VickySilver

Yes, I second the "cheap and easy" - sounds a bit provacative at that - and have at least four of them: - raw -CGS 85 -PCGS 65 -NGC 65 And the winner is? ? ? ? ? Drumroll, please.... PCGS! I showed the CGS on these Boards before, complete with a bit of worsening Verd.

But just what is Rev. of 1927 - would the Rev, dies of that year (1927) all come from the same master matrix, etc.?

1922 specimen with OE type bust.

Think I may be able to find an image of the specimen somewhere & have a look as well. My recall is also ME obverse though...

Hey now BRG, please do not give away all my secrets! LOL…As always, just know your coins be it them or the latest sales at DNW that, with online bidding, has also in some cases gone insane. Who is buying at those prices??

Some sharp edges on the milling in places but the obverse in particular is not compelling as a proof IMO.

No! LOL!! Is yours of the New Coinage variety or the older? A proof should have sharper edges, milling and devices with at least (generally) a modicum of reflective surface to the fields. Often not much of a cameo effect though... Post pictures if you can.

My issue with them, and I am overall Neutral with respect to the major TPGs is that they are INCONSISTENT. I won' t elaborate except by PM but I have seen some really terrible inconsistent grading - I don' t usually however find too many problems with attribution of later milled with the possible exception of examples like the 1850/46 (sic) shilling that is most surely IMO 50/49. I think they have become a bit imaginative with the 1887-1893 gold two and five pound coins in MS and PF as well. I find worst of all the up and down grading of matte proofs 1902-1965, including the Churchill satin piece.

Well, my point was that he won THEIR (PCGS) contest for grading…LOL.

Uh, IMO 2325 looks like its been cleaned with residue twixt lettering. Don't see "BBITTANIAR" though.

There can be a kind of reverse psychology at play with sellers such as Centsles. He is rejected by many but will tell you on occasion he has a very nice bit. About one year ago, I got a very rare Panama pattern for about 1/2 it's expected sale price or less. He did grade it Proof 68 and it slabbed out by PCGS as "64" which was about right in my book, if even a bit harsh. I bought a more common Vicky YH halfpenny at a good price previously as well. Interestingly, and possibly more damning is that I believe the seller WON a PCGS grading contest some years ago, so presumably knows what he is doing with his overgrading...

Ah yes, sadly my type of coin as well...Think I might fight a bit over it, drop out at a crazy price though.... That was the star of the show. I notice that the 1917 sov is still on sale!

Mount plus graininess, not a great picture. From the bit I can make out, generally a thumbs down but not necessarily worse than the LCA example...

A lot of nicer specimens of the more common dates it seems….Been a while since I've bought from them, how are prices in the last sale or two?

Ouch, I would have LESS confidence in this piece without them having slabbed it but quite frankly whether they slab it or not I would NOT accept it as the real thing. If they thought it legit as was hinted at by Coinery, then the increased monies it would bring at auction would be considerable - this leads me to believe that they do not have full confidence in it, and rightly so except that they have listed it in the first place.

True is that. They are so enormous (Heritage) that I imagine they scarcely want to be bothered by our pedestrian bits! LOL! Have you ever looked at their catalogues of Movie star bits & memoribilia ? Ouch!!!!! Or Hermes handbags on offer at a mere 45k USD!!! They might be a legitimate option as unpatriotic as it may seem for a 1933 penny or such...

Uh, think the stats on the 17 sov reversed....

Wow, I'm down with that. Now all I need is a RT ticket!

Ha ha! Yea, right. They aren't that dumb, that would shoot credibility at CGS.

Yes, and who is bidding (and underbidding thereby driving prices)? Some of the prices have fetched lunatic levels IMO on occasion. Jag, you have FIVE in addition to the proof? Yikes, maybe that makes me feel a bit better about some borderline OCD tendencies that I might have... Does anybody remember the child's game: Duck, duck, goose? I think that the high prices and bidding might bring on a soporific state and may allow relative bargains to slip on occasion as young Rob says...

One point I hinted at with regards to Heritage before, and is something of a secret I probably I ought not to be sharing is this: there is indeed a frenzy over grading and "condition rarity". The interesting thing is that a simple 1883 shilling in MS66 at PCGS may have a population that is 1 or 2 as would, say, an 1889 small head Jubilee shilling. So conditional rarity would apparently (sic) be the same and both might go for very high similar amounts. The former not seemingly such a bargain but a price that would not necessarily be objectionable for the later bit. This in fact did happen on several occasions with the Kairos (??I think??) collection where similar such exampled coins sold for near the same amount! And which would you rather have? I actually did make some purchases of much scarcer coins on this principle

Yes, that is my measurement as well. It is also difficult to make out the area of possible mintmark. Remember that reproductions if they are from a "ordinary" coin will have this tendency to be just that little bit larger. I am not an expert in counterfeits by any stretch but will note that it is my recall that centrifugal casting can give a failry good result which can then come off rather nicely with surfacing/buffing/prepping....That would be one example. I have gradually come to the opinion for what it's worth that coins such as the 1905 halfcrown and the 1917 London sov. must be proven as authentic rather than the opposite and be proven as faux. As far as the latter specimen, I think it would fit at least some of the qualifications for Beirut manufacture but difficult to condemn on pictures alone.

Yikes, the die work reminds me, as I said, of Beirut issues counterfeits circa 1970s. Perhaps those more gifted than me might post matching pictures of 1925, 1917C or others side by side with this one (not to mention the ex-Terner coin). Please, I am quite shocked by anyone even considering an altered date....

I really can't see defence of this coin as genuine. "Have you ever seen another?" doesn't make it. Yes, I have seen another and it looks nothing like this coin. I don't have one personally because I feel they are overpriced. How about outting those that have thought it genuine. Several? I would hope that is a bit of exaggeration. PS - Bruce Lorich has nice photos of one on his site.

They really are about money after all. No small fry allowed I guess. Just curious as to why not selecting a Brit auction house? Obviously Heritage's exposure for flashy bits can bring absolutely crazy prices, so they may still be an option. Never have used them myself but might given the right circumstances... Which brings up the larger topic: where does one go to sell a 500 or 1000 quid coin? I sold a couple of G5 proofs a few years ago through Spink and despite the price rises in these coins, LOST money due to all the costs....