A pretty battered 1902 2Sov Proof. Any idea why?
Redfox
Posts: 33 ✭✭
As the title states. I've been looking through PCGS realized prices report, and found the piece.
As far as I know these coins where supposed to be handled carefully, as they were "specially" made as
collectibles (although they were usually wiped at the mint.)
And it just boggles me, how a proof coin can end up in such a battered condition.
Graded PF 61 by NGC, sold by Stacks Bowers.
0
Comments
A bored royal.
Interesting, but nice !!!
Looks like someone spent it!
Quite fortunate to have gone 61 there.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Me thinks it was a pocket piece for a brief time. Still nice no matter what. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
I really don't get the TPGs sometimes, and it is not simple "mechanical" but rather less than subjective (as if that were possible). I know it is not "Pol. Correct", but still.
OK, so here is my own MP 1902 2 Pounds, GTG....Not to pirate the thread:
Well, just Love coins, period.
61 is too generous.
Having seen the big sized gold 60-61-62s that go in the slabs (all TPG) then I would say this grade does not surprise me.
My pre-caffeinated brain did not see wear, just a coin that has had the snot beaten out of it for whatever reason. Most of the high points seem okay, and can't tell if it's glare/shadow on the knuckles holding the sword and the helmet vs. other areas that take the wear (leg etc). It could be wear, or just the lighting. Pre-caffeine was leaning away from it...but as I sipped my coffee and typed, I became a little less sure. It could be wear. Then I would lean towards 'pocket piece'.
So if not wear, then 60-61 I give to the person who had it in hand. Honestly, without it in hand, if it were the 5 pound (or other country's equivalent) I wouldn't be shocked at a 62--assuming it was a bit nicer in hand. Some photography really emphasizes the flaws.
Gold grading is certainly more lenient overall, especially this size and larger--and I've seen that in more than one TPG.
And the 1902 is very hard to find 64 and higher (recently saw @7Jaguars 2 pounder in another conversation
). On these the mint wiping seems to hold a lot of them at 62. And, as @7Jaguars mentioned elsewhere, finding them in higher grades and actually deserving them is difficult indeed. Sometimes the wiping seems to be 'mint applied' and other times hold back the grades.
The top coin does not look like a proof coin to me. I guess they didn't make proofs with a mirror surface because the bottom coin does look like a proof. Is 1902 a proof only year?
I have felt that the grading of gold coins is far too lenient for a very long time. If a coin does not exist in a true high grade state then it does not exist in a high grade state and should not be graded as such.
@7Jaguars, I'd venture to say, that it's a PF-62. The grade steams from the mint wiping, that I think is present on the reverse.
Otherwise it is a very nice piece, without any hits. (Which can't be said about the one that has started the thread
).
Yes, excellent guess and spot (ha ha) on.
You may be right about the OP coin not being a MP; I will say that the mattes generally have the dirtier bronze appearance of the coin I showed.
I got the Cheshire 2 pounds in MS64 and looks similar to it.
Well, just Love coins, period.