VickySilver

Ah,yes, the obverse is a bit haggard there. It is harder to tell if the obverse is Maundy but the reverse looks as best I can determin NOT to be and is on that basis impressive. The huge and vast bulk of 1846-48 specimens are Maundies that have been mucked about, some encapsulated.

Wow, count me impressed as the strike does not look like a worn Maundy. Look at areas on the numeral "3" and the border teeth - they look irregular like a currency strike. Do you have an obverse picture? WAG (wild a-- guess) - 75-100 pounds, lean to the later. A Vicky silver person like me might go higher retail....Hint, hint....

I would definitely NOT select ebay as buyers would have to guard themselves in their bidding without being able to see and hold the coin. Possibly (oh, no here we go) without being graded. Difficult to figure an auction price for this as I have seen some imaginative prices that have not found buyers. There likely would be a buyer two here on this forum I would imagine - at the right price. I guess I would admit to being one of them; say, you don't have a spare mint 1845 1/2d hiding anywhere? Not to pirate the thread, and admittedly not the exact same type of coin, but the Baldwin failure to sell the 1953 pattern crown was a bit worrisome.

Definately not Royal Mint IMO, the design crude and not in the style of HP or KG. Lettering rudely done, the bust worse. That would likely have minimal value even to the right buyer. Sorry to rain on the parade....

Bill, will try to contact (poor pun again!) CGS re: the 1935 crown. I think the 1874 2/6 in CGS 78 is a rather nice bit grade wise but not IMO price wise. Not in hand but the rather minimal marks look to be "bagging" marks and less than average. If you look at Morgan dollars, you will see that at least from the pictures, the grade of 64 by PCGS is fairly consistent - thought lustre and strike is rather different between the two series. The "spotting" on this coin is of course not a wear issue and likely could be removed by the aspiring doctor (LOL). These are not technical wear in a coin 139 years of age. The coin has been likely dipped with possibly some loss of lustre. I can not fathom the price of 700 though. So in summary, run with the grade if the price is in line with it on a coin like this - since it is not, run the other way.

I have had rather remarkable problems with NGC on grading of matte proofs, both of the standard 1902 set and the "off year" specimens - they seem incapable of consistent grading. I do think they overall do a rather fine job and doubt you would find a late milled bit graded MS65 or higher that was not a pleasant specimen. I definitely would like to see the AU78 1874 2/6. Post away your pictures of such as I like to compare PCGS with CGS and NGC.

I know it is diverging from the topic, but please do not get carried away by apparent rarity of newly discovered [hyper]varietals of recent vintage as many more are likely to show up.

Perhaps a summertime visit! Less restraints to the pandas...

Hang in there Bill, as you will hopefully forgive us for the "perhaps he doth protest overly?" responses. I think they (CGS) seem alright but feel the jury out. I have not seen many examples save for examining the LCA site as auctions are posted. I do agree that many on the site appear overgraded. Also, I went to the NYINC about 3 years ago and looked at their display - where coins were for sale - and had to decline on the 1875 farthing on sale as there was the unfortunate "H" also on the coin that had not been mentioned. For sale? I just think the appearance was not so good, not to mention the misattribution of a featured coin. Slab number on the 1935 crown is: 5854 - CR.G5.1935.03 I might add that in addition to overgraded the coin appears dipped with the less than fortunate verdigris. I can assure you I have no interest in opening a slab and damaging a coin and replacing it.

Hmmm, might not go over well with "the troops", this site might change over from coins...LOL

wow, the sp. gr. is very close as I recall. If you do that bit with weighing the displaced water & all as I remember...

But the proof incuse 0.500 has the same characteristics as the 0.925 incuse?

Oh lazy me: don't have mine available - 530? Not the 1922 bit?

Bill, I have presented the above example of a "Rocking Horse Crown" that clearly looks to be overgraded by numerous points and has obviously developed a worrisome verdigris spot WITHIN the slab. So that is two severe strikes in my book against them. Another issue I do not think worked out to the satisfaction of many of us is the seemingly too intimate relationship with London Coins - I can not see how this is an issue that they sell coins at commission at auction that have been graded at their site, and that this is an ethical compromise at best. I agree with many of your other points, though have no experience submitting coins through them so can not speak as to Customer Relations, charges, rapidity of service, etc.

Most of the US firms (OK, some on here besides me think ALL) are really just backyard operations t put something in a slab. CCS for example is notorious for this, but even with them Rob's rule applies - bargains can be had for the astute and careful. CGS may be at a crossroads - can they up their customer service even to strangers and can they back their wares?

Yikes, no pissing contests to start I hope.... My wife/lady's bits are bigger, better, etc might bring an avalanche of sordid (ok, delightful) bits to display. What if the ladies start doing comparos here? Perish the thought.. PS - Mine who is vastly younger than me (YES!!!!) is going for an "upgrade" at no cost to yours truly.....

That rim by the date might be damage? Nope, thankfully just oxidation; nice coin overall as were it's mates - I tried to pick out decent ones but was more interested to get the inferior CGS specimen just for comparo & sad to see its getting worse with time as one would think.

Ex-Spink garbled edge 0.925 proof reverse Another raised edge proof reverse

PCGS65 specimen - much better mirror and colour than picture shows though. NGC65 specimen - also better mirror and "color" than picture shows

some more to follow I rotated them but are not rotated on the download... Top is raised edge proof from original silver 6 piece 1935 proof set

Ouch, can we opt for the "X" rated version of this photo?

Well, I put this on the other thread too. Will CGS reimburse - don't think so.. . Not to mention the gross overgrading that makes any of the previous NGC or PCGS examples pale, I must say.... BTW, I generally think CGS does much better, thank God.

OK..... The coin is slabbed as an 85, so the winner is.... drumroll..... Pies! Sorry, no giveaway though. Going to try to photo the other three specimens.

Yes, I think the proof .925 proof offered for sale was the INCUSE type (which in my experience though clearly proof have a different surface). I can not tell by inspection an incuse proof o.500 vs. an incuse proof o.925 - not that there is a large pop. OK, this coin is slabbed NORTH of 80 though; I am serious the Public Relations value of having this coin OFF the market would be of value to them. Actually my other three specimens, including NGC and PCGS are much better and deserving IMO of their grades. PS - did I mention I kind of like this design? If anybody has a lead on currency edge varieties (no edge lettering or "dropped" collar with 1/3 missing) do let me know as I would purchase.

Yikes, sorry for the quality - handheld I-phone. This coin is way up the CGS numerical scale..... Hint: If I was them, I'd buy this one back.