1932 Wreath Crown ?Proof - I Don't Think So. Added Photos From a "Real" 1928 Proof Crown

7Jaguars

This is an upcoming offering, and I am concerned about this being attributed as a proof. This is a series that I have been well familiar with for over 25 years, and was the main advisor to Krause for most of that time. The reverse is rather proof like, not IMO proof status - but the obverse IMHO is clearly not with poor strike and definition, even the fields not adequate for proof status.
The all-important cheek, brow and mustache are not only not struck (again IMHO) well enough for proof status but showing just far too many marks that are only partly camouflaged by the toning and therefore largely precluding any "65" status, even for a currency strike, let alone a proof. The reason I bring this up is that there are far too many Wreaths that are in and out of TPG proof slabs that are likely not in fact such.

I am just floating this out there for comment, and not yet revealing the source (although the rocket scientists amongst you probably can figure it out). I have no interest in the outcome of the sale, nor to castigate any individuals or organizations but instead to see if interest may be generated by the general topic of Wreath crowns in proof and otherwise.
I also apologise for the mildly distorting interference coloured dispersions.

MrEureka

Just a thought, FWIW. If someone is not an expert on these coins, it can be tricky to differentiate between proof-like pieces and true proofs. For that person, the first step to determine if the coin is proof is to find images of an original 1932 Proof Set, and compare the crown in the set to the coin in question. Granted, the sets are very rare, but the images are out there.

7Jaguars

Yes, good point. I did manage a 1936 proof set some years ago and was helpful in determining the difference. I would probably rate Steve Hill of Sovereign Rarities as the most expert, but he does have a tendency to be "diplomatic"........

amwldcoin

I have an idea your opinion could change if you viewed it in hand. I'm not disputing you but I see nothing in the picture to sway my judgement either way. Compared to regular circulation examples old George seems struck up fairly well to me and the rims are blocky enough IMHO. The picture also lends me to believe the coin probably has pretty strong mirrors peeking through the toning.

7Jaguars

Yes, I hear you. However my greatest concerns are not with the fields - I have numerous examples of currency with equal or better - but rather the very poor rendering of the obverse devices and the inexcusable (IMHO) poor strike on the obverse and problems in the key areas I mentioned. This is Lot 30870 in the upcoming Heritage NYINC auction.
As Andy said, best to look at coins that came from "original" sets - these are actually VERY hard to find in person other than the BM or Royal Mint collections, though I do have a couple managed over the years.

Que_sai_je

I have had a number of true wreath crown proofs, and seen some in holders that I found questionable, but there is also some room for legitimate disagreement. IMO, a photo won't do. The blanks appeared to have not been especially well-prepared, so one needs to go by the strike and surface qualities, remembering that hard .500 fine silver will not take as sharp an impression as .925. Years ago I had a complete 1935 set with first rank provenance. One of the top UK dealers with a large firm, no longer with us, disparaged the rare 1935 .500 fine incuse edge cameo proof crown as a normal strike. Rasmussen saw it and vouched that it was unquestionably a Proof of Record and it ended up in the Royal Mint Collection.

7Jaguars

Yes, well, I have had a DOUBLE complete set of proofs, including the 1929 (ex-Pretoria) with entire sets of all years but 1929 and 1934 (lacking only the 6d), so I also have just a bit of experience. And both Mark R. and Stephen H. will vouch for my sets and background. I may add that it was me that did the pre-decimal milled Great Britain for Krause for many years.
I still say this is undoubtedly not a proof, and have severe doubts about ALL of the 1932 proof wreaths on the pop reports, not to mention some of the other dates. It is exactly the strike, and particularly the obverse as well as the less-than-satifactory marks in the key brow and cheekbone areas (to name but a few).

7Jaguars

And I think this points to the problem: this is clearly not, please see the multiple discussions on predecimal forum with regards this. My issues are not only that by consensus there, and talking with Steve H., that not only is this not a proof along with many others that have been offered, but that it is overgraded numerically as well.

7Jaguars

Here are pictures of a more certain proof graded by our hosts many years ago - it cam from an original 6 coin 1928 proof set from Spink late 1990s:

Sorry for the iPhone photos but hopefully you can see a bit of difference. See especially the flower stamens and thistle choke details in the wreath on the reverse and things like ear detail, hair and strike on obverse. Many more...

coinkat

Just some thoughts... Take them for what they are worth.

Judging a coin such as this from an image seems incomplete in terms of what should be required to complete an appropriate investigation to determine whether it is a proof... A business strike that may have been struck from proof dies or is it just an early business strike?

I would not use a 1928 proof as a comparison... It simply is not an apples to apples comparison. The population of the 1928 proofs was substantial by comparison to those from 1932. And let's go to die prep and that the 1928 sets were issued for public consumption. The same cannot be said for 1932 proofs.

There was a controversial thread on the US forum surrounding a 1933-s Walking Liberty Half Dollar and whether it was genuine. In that thread, I was stunned into silence... Not really... Just stunned into the need to point out that some coins are worth and require an in hand review before passing judgment.

This coin may very well not be a proof... I would just rather be on the same playing field as our host before rendering an opinion. They saw the coin in hand and I have not.

7Jaguars

No, it is apples to apples. The 1927 is the coin you are thinking of. 1928 proofs are VERY rare.
In fact the proofs of the 1928 year measures well up to the 1932s. I follow these carefully and while I agree pictures do not tell the whole story, they do give you a start up point. I have it on good authority that the coin in person does not impress. My general point is that this is a series that I have followed for over 25 years and many on offer are not IMHO not proofs. If you doubt this, perhaps you ought to give Steve Hill a ring and see whether or not he agrees. Actually I was really bringing this up as a service and a reminder of what apparently is the case.

coinkat

You are right in terms of the 1927 being the common proof... Not 1928. That is my mistake.

Edited to add... A bad mistake for which there is no excuse

coinkat

And a starting point is not all there is to arrive at an ending point with a coin such as this.