Slab images
RobP
Posts: 483 ✭✭
Do the people across the street keep images of the coins slabbed as a matter of course or by request or what?
I'm trying to see if there is a picture of a 1791 pattern halfpenny in gold which I assume is still slabbed PR64 ultra cameo. I don't have a reference number for it though. Any help appreciated. Thanks.
I'm trying to see if there is a picture of a 1791 pattern halfpenny in gold which I assume is still slabbed PR64 ultra cameo. I don't have a reference number for it though. Any help appreciated. Thanks.
0
Comments
Mind you I don't think the images are top quality, just quick scans if I remember correctly. I suppose it depends when the coin was slabbed. If it was a while ago and the owner didn't request images there may not be any.
http://stjauctions.com/assets/applets/SJA15part1.pdf
There's a P.1059 1791 gold 1/2 in lot 524 as well.
Is that the one Rob?
<< <i>I think it could be lot 525 ex Murdock collection, sold by St james.. Pictured here:
http://stjauctions.com/assets/applets/SJA15part1.pdf
There's a P.1059 1791 gold 1/2 in lot 524 as well.
Is that the one Rob? >>
Yes it is, but I was hoping that it could be viewed on the TPG website.
Hopefully someone else can help.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
<< <i>You just need to have the slab number then do a verification on their site, if they have an image of it then it will show in the verification results. >>
Can you not do a search by type or denomination? I've been on the site, but haven't found a matching type listed.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
In 2008 there was a sale in Plymouth, UK, of approximately 30 gold patterns formerly belonging to Evan Roberts that had been off the market since he purchased them 104 years earlier in the Murdoch sale. I acquired a number of lots at the sale, one of which was this R66 halfpenny dated 1791.
Courtesy of the warts and all scan, you can see there is a significant scrape to the cheek which was as reflective as the field. The bust was a cameo as you might expect and so this blemish stood out like a sore thumb. I held on to the coin until selling it to Stephen Fenton (St. James's Auctions) at the Harrogate Fair in the UK in March 2010. Fast forward 6 months and the coin reappeared in the Mitchell-David and other properties sale of patterns and proofs at St. James's on 30th Sept. 2010 lot 525. In the interim it had obviously been exported from the UK and sold to a customer in a foreign country (presumably the US) as it was flagged in the catalogue as attracting 5% import VAT for UK purchasers which applies to imports from outside the EU. It had also been slabbed by NGC in this time and was now PR64 Ultra Cameo. The image from the St. James's catalogue is below.
As you can see from the catalogue images, there is now no trace of the scratch on the cheek. It is unquestionably the same coin as the 3 digs in front of the knee, curved hairline by Britannia's head, the spot between I & T and the hairs in the bottom right of the exergue all confirm the reverse as identical. The obverse can be matched by the mark on the raised rim at 7 o'clock, the pattern of spots behind the head, the broken annulet mark in front of the nose and the crossed hairs in front of the forehead. So given all the minor features are present and provide corroborative evidence of identity, the total absence of the major excavation project on the cheek means that the coin has been doctored some time between March & September last year. The catalogue image shows a slight discolouration of the cheek which I assume is due to the slightly different gold mix used for the repair. I think I can say with confidence that there is no way it would have made PR64 with the gouge as seen. It was also a long way short of the PR63 slabbed, but absolutely gorgeous double Britannia reverse (lot 522 and ex-DNW 2006)) in terms of field quality. As you can see from the catalogue description, there is nothing matching the coin I sold 15 months ago with its new identity. The coin was bought at St. James's by an American dealer for £17K hammer, so it is reasonable to assume that the coin is now back in the US.
Doctoring faulty coins has happened as long as there has been collectors and I am unable to point an accusing finger at anybody, but someone has paid a lot of money (in excess of US$30K) for a coin that has been modified to make it presentable. I would assume that neither the current owner, nor the purchaser at the sale last September have any knowledge of this. There is clearly an ethical issue here as well as a quality control one at the TPG. It isn't the only instance of doctoring that I'm aware of, but in this case, having owned the coin in question for a couple years, I have hands on experience and know that what I have said above is beyond debate.
8 Reales Madness Collection
Excellent writeup and detective work.
The question is how was it done? Laser?
I wonder did NCS "improve" the coin? They have done some great work with frosted coins in the past:
http://www.ncscoin.com/gallery/conserved/index.asp
In particular go to page 5 and look at the cheeks, before and after, on the 1884 III cents!
www.brunkauctions.com
<< <i>i may be in the minority here, but i am not convinced any funny business is going on here.......i am thinking it is probably just the angle that the coin was photographed at......doesnt appear to be a 'scratch' from here, maybe only a surface break in the frosted device >>
I think this image which was supplied by Plymouth Auctions on a CD prior to the sale should convince you that the gouge on the cheek was a little more than "only a surface break in the frosted device". The frosted surface was completely removed and the resulting mark had bright smooth metal exposed. This was lot 19. I don't know if all the images are still available on the website as it is now 3 years since the sale, but if anyone needs any images of other lots, I have them available. Quite a lot of the coins had slight marks on them, so it may be that other lots which have been subsequently slabbed need a second look.
I am somewhat surprised at the lack of response to this thread given the pre-occupation of many on these boards as to whether such and such coin is going to come back from grading as cleaned, AT, damaged etc. This to my mind is what the TPGs should be picking up on. For anyone removing the defect the advantage is obvious. In the US, an AU or MS details, scratched or whatever label has much less appeal than a 64 ultra cameo. And it would sell for considerably less. With the right number and label, a good deal of money can be made.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
<< <i>It certainly appears to be a bit of funny business going on, have the lads at St. James had anything to say about it? >>
I've not asked.
If a legitimate seller enters lots and the coin is in a genuine slab, then there is no reason to question it. Problems only arise when you get provenance nerds like me who keep reams of data from past sales and images as well and so are in a position to ask awkward questions with corroborative evidence. In this instance it was made easier from my perspective because I owned the coin for a couple years, so the mark hit me in the face every time I took the tray out of the cabinet. Doing anything to any of the Plymouth patterns is quite patently silly as all 31 are unique as far as can be established. You don't play with unique items which invariably will have been well documented, illustrated and clearly provenanced. As unique items, all would find a new home with relative ease whether impaired or not. The problem here is a question of added value as a result of greed. And now you have a 64 ultra cameo - tooled.