Proof British Coins of the Early 1930's - Recent/Ongoing Auctions
7Jaguars
Posts: 7,583 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have looked at these online and have been somewhat disappointed in them as I have seen crowns and minor silvers offered that do not appear to be actual proofs, but rather Proof-Like and/or early strike. Hopefully somebody can link it up, but one example would be the 1933 Proof in NGC 65 in the upcoming Superior sale & another would be a couple of purported 1934 proof crowns.
I have more than a little familiarity with the George V series of silver proofs and specimen strikes (1922-1936) and have been disappointed at the designation as proof of many of these, at least as they appear online. Many of the actual proofs, especially in the earlier period described lack cameo contrast but have much finer strike details, squared off rims, and even with toning have a different field than the earlier or PL strikes of these coins.
With the 1934, the production run was alleged to have been limited to just a few over 900 and almost all that I have seen have at least a Prooflike appearance as there just were not that many strikes in total. An early strike in this series and especially this date will definately have appearance that seem similar to the Proofs and it takes in person inspection to tell. Besides the above general characteristics, the inner portion of the edge must be inspected and the cross in the orb above the crown should be well delineated & there should be a crispness that the PL coins lack; admittedly even experts will disagree, but I think the criteria for acceptance as proof may be a little too loose.
The minors, and I have already pointed out the 1933 3d, commonly have a PL appearance in early strike format & the 3d small format seems to allow for excellent metal fill of the devices as well as very clean mirrorlike fields. Still, just as with the crowns, there should be a superior appearance that needs to be seen in person. I don' t mean to pick on Superior or this coin in particular, but at least from the pictures I have to question this particular specimen.
Maybe others have more resolution or have seen the coin in person - what do you readers think? Is it possible that "N" has been too loose in grading/evaluating these as proofs? I could be wrong but the estimates on a few appear a bit liberal as well & this as opposed to the usual undershoot in estimated value.
I have more than a little familiarity with the George V series of silver proofs and specimen strikes (1922-1936) and have been disappointed at the designation as proof of many of these, at least as they appear online. Many of the actual proofs, especially in the earlier period described lack cameo contrast but have much finer strike details, squared off rims, and even with toning have a different field than the earlier or PL strikes of these coins.
With the 1934, the production run was alleged to have been limited to just a few over 900 and almost all that I have seen have at least a Prooflike appearance as there just were not that many strikes in total. An early strike in this series and especially this date will definately have appearance that seem similar to the Proofs and it takes in person inspection to tell. Besides the above general characteristics, the inner portion of the edge must be inspected and the cross in the orb above the crown should be well delineated & there should be a crispness that the PL coins lack; admittedly even experts will disagree, but I think the criteria for acceptance as proof may be a little too loose.
The minors, and I have already pointed out the 1933 3d, commonly have a PL appearance in early strike format & the 3d small format seems to allow for excellent metal fill of the devices as well as very clean mirrorlike fields. Still, just as with the crowns, there should be a superior appearance that needs to be seen in person. I don' t mean to pick on Superior or this coin in particular, but at least from the pictures I have to question this particular specimen.
Maybe others have more resolution or have seen the coin in person - what do you readers think? Is it possible that "N" has been too loose in grading/evaluating these as proofs? I could be wrong but the estimates on a few appear a bit liberal as well & this as opposed to the usual undershoot in estimated value.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
Well, just Love coins, period.
Well, just Love coins, period.
0
Comments