VickySilver

Azda - happy with the results of your submission?

Please rethink the second to the last paragraph. NGC has missed on a number of coins as has been pointed out here. They have absolutely blown counterfeits, even denominations and proof vs. currency calls. They are the entity have shown to be rather naive or lacking care on many counts. Let's not go there with the unrelated issue of abysmal grading on occasion. Please note the issues are simply not just with the coppery appearances of high points, but rather the quality of the metal and striking issues that are IMO quite worrisome. As has been pointed out, they are perhaps the not best of their own judging and not the source I would go to in such an instance.

I agree with 2691; however seems not as much cameo to the devices. It has the least hairlines and clearly nicest obverse.

Still best to have representation. Maybe SS is a VIP and we are not quite at that level yet! LOL

Welcome to the club, LCA soured me quite a bit in this same way several years ago and has dissuaded a lot of bidding from me. This IMO is a very poor business motto that reminds me of what they try a lot on the East Coast of the USA - burn the customer up front for as much as possible and damn the long term consequences. Not to name names but Stack's in the USA does this same type of thing... I still bid but is quite irritating pushing me to find a rep for auctions.

I was the "guilty"party on the '05s (yes, I liked the cleaned one also), the '07 and the '09 - sorry that was me. I thought those prices entirely reasonable. The OMS QE II I had to let go of as with premium that now approaches 600 quid and far more than I have paid in the past for similar issues; maybe that is the new price for these??

It seemed there was not much love for the Edward VII coins??

Very nice lot there. The gold as a series has always been an intimidator to me, but no saying you have to have all of them. Nice going on the 1841 sov there!

That 1922 penny is taking off, 6600 and counting I understand! Leave me out...

I also think that Steve will be more reserved than some of us as far as offering opinions on coins not seen directly, but that in-person he may be a bit less conservative. As you probably know, most Wreaths, let alone those of 1934 date did not circulate and it is rare to find one in less than EF. However, I have seen a few worn F specimens of the 1934 date, and a couple of VFs & they did not appear as this specimen does. Again, the images from the Cointalk post seem to show a bit better on my computer, with the resolution holding up better under magnification. The surface blemishes are IMO not consistent with wear that I have seen and look to be micro-casting stigmata. I do not pretend to know the latest in counterfeiting measures, but have heard that this is the case with other coins, although I have heard of centrifugal methods but there may be temperature issues with the alloy, etc. and it may be possible that the planchet was cast with a relatively poor strike and then the usual "added" circulation, which again seems to be in a pattern highly unusual in my experience with the 0.500 milled crowns. Although it would not be a sole test, certainly you might try one of those XRF surface spectroscopy units to check alloy as well. Of necessity, interpretations offered have to be a bit speculative so I just added a few. I also have concerns about the 100% confidence in a coin that is slabbed, although it may give some reassurance. To reiterate, the observations that have me concerned are: 1 - Metal colour 2 - What appear to be surface issues with the metal, especially the field and rims but also the devices 3 - Appearance of the "wear" pattern on this coin with odd colouring, especially again on the high points of the obverse devices 4 - Poor and wrong-appearing strike, especially of the obverse around the ears and the hair just above the nape of the neck, but also other areas in the obverse bust of George V 5 - Other marks about the lettering as was pointed out by another poster.

I seem to recall reading that Heritage owned a percentage, possibly as much as 40 of NGC....

OK well very good then, maybe he's ironed it out. I don't have anything else at home so may send one or two more out. My first few did not go through this past week.

No, not him I don't believe as to the best of my knowledge he does not write on any coin forums. I concur that his or Mark R.'s opinion would certainly trump anybody's at Heritage, NGC or PCGS. I might be able to forward the pictures to him though.

Mercifully...Neil has written me that the system does not seem to take bids from Apple products like iPad & iPhone. I was wondering why my bids did not seem to register. So I put in about 5 or so bids from work computer; I think the activity will escalate considerably come Monday...

The site is www.baldwin.co.uk He should be able to be reached through there. He was at Spink for a long, long time. There also is (but he is harder to reach) Mark Rasmussen at www.rascoins.co.uk PS - That is my coin & the obverse looks like the coin was dragged on the street, not quite as bad in person - so I say, LOL!

The OP was on Cointalk under title GB Silver. The images of the 1934 seem to be of better quality, or at least magnify with better resolution on my computer, where there appear to be stigmata of casting in both the field and also on the bust. The problem areas to me are most obvious on the obverse as were pointed out. Badexample did show a bit of rim problem there as well. I have a GEF example that I might lamely try to post through somebody else if they take emails - PM me if that might be possible.

I think a big problem reveals itself when looking at the original post in the other forum. I quite see the micro casting marks when blown up on Mac Book Pro as well. Also, I agree that the Obverse ear detail and hair detail, especially at the nape of the neck and just above is just not right. I have seen a lot of these 1934s as well and must admit to this one being quite different overall in metal appearance from those I am certain were legitimate, even the variable of just how it oxidizes at the wear spots on the higher points. I agree that Mr. Hill at Baldwin would have to be considered amongst the very best at late milled identification. I don't remember before seeing any fake 1934 NGC-slabbed pieces, but there is much incentive to reproducing this date. I have also seen Wreaths identified as proofs by both PCGS and NGC that are clearly not, and then subsequently seen Heritage pass them through their auctions without further comment. The coins were not fake, just not properly graded

If you will recall I "busted out" CGS on gross overgrazing of a Specimen Jubilee 1935 crown that had a grade of 85. There was not only the ugly chloride deposit growing on it, but much more wear than the PCGS 65 or NGC 65 specimens that I also have of that date. However, in general, I don't think they do a bad job - just not clearly above the competition from across the Pond, despite the negative publicity those TPGs have had.

I think the 1863 farthing in the current sale is of that ilk. Not a proof IMO...Yours, Colin?

I don't think the RM was always up for the full monte, and it is almost amusing to me that some of us (including me on occasion) want to be such sticklers for what is proof and what is not; IMO they did not always spend as much time as would be best for even specially prepared coins that many would call proof or for that matter even Maundy issues (particularly of Victoria in the '40s and '50s). I have seen one coin offered as a matte 1908 that may have been the aforementioned LCA specimen that was not as clearly such. BTW, is the specimen pictured the Gerald Jackson specimen?

Wow, very nice coins. I sure like that last '16 HC that is so very deeply struck. Keep posting here, the other post is a bit unwieldy.

Those struck in gold were in many cases unique - but often there were many variants on a theme and so each of these variants is unique. I got about three for bullion at the time, or barely above. I too have the catalogue but not a spare.

However Bull in ESC has it wrong with several issues as on "non-standard" year proofs, there is not discernible or readily separable differences between Record and VIP record proofs & some of the listings from 1942-44 have mattes listed as being struck, when in fact as best I can determine and has been confirmed by late milled experts they were not As far as the "standard" years of proofs (i.e. 1937, 1950, 1951, 1953) there are some proofs more equal than others we might say. Whether these are early strikes or had special care taken no doubt will continue to be a source of argument; I find it ludicrous to attempt to find the line on coins like the 1937 proof crown & therefore have not bothered to get a so-called VIP, settling for an above average proof specimen with "cameo" contrast to G6 bust and the reverse heraldic devices. Prax, perhaps you wrote in error about the sandblast bit as these are not a standard of the Record coins but rather of the matte specimens (of which of course there are 1953 specimens in all types as you seem to point out). My recall is that Norweb had a 1954 Record proof set that did include the 3d but will have to check. Like Rob I have only the 1960 3d in Record proof as my proofs are of earlier eras. As a PS, the RM seemingly took liberties or more likely allowed for relatively poor quality control in the 1950s and especially the 1960s and so the crowns have all sorts of edge errors, rotational & other issues that may or may not have been intentional or just plain sloppy. And so I did let the plain edge 1951 pass me by at 3600+ quid.

Yours? I just was not willing to part with that amount of money for such, though a nice piece.

Is that the one just sold? Looks proof, is it?