Something not quite right

Gazza

This doesn't seem quite right. What do you think.
Matt crown

3Mark

And what is wrong with it? 3Mark

Gazza

The 1927 is a proof, it's not sharp enough, look at the flat areas on the reverse especially the orb below the cross on the crown and the thistle flowers. It looks worn. The worn areas should be britght through the matt surface. To me if looks like a circulated piece that has been matted.

JoesMaName

It may be fine, but I'd pass.

JCMhouston

I know the 1902's were matte but are the 27's also? Other than that, all his stuff seems over the top on pricing, particularly for raw coins and so-so images.

3Mark

The only thing that I saw, besides a lot of toning, was that he had Matte Proof in his description. These were brillant proofs (not as brillant as US proofs).3Mark

Gazza

1927 is also listed for a Matt proof. Spink quote it as of highest rarity and give no value.

wybrit

Some GV mod.eff. pieces have that flat spot around the eye but it's not necessarily wear. It's a poor picture (scan), though and I wouldn't be bidding on it only for that reason.

The other thing here is that maybe he was selling a 1902 and forgot to remove the word "Matte" from the description. I certainly have made errors similar to that in my listings until I would give them a second look or get a helpful email from someone.