Is the 1887 Crown undervalued in MS vs Proof?

bidask

After all there were over 1000 proof coins struck.

Not a whole lot of difference in Proof specimens vs MS specimens in 65.

Here is my MS specimen . Really nice in hand .

http://bluccphotos.com/clients/bidask/8-31-15/Pages/5.html

Yorkshireman

Very nice looking coin.

Zohar

Pretty!

7Jaguars

These are a bit scarcer when as nice as yours, but there are so many EF-AU that IMO the coin has been stereotyped as common regardless. Right now there is a continued frenzy for the '87 and '93 proofs that is not (IMO) warranted. These coins go on the log value scale even when a 64 CAM cannot be readily distinguished from a 66 CAM on many occasions. I think there is a bit of spillover from the gold proofs of this era and people have gone off the deep end on these proofs.

Without being crass, can you give us a ballpark figure for what the coin went for? My candidate for undervalued late Vicky crowns are some of the Regnal year veiled heads such as the 1893 LVII.

coinkat

After reading the details of your thread, one can make the argument that a gem 1887 crown in 65 or 66 is a condition rarity and not enough have likely traded hands to support what an appropriate valuation should be. So is it undervalued? That depends on the future interest in high grade Victorian crowns. I suspect the other downside to the 1887 date is the number saved and remain that have yet to be graded.

bidask

I still own this one wish I could find more like this .

7Jaguars

I believe a few "currency" bits have gone high recently but did not record the values. I do feel that other dates and regnal years are deserving most likely of higher prices based on how scarce they are. That '87 may have been one of the currency sets the Royal Mint sold but were not quite up to "Specimen" (ie proof status). A beautiful coin with some silky luster underlying.

TouchOfGrey

Man, that is a stunner for sure. Do you know anything about the pedigree?

SYRACUSIAN

If we were talking about gold £5 it would have been a different story. Both for 1887 and 1893 where MS gem examples have indeed appreciated and yet I still think that they are very undervalued compared to the explosion, that the proofs of the same years have seen. Not to mention the incomprehensible space explosion of the 1911 proof sets and in particular the £5 pounders where it has become an inch competition….

So as a general rule of thumb and without often looking at finalized prices (but for crowns I do, just more often the 1893 than the 1887) I’d say that they are undervalued, especially as nice as yours. One more reason to get them!