Rarity In Victorian Great Britain Halfcrowns, But Even Better Beauty. GTG
7Jaguars
Posts: 7,744 ✭✭✭✭✭
Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
Well, just Love coins, period.
Well, just Love coins, period.
9
Comments
Wow!
Spectacular!!
My contribution to 7 Jags post.
Just breath taking!
Both are from the halcyon days at Spink auctions, the first went for what at the time was an average price for a proof 1839 half crown, though the second was a bit more (LOL). Believe it or not, the first looks better in hand and has one of those "aluminum foil" appearances that is unmeshed with original. There is a second 9 overstruck and displaced fairly far to the right - but besides the other datals can't make out any other bits of design overstruck or doubled.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Lovely, mine are all worn.
I would, for one, like to see a worn 1862! A currency 1839 is also a very worthy piece, if confirmed - and a couple I have seen ARE NOT CURRENCY! I think the rarity of these is underrated in Spink/Bull. Anyway, just wondering if anybody wanted to hazard a guess as to the grades that these got?
Well, just Love coins, period.
1839: PR65CAM
1862: PR64
Life member #369 of the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association
Member of Canadian Association of Token Collectors
Collector of:
Canadian coins and pre-confederation tokens
Darkside proof/mint sets dated 1960
My Ebay
65/65
Very nice indeed!
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
Well, the 1839 went 63DC and the the 62 went 63Cam. I really would like to have seen the written critique as these are even more impressive in hand. There supposedly is a 1839 in 67DC and would really like to compare. The 62 came from a Spink auction nearly 20 years ago where the consignor had one of the very finest collections of Victorian silver proofs of mostly non-standard years.
Of interest, the wisp on the QV's head is most likely ribbon toning and is seen on some of the other original non-cleaned specimens. The reverse does not actually have wear or friction at all, and the obverse has a die rust spot on the cheek of the Queen; honestly I was rather disappointed at the grade. I would caution the usual in that when buying at least the Victorian series to look at each coin individually and very carefully, especially in the case of the rarities. TPGs seem quite variable as to grades assigned, and I say that euphemistically & will leave out any theories as to why that is the case (I will hint that many Brit coins in the Millennium Collection got IMO pushes of 2-3 points).
Well, just Love coins, period.
Quite often, grades like that are given out due to cabinet friction.
I don't see any.
The wisp on the portrait On the 1862 I did not think was an issue meriting a deduction . Fields look clean so they must think there is friction somewhere.
Should they be sent back in ? If there is little or no cab friction, I would send back in. They look great to me.
She didn't age in 23 years but grew a zit. You can see the blackhead on the '39.
I like the coins, BTW.
Those are incredible!!!
My YouTube Channel
Thanks!
Thinking about resubmitting both but think it should be through a more known submitter, if you know what I mean.
Well, just Love coins, period.
It's also possible that there are die polishing lines not visible in the picture , which I imagine might be present with these proofs. The TOGs are inconsistent in their approach to them, as they seem to be let go in the more common 1887 and 1893 proofs but certainly not for the matte 1902 proofs, virtually all of which have evidence of die polishing by the Mint.
For more rare pieces like this, if polishing of dies are the issue then the grader doesn't have any experience with the issue, and you might be well served to send back in with an opinion from someone like Mark Rasmussen. That's all I can suggest.
Yes, and I know him - perhaps if he can be enticed to come to NYINC - or maybe Steve Hill? I don't know, just that they have totally missed the mark on some coins & the possibility of bias certainly enters as IMO it does seem to have effect as to who the submitter is despite protestations to the contrary. Wish you could see in person some of the examples.
Also, with regards to some "off year" proofs of Victoria in both gold and silver - they apparently AT THE MINT would on occasion touch up the edges (prob. to adjust what we now call "finning") with a file. These will get rejected by US TPGs as perhaps they should but are acceptable to the home market if not blatant. I suspect more than a few have had this done and it is quite subtle; I have also seen in on 1839 proof gold!
With respect to the 1902 - they are not IMO at all consistent with respect to their grading of this date in both silver and gold. I have seen N and P graded specimens in 64 with more of the so-called wipe lines than others graded 60 and 61. And I don't mean just a few either, not including coins I own. In fact I went ahead and bought a 5 pound that was ANACS graded 60 because it was of much nicer appearance and underpriced (well, 20 years ago).
Well, just Love coins, period.
Another possibility accounting for the grades might be fine post production hairlines. More probably there may be hairlines from die polishing for the proof pieces. Certainly I don't see any here however. NGC is extremely weird in grading proofs, as die polishing is let go for the 1887 and 1893 proofs I am more familiar with, but certainly not for the matte 1902 proofs, virtually all of which are hairlined by Mint die polishing and not from post production issues. Their judgements on die polishing lines on proofs are certainly inconsistent.
So if you haven't already done so, you might want to put a magnifying glass to these pieces for die polishing . If that turns out to be the issue then they don't know what they are talking about. E
You can look up the NYINC website to see if Rasmussen or Hill show up. I would not be surprised if they both do.
The TPGs are not be all and end alls with respect to world coins as often they do not have the expertise, nor would a reasonable person expect them to, with thousands of countries and jurisdictions, 26 centuries of coinage and a fraction of the volume of Us submissions. There is no way they could have the staff to cover all of those bases.There are LOTS of nuances with respect to British proofs let alone those of other countries, which are beyond the graders at the TPGs. I am aware of the filng issues on some proofs like you talk about. And Hill and Rasmussen sure know more than I do.
I am in a dispute right now on 1689 and 1708 Maundy sets,which obviously are Maundy pieces but my TPG wll not recognize them as such despite the several cited sources I sent them. The 1708 set was sold to me by a top 5 dealer in the UK who knows how to grade and came back as AU 58-62. Anne small silver is notorious for incomplete strikes and hair detail. Ridiculous.
In the end, for those who know, the coins will speak for themselves and not the number on the holder.
The Us in my opinion takes too much stock on numbers when establishing value.
Your pieces look superb to me. If it ever came time for you to sell them, if you think that the assigned grades would reduce their value in a Us situation,, get rid of the holders and if necessary sell them in England, where there is more expertise than in the US TPGs.
Yes, good points all. And I agree with you. I'm not ready to sell these but may some others that are doubles - need the money and don't need to be greedy....
Well, just Love coins, period.