This is a scarce piece with only 5 graded at NGC so I am just pleased to have it! 
3. I had originally graded this as an MS-63 BN. I struggled with this coin because the reverse is a solid 64 but the obverse is more along the lines of a 62. I have no issue with it in a 62 holder. 
4. This one caught me off guard. I had graded it as an Xf-40. It appears NGC agreed it is an XF, but rim damage yielded it in a details holder. I did not catch the damage before I submitted but looking at it I understand why it was given a details grade. 
5. Unfortunately this coin is damaged. The obverse has two noticeable scratches. One protruding from the forehead and another across his neck. I submitted this coin because I wanted it to be protected from further damage. If it were not for the scratches I believe this coin is a solid PF-65 BN. 
6. Out of the entire submission, this is the only coin that came back exactly as I had expected. NGC graded this as an MS-63 BN. It’s a very strong strike with somewhat subdued luster but overall a very nice coin. 
7. As usual, this has been a learning process. It gave me a swift reminder that there is more to a coin than just the obverse and reverse. Overall I’m happy with the results and I look forward to my next submission. 

Thank you thebeav and Bob for playing along!

That’s pretty cool, congratulations! I had hoped you would update us with the results. Glad to see it all worked out for you. 

7 hours ago, KarenHolcomb said:

I do love the Nickels. They are the coin I find the coolest errors on. Honestly I still have 2 rolls unsearched. Same year and Brian's list for the year wasn't complete. So far there are like 50 listed! Lol! But now that I know some more I will definitely be sorting them before I do any more Lincoln's. Also, 1 roll was full of the same DDR accompanied by varying degrees of either Major Reverse Laminations or pretty severe Obverse Cracks, some with both. I mean nearly every single Nickel in the roll! I figure because there were so many they likely aren't valuable but I was amazed at them all being together like that and they are all in my Nickel binder. Tomorrow I will pick the most severe and send you some pics. Heck, I'd send you one of each if you'd like. So until then, baa-bye! -Karen

That’s awesome! I’m glad you found some cool stuff. They had been sitting in a box for at least a decade and I figured they would be more appreciated by someone who would take the time to look at them. It sounds like the one was a very interesting roll. No need to send a bunch of pics but it would be cool to see some of the more severe examples.  

6 minutes ago, KarenHolcomb said:

Ah! I've used up my reactions for the day. Thanks a bunch C&M. Didn't I get a bunch of Nickel rolls from you a while back? Maybe? It's been a while, maybe not.

 

Yes! Yes! Bob. I think that comes pretty close. Lol!

Yeah, I believe you got a few late 1950s rolls from me at some point. I hoped you would find something cool in them. I had those things forever with the intent to look at them but never did. I’m glad to see you’re still going strong. I think it is very cool to have your name linked to the attribution. 

Congratulations!! Keep up the good work! 

I decided to change things up a bit and wait until the results came back from NGC before I posted them here for the guess the grade. So we have 6 coins in total with grades ll over the board. As always, feel free to submit your guesses. If you think the coin has issues (i.e. cleaned, scratched, damaged, whizzed, etc) and warranted a details grade feel free to state so. 

1. 1694 England Farthing 

2. 1694 England Pattern Farthing (P-623A) Silver 

3. 1771 Great Britain Halfpenny 

4. 1694 England Halfpenny 

5.1799 Great Britain Soho Bronzed Pattern Halfpenny P-1234

6. 1805 Ireland Penny 

Excellent questions Bob! 

Do you agree with the slight bump in grade that it got? I had originally thought this coin was likely somewhere in the 45-50 range so the slight bump in grade was not much of a surprise. I think I liked it better in the XF holder but I tend to be a little conservative when it comes to these giants.  

Where is the "Tooling"? This is a tough question to answer. As you know, NGC does not justify this type of determination. I assume they came to this conclusion based off of the numerous scratches on the obverse and reverse fields. Although not what I typically think of when the term "tooled" comes up, it is possible that someone attempted to smooth the surfaces of the coin to remove the noticeable scratches in the gilt. This would partially explain the numerous hairline scratches. This same surface condition is evident of George III's cheek as well. Comparing this coin with other circulated gilt proof coins in my collection the surfaces are very different. This makes me think that the tooling was done to enhance the coin by removing or smoothing out noticeable scratches in the gilt. 

Here is an example of another circulated proof gilt coin. Notice the difference in the surfaces of the coins. This is a 1788 Great Britain gilt pattern halfpenny (P-965) that came back PF-35. 

I just got this coin back from NGC and they agree that it is in fact P-1073. The "restrike" note is a bit puzzling as Peck lists this as a late Soho piece and not a "restrike". For those of you unfamiliar with the issue, it can be difficult if not impossible to classify a piece as either an early Soho, late Soho or restrike. Peck notes that the term "late Soho" is reserved for coins struck at the Soho mint possibly after that date indicated on the coin. Although these coins were struck at a later date they are not classified as restrikes but rather as "late Soho" pieces. The term "restrike" is used to denote pieces that were not struck at the Soho mint but were instead struck using dies purchased by Taylor from the Soho Mint in 1848. Peck lists 1073 as a late Soho piece suggesting that he had a reasonable amount of data to determine that this coin was struck at the Soho Mint and not by Taylor. It seems to be that the term "restrike" is not an accurate description of the coin if NGC is following the guidelines provided by Peck, which they seem to be given that they attribute pieces using his classifications. I understand not noting the coin as a pattern; however, would it not suffice to label the coin as a gilt proof or as a late Soho piece? I wonder why they decided to note the coin as a restrike when it does not fit the criteria put forth by Peck to be labeled as such. 

On any note, here is the final result. This thing is in an extra thick holder and taking pictures without a shadow of some sort was nearly impossible. I did my best, but there are noticeable shadows. If I get a chance I will take some new pictures tonight.