VIP Proof yea or nay?

ajaan · August 24, 2008 10:29PM

Do you think this is a VIP Proof 1960 1/2d?

1960 1/2d

7Jaguars · August 24, 2008 11:11PM

Well, it looks proof, but the pictures are really less than they might be as it could even be buffed or polished. I saw it and thought about it when it was listed & thought, damn, wish it was a penny.

Those 1/2d's are kind of unloved. I think the 1958 (with all due respect to those that have been posted on this site) is by far the most common for some reason and that the other dates are quite a bit more rare, including the 1960.

theboz11 · August 24, 2008 11:15PM

Not that I know anything about them , but it the relief on that ship and the proof field would make me a believer.

lordmarcovan · August 24, 2008 11:18PM

I wouldn't know a VIP proof 1960 1/2d if you took a slingshot and thwocked me between the eyes with it, but yeah, that looks proof...like.

What's the story on the VIP proofs? I am underinformed, it would seem.

ajaan · August 24, 2008 11:47PM

I agree that the 1958 1/2d VIP proof is the most common. I have 2 of them. That said, they aren't common. I really haven't seen any other VIP 1/2d coins and would love to own the 1960 if it really is a VIP.

newbiecollector · August 24, 2008 11:57PM

What Rob said except...........

I'm dumb

1960NYGiants · August 25, 2008 8:49AM

that auction came up on one of my searches. My immediate reaction was "yeah right" get it certified and I may bid on it. Looks polished to me.

JCMhouston · August 25, 2008 9:29AM

It could well be a proof, I am certainly not expert in the 20th C. pieces. However looking at the obverse fields there appears to be much going on there that should not be.

As 1960 intimated, if it was a good proof it would probably be entombed already.

coinkat · August 25, 2008 9:34AM

Ajaan:

When it comes to a coin like this, it really seems to make sense to submit this to either PCGS or NGC or even the British grading service. While it may look tempting in the picture and it really could be a proof, however; if I am the seller of the coin, it would be graded for the mutual benefit of myself and the buyer.

ajaan · August 25, 2008 9:41AM

I sent the selller a question and here is his reply:

<< <i>I have no guarantee as I have not had the coin certified. But if you had it checked and showed me the proof it was not a VIP specimen then I would agree to refund your buying cost no problem. >>

Now to decide if it's worth a $270 chance.

coinpictures · August 25, 2008 10:28AM

Tread carefully here, Don. I don't like the seller's response to you. He wants PROOF that it's not a proof (no pun intended). In other words, you get the coin in hand and in your opinion it's polished/whizzed/problematic... what if that doesn't constitute "proof" in his mind? You're screwed.

A truly legit seller would allow you a 7 or 14 day return privilege no questions asked (in my opinion).

Furthermore, in order to get PCGS or NGC to turn it around in quick enough time to ensure that you're within the limits of a PayPal dispute, you're paying for a considerably higher tier of service.

Personally, I'd stay away.

spinaker2000 · August 25, 2008 11:11AM

I thought you were a '58 kinda guy!!

I'd pass on this one.

7Jaguars · August 25, 2008 12:28PM

Seller does have an attitude problem.

I do completely disagree that if it was a VIP proof it would be already "entombed" - in fact the vast majority are NOT.

I think seller should agree that if not satisfied he would cover a return as 270 is not a small amount of money.

VIP proofs took on that moniker perhaps somewhat unfairly as they are better called "proofs of record" as they were proofs especially struck for record of the date and many went to museums, a few to visitors, and others to those with connections. The non-standard year proofs, and I mean other than 1927, 1937, 1950, 1951 & 1953 are as Ajaan pointed out decidedly rare but I would not go so far as to blanket their mintages as 5-10, or even 20, struck when in fact there are no good files or records. We come to conclusions (?) about relative scarcity by how many and how often they show up in major auctions, sales, etc.

BTW, I would be very, very wary of "VIP" or "proofs of record" of the non-standard year Wreath crowns as there have been many of these commonly PL struck crowns that I have seen encapsulated that are probably quite questionable as proof - will not name names here.

coinkat · August 25, 2008 7:54PM

Let me clerify my point. If a coin such as 1960 VIP 1/2 is being sold on ebay, then having it graded makes sense. If it is being sold at a show liket the NY international, and can be viewed in hand, then it is not necessary

7Jaguars · August 26, 2008 1:15AM

Actually, I have seen and bought any number off of the internet that are NOT encapsulated but with the understanding that a return if not satisfied.

BTW, as I look at this coin it seems there are some hairlines in the fields, so it is not pristine; however, when one takes into account the quality of the picture it is consisent with the appearance of a proof (not going to stake my rep on that however).

ajaan · August 26, 2008 1:24AM

The obverse look OK to me. It's the reverse that looks funky.

7Jaguars · August 26, 2008 2:48AM

Reverse looks good to me, though, and there is a early verdigris spot perhaps developing. There does seem to be some cameo contrast to both sides. I have a number of these and this piece appears representative of these.

ajaan · August 26, 2008 2:53AM

Do the sails look OK? That is what is bothering me.

MrEureka · August 26, 2008 4:54AM

A truly legit seller would allow you a 7 or 14 day return privilege no questions asked (in my opinion).

I agree. That's why you should specifically ask for it. After all, the seller may not be a mind reader.

7Jaguars · August 26, 2008 5:00AM

Sails fine, that is part of the cameo effect. I think there are hairlines in the obv. fields.

VIP Proof yea or nay?

Comments