Options
1953 British matte proof set.
cladking
Posts: 28,720 ✭✭✭✭✭
OK, they made three of these and Krause says there are one or two known
of each of denominations. You'd think there was one of these sets missing
or something.
Which brings me to a series stupid questions since I think I may be looking at
one. These coins are in a Wayte Raymond type holder except it's heavier stock
and Meghrig No. F-2001 instead.
I had always just sort of assumed it was a rather dull looking mint set except
for the crown which is more lustrous. I've been looking a little more closely and
notice a lot of square rims on the coins with some being square on both sides.
All the coins are very sharply struck but not quite what I'd expect for a proof.
The surfaces are very clean but a couple have minor imperfections. They might
be described as startling gems except for the dull appearance.
This is not a typical mint set and it's definititely not a standard proof set in a
different holder. The biggest tell tale sign for this is the ribbon behind the queen
just trails away to nothing on each of these.
Has anyone ever seen any of these in matte proof?
Are there any known identifying characteristics?
Do you think it might be the rare proof set?
of each of denominations. You'd think there was one of these sets missing
or something.
Which brings me to a series stupid questions since I think I may be looking at
one. These coins are in a Wayte Raymond type holder except it's heavier stock
and Meghrig No. F-2001 instead.
I had always just sort of assumed it was a rather dull looking mint set except
for the crown which is more lustrous. I've been looking a little more closely and
notice a lot of square rims on the coins with some being square on both sides.
All the coins are very sharply struck but not quite what I'd expect for a proof.
The surfaces are very clean but a couple have minor imperfections. They might
be described as startling gems except for the dull appearance.
This is not a typical mint set and it's definititely not a standard proof set in a
different holder. The biggest tell tale sign for this is the ribbon behind the queen
just trails away to nothing on each of these.
Has anyone ever seen any of these in matte proof?
Are there any known identifying characteristics?
Do you think it might be the rare proof set?
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.
0
Comments
Your favorite nemesis, Eric, here again.
These are rare sets, start by doubting it is the real item as value likely for legit set likely 10k pounds/15k USD. Dare say they should clearly be proof and have an antiqueal
appearance more than matte. Please post pictures!
Mintage: nobody truly knows as by repute (and no less than ESC!) there were one or two of each denomination struck for "photographic appearances" of these 20 th. C mattes - xpt for the 1902s of course. I do not know the absolute proof of these numbers, and my guess is that the numbers may be up to five or so with perhaps more of the crowns than minors. I have found the 1937 to be VERY rare in appearance and only know of the Norweb piece shown on this site a while back.
There was a Gibraltar felow (and gal?)t seemed to be faking these up from original matte proof some years ago, and did also 1951s I think, and even used Spink 2x2s to put them in.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Hi,
Your favorite nemesis, Eric, here again.
These are rare sets, start by doubting it is the real item as value likely for legit set likely 10k pounds/15k USD. Dare say they should clearly be proof and have an antiqueal
appearance more than matte. Please post pictures!
Mintage: nobody truly knows as by repute (and no less than ESC!) there were one or two of each denomination struck for "photographic appearances" of these 20 th. C mattes - xpt for the 1902s of course. I do not know the absolute proof of these numbers, and my guess is that the numbers may be up to five or so with perhaps more of the crowns than minors. I have found the 1937 to be VERY rare in appearance and only know of the Norweb piece shown on this site a while back.
There was a Gibraltar felow (and gal?)t seemed to be faking these up from original matte proof some years ago, and did also 1951s I think, and even used Spink 2x2s to put them in. >>
It was already pretty hard for me to believe they're really what they appear to be. Now
it's even harder. They actually do have a slightly "dark" or antiqued appearance but they
are not clearly proofs. I've compared it to a regular 1953 proof set and the unc set but the
strikes look closer to the uncs but with squarer rims.
You have me pretty much convinced they must be mint coins since they clearly are not as
well struck as the proofs. A couple come close but these don't look like the proof dies.
I appreciate the feedback.
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>CK - are you like me and technically challenged in posting pictures as they would be nice?? >>
Perhaps even moreso.
They definitely are not obvious proofs. The ribbon melds into the fields like on
the uncs rather than stands above them like the proofs. The strike is a little
weak on the shillings opposite the deepest part of the portrait. Each is a lit-
tle better struck than the mint set counterpart but most just slightly. None is
close to being as well struck as the corresponding coin in the proof set. Maybe
someone picked out some nice coins from several mint sets but these are not
fully proof.
It's the square rims that made me think they might be proof, not the strikes.
BTW, I have seen 1951 coins incl. the shilling that are what I would call specimen, but not proof or unc. as there was special prep but not a proof and def. not a reg. currency; not just a first strike either.
My inclination is to call the set out on environmental grounds (OK no BP or Obama jokes here) and think it may have been plasticizer - this being hazarded without ever seeing the "culprits" so forgive for that.
Well, just Love coins, period.
what I don't know is whether any those dies would hve been used for business strikes
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I would be interested if you have a picture of one not of quality. Occ. some of the bronze has oxidized since striking or they tave been minimally mishandled, but not of lesser quality.
Some coins that have been altered to appear matte may have issues, however.
Wybrit I will check my sources on the farthing and halfpenny on the cat pictures I have to confirm (Spink sourced).
Well, just Love coins, period.
WNC Coins, LLC
1987-C Hendersonville Road
Asheville, NC 28803
wnccoins.com
I don't have one but a friend of mine, who collects world crowns has one. He also has the 1951 in matte proof also. I have attached a old pic of it.
3 Mark
<< <i>
I don't have one but a friend of mine, who collects world crowns has one. He also has the 1951 in matte proof also. I have attached a old pic of it. [IMG] He recently heard that there might be 3 of the 1953. I hope this helps
>>
Great picture. Beautiful coin.
No! None of them look at all like this.
<< <i>Start with the farthing's obverse and check that it is obverse 2. The cross should point between two beads. If it does not, it is probably not a proof. Check the halfpenny next. Here, the cross should point to a dot. If it does not, again you probably do not have a proof. >>
No. They are mint state dies.
Thanks.
<< <i>I do not claim to be an expert for 1953 GB coinage, but I believe Matte Proof examples exist in a low quantity- could this be one- I suppose its possible. Do you have any knowledge about where the coin came from?
what I don't know is whether any those dies would hve been used for business strikes >>
This is what got my imagination going as much as anything.
I found this with a 1953 mint and proof set at an estate sale many years
ago. If memory serves there was a superb 1950 proof set in the lot as well
and that's the main reason I bid at all.
Then when I noticed the holder was specially made for a 1953 mint set at
presumably great expense it just got me to thinking the set might be some-
thing pretty special.
It is still a very nice set that someone went to some effort to assemble. Each
coin is really top notch. I suppose though I'll need to disassemble it so the
individual couins can be stabilized and better protected. The penny should
even have a place in my collection.
<< <i>I don't know why but that's not what I had expected one to look like. >>
Gazza:
The pic is off. It is more "silver" in hand. He is going to reshoot it sometime in the future.
3 Mark
I suspect the mintage on the '53s must of necessity be 5 or so as I was saying.
Well, just Love coins, period.
things and got to see the picture of a matte proof. I've gone
ahead and soaked the coins in alcohol and they look even bet-
ter than they had. A few are very very gem and they're all real-
ly nice.
It's not often you see the effects of people looking for quality
so far back.
I can't make this stuff up...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
WNC Coins, LLC
1987-C Hendersonville Road
Asheville, NC 28803
wnccoins.com