Eddie 7th gold Grades are in

cosmicdebris · April 12, 2004 4:17AM

1 21545890 1902 5 Pd Matte Gr.Britain PR64
2 21545891 1902 2 Pd Matte Gr.Britain PR64
3 21545892 1902 Sov Matte Gr.Britain PR64
4 21545893 1902 1/2Sov Matte Gr.Britain PR63

I am happy with all but the £2 it should have gone alittle higher.

izzy452 · April 12, 2004 4:19AM

Congrats Bill ,

MacCrimmon · April 12, 2004 4:20AM

Do you agree with the other grades?

cosmicdebris · April 12, 2004 4:24AM

The other grades are fine by me. The 1/2 SOV was in a PCGS PR63 holder that I cracked it out. The £5 was sold to me as a 64, the £2 was sold to me as a PR65/66 which I still agree with but I guess PCGS see otherwise.

P.S. Mac no body bags either.

Clankeye · April 12, 2004 4:45AM

Congratulations on the grades, Cosmic.

cosmicdebris · April 12, 2004 4:46AM

Cert Numbers work already

Thanks Carl.

Clankeye · April 12, 2004 4:56AM

Pretty fun to put the set up, isn't it Bill?

Now you have to photograph them and have images to go with the set.

That's one thing I have really enjoyed about my Carver commem reg set--photographing the coins. A lot of people just enter their cert #'s and never show pics of the coins. The pics are the best part.

Clankeye

trozau · April 12, 2004 5:06AM

Congratulations! I have a feeling that 64 is currently PCGS's and NGC's top grade for the series and they were not ready to go higher just yet. Just a WAG. Would have been cool to have matching 64 grades.

edited to add - WAG is actually correct as I just noticed that registry says highest possible set rating is 64.

ajaan · April 12, 2004 5:27AM

Nice grades and nice set Bill.

theboz11 · April 12, 2004 5:34AM

Congrat on putting together a Great Set.

cosmicdebris · April 12, 2004 6:10AM

My 64s show POP 0 with 0 higher?

joecool · April 12, 2004 7:28AM

laurentyvan · April 12, 2004 9:18AM

NO.1 is not a bad place to be in the world of PCGS.

1 Cosmicdebris's Eddie VII Gold 63.75 100 % 63.75

Congratulations!

coinkat · April 12, 2004 10:25AM

congrats on some fine grades.

wybrit · April 12, 2004 10:28AM

Verily, congratulations. That is a very tough set to get better than MS61-62, as many posts previously have said.

Placid · April 12, 2004 10:44AM

Now you can send them back to get your free pedigree

SYRACUSIAN · April 12, 2004 11:00AM

These are cool grades Bill, congratulations.
As for the half sov, I suspect that they didn't want it to match the Terner specimen's grade.Who cares? This is a stunning set!

cosmicdebris · April 12, 2004 12:10PM

Thanks guys. I am looking for that 1/2 sov in PR64.

As for the free pedigree, I already had that taken care of.

Aethelred · April 12, 2004 12:18PM

Look who just leapfrogged ahead of Terner!!!!

newsman · April 12, 2004 12:22PM

Great job, Bill!

Steve27 · April 13, 2004 1:00AM

Congrats Bill!!!

"Cosmicdebris's Eddie VII Gold - The Number One Finest Set of All Time"

tonyhar · April 13, 2004 4:55AM

trozau · April 16, 2004 9:41PM

I was just looking at the coin photos on the UK gold registry and the 1902 matte proof Terner PR64 Half-Sovereign looks like a weaker strike compared to Bill's PR63. What do you think?

Terner PR64

Bill's PR63

SYRACUSIAN · April 16, 2004 9:45PM

I think Bill is a better photographer than the one they have at Goldbergs.

trozau · April 16, 2004 9:49PM

Were they the ones that did the photos you show of your 1901 Terner MS64 half-sov? Cause it shows the same weak appearance on the St George reverse.

SYRACUSIAN · April 16, 2004 9:53PM

Yes. The coin looks much better in hand .

trozau · April 16, 2004 9:55PM

Makes sense, now. Thanks.

cosmicdebris · April 16, 2004 11:48PM

That picture of my 1/2 Sov sucks. I need to redo it and should have before I sent it to PCGS. Hopefully I can get a decent image through the slab.

What I still can not believe is that they graded the £2 the same as the £5 & £1. The £2 is clearly superior by a at least one grade point if not 2.

trozau · April 16, 2004 11:54PM

Only explanation I can think of is that no respectable TPG has yet graded these matte proof coins higher than 64 and so they are not ready to go beyond that at this point in time.

trozau · April 17, 2004 12:41AM

Just noticed that both the 1901 and 1902 half-sovs shown here have NO "B.P.". Is this fairly common with half-sovs during the period?

cosmicdebris · April 17, 2004 12:59AM

I never noticed that before.

cosmicdebris · April 17, 2004 1:07AM

Spinks does list 1902, 1903 & 1904 without B.P. and the 1904 thru 1910 with the B.P. for London Mint

1904 with and without for Perth Mint as well as 1908 & 1909 with

1902 & 1903 without for Sydney Mint as well as 1906, 1908 $ 1910 with

No mention on 1901 and before.

trozau · April 17, 2004 1:29AM

Thanks for the info. Maybe Dimitri has a rare variety that he is not aware of.

MacCrimmon · April 17, 2004 2:16AM

I don't believe any of the VOH 1/2 sov. have the B.P. initials on the Vs.

Here is my current image of the Terner 1894 half sov reverse.

SYRACUSIAN · April 17, 2004 3:24AM

Maybe Dimitri has a rare variety that he is not aware of.

I have a (dup) raw BU 1901 half sovereign of the same rare variety. PM if interested.

trozau · April 18, 2004 11:30PM

<< <i>My 64s show POP 0 with 0 higher? >>

Now officially pop 1 with 0 higher!

cosmicdebris · April 19, 2004 12:10AM

I just checked the POPs myself

By the way the screwed up the POPs on the 1/2 SOV it should be 2 (not 3) in MS63 with 1 higher. I sent my old cert in with the coins but they did not fix it.

Askari · April 24, 2004 8:28AM

Fabulous!!! Congratulations!!!!!!!

Sylvestius · April 24, 2004 7:07PM

A great set you got there.

And i also like the Union Jack on the holder!

MacCrimmon · April 25, 2004 12:43AM

<< <i>The £2 is clearly superior by a at least one grade point if not 2. >>

They'll learn eventually.......after 200-300 more examples.

Eddie 7th gold Grades are in

Comments