Cameo or not ? Be wary !

[craigy 363]

1 hour ago, zookeeperz said:

Great reading material. Just seems to me TPG abusing collectors . Call it something different  another grading tier cost?

and some dealers, 

[Nick 329]

3 hours ago, zookeeperz said:

So where do proof-likes come from because unless they are early strikes from business sets of dies it would infer these were also treated or made on pre-prepared dies. I just can't make the leap between normal lustered finish to mirrored finish if a coin came from the same die pairing?

Proofs are made using polished dies and polished blanks.  Currency are from standard dies and standard blanks.  Specimen and proof-like come from one of each of the other combinations (not sure which way round).

[1949threepence 3,368]

I received my hard copy LCA catalogue the other day, and couldn't help noticing some items described as "ultra cameo".

So better than just bog standard cameo 

 

[terrysoldpennies 782]

8 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I received my hard copy LCA catalogue the other day, and couldn't help noticing some items described as "ultra cameo".

So better than just bog standard cameo 

 

Not necessarily better , just a greater contrast between the two surfaces, and it is after all just a matter of personal taste.

[1949threepence 3,368]

1 hour ago, terrysoldpennies said:

Not necessarily better , just a greater contrast between the two surfaces, and it is after all just a matter of personal taste.

Absolutely. Well here's an "ultra cameo".

link

Unfortunately, I was unable to re-find the one I saw in the catalogue last night, so the above is a different one from the September 2017 auction. I've also seen one described as "deep cameo" - lot No 740 in the December auction. Can't see a pic of that on their website.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by 1949threepence
issue with picture upload

[azda 981]

9 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Absolutely. Well here's an "ultra cameo".

link

Unfortunately, I was unable to re-find the one I saw in the catalogue last night, so the above is a different one from the September 2017 auction. I've also seen one described as "deep cameo" - lot No 740 in the December auction. Can't see a pic of that on their website.

 

 

Unfortunately NGC and PCGS graded these £5 as Proofs when they were in actual fact released as BU coins. NGC have graded quite a few as proof along with the strike on the day sovereign but have since stopped the proof designation after releasing they were in fact BU struck coins but the damage was already done.

The RM had released some of these coins with a COA that stated proof on it and after realising their error sent out letters asking to swap the COAs out for a correct one stating BU.

3 coins were released at the same time, 5 sovereign, a Piedfort Sovereign and the strike on the day sovereign, only the Piedfort was struck as proof, coincidently, a proof is struck 6 times and not 3, , specimens are struck 3 times and BU once. Attached is my piedfort designated PF70DCAM

Edited November 18, 2017 by azda

[azda 981]

Here's the 5 Sovereign from PCGS

[azda 981]

And the description on the RM website

[1949threepence 3,368]

Unfortunate mistake.

[Stuntman 264]

The quintuple sovereign sold at LCA in early June is almost certainly a proof from the 5 coin set, because the BU quintuple sovereigns weren't released until late June.  All are lovely coins though, still absolutely thrilled with my BU quintuple.

[craigy 363]

deep cameo, ultra cameo, cameo, all depends at which angle you point the camera at lol       and the surrounding light 

[azda 981]

1 hour ago, craigy said:

deep cameo, ultra cameo, cameo, all depends at which angle you point the camera at lol       and the surrounding light 

It wasn’t a mistake, they were told they weren’t proof coins on numerous occasions but went ahead anyway with the designation, it was only after one came into their hands that wasn’t proof like that they started changing the designation to BU, or the MS grade

[azda 981]

1 hour ago, craigy said:

deep cameo, ultra cameo, cameo, all depends at which angle you point the camera at lol       and the surrounding light 

False, they have a technique to get the attribution of DCAM or Ultra Cameo

[Peckris 579]

On 16 November 2017 at 4:36 PM, zookeeperz said:

So where do proof-likes come from because unless they are early strikes from business sets of dies it would infer these were also treated or made on pre-prepared dies. I just can't make the leap between normal lustered finish to mirrored finish if a coin came from the same die pairing?

"Proof like" is a rather lazy and unscientific term (compare with "BU Gem"!). It is of course entirely possible that proof dies are used for currency strikes as well, but obviously the blanks have not been specially prepared as for a proof, so at best they are only going to seem "semi proofs". Also, the learning curve involves distinguishing between "prooflike" where proof dies were used, and "prooflike" as a lazy description applied to an early strike from a currency die.

[1949threepence 3,368]

1 hour ago, Peckris said:

"Proof like" is a rather lazy and unscientific term (compare with "BU Gem"!). It is of course entirely possible that proof dies are used for currency strikes as well, but obviously the blanks have not been specially prepared as for a proof, so at best they are only going to seem "semi proofs". Also, the learning curve involves distinguishing between "prooflike" where proof dies were used, and "prooflike" as a lazy description applied to an early strike from a currency die.

What about so called "specimen issues" - proof or not?

My Freeman 74 is a specimen issue from the Copthorne Collection, advertised as a F74. Yet Freeman describes the 74 as "proof".  

 

[Peckris 579]

7 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

What about so called "specimen issues" - proof or not?

My Freeman 74 is a specimen issue from the Copthorne Collection, advertised as a F74. Yet Freeman describes the 74 as "proof".  

 

It would be instructive to know the difference between how blanks and dies are prepared for both proofs and specimen coins.

The lines of demarcation may not be clear cut anyway - is the 1951 Crown a proof, or "prooflike"? I suspect the latter, as many were struck at the Festival of Britain. Then there are the "New York" strikes of the 1960 Crown - these may well be classed as 'specimens', as they certainly don't conform to the definition of proofs,

[Rob 3,185]

44 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

What about so called "specimen issues" - proof or not?

My Freeman 74 is a specimen issue from the Copthorne Collection, advertised as a F74. Yet Freeman describes the 74 as "proof".  

 

My F329A is ex-Freeman. He says proof, I say not. And so the discussion rumbles on.

[PWA 1967 2,213]

3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

What about so called "specimen issues" - proof or not?

My Freeman 74 is a specimen issue from the Copthorne Collection, advertised as a F74. Yet Freeman describes the 74 as "proof".  

 

What do you think it is Mike ?.

I think enough people will have looked at the coin in hand prior to the auction to decide it was a really nice specimen and was described as that probably due to the Heaton mint. Mark Rasmussen has sold a F74  for a lot more described as proof as i am sure your aware.

Having a look at LCA they sold one in June 2010 for £2800+.....Definately one to get in a slab Mike if it is 

Edited November 20, 2017 by PWA 1967

[zookeeperz 470]

Is this The 1977 V.I.P Proof?

 

[1949threepence 3,368]

On 11/19/2017 at 10:06 PM, Peckris said:

It would be instructive to know the difference between how blanks and dies are prepared for both proofs and specimen coins.

The lines of demarcation may not be clear cut anyway - is the 1951 Crown a proof, or "prooflike"? I suspect the latter, as many were struck at the Festival of Britain. Then there are the "New York" strikes of the 1960 Crown - these may well be classed as 'specimens', as they certainly don't conform to the definition of proofs,

It would indeed by instructive to know that difference, not to mention highly enlightening. By the way, did you mean struck for the Festival of Britain, or were they actually struck at the Festival of Britain? If so, that's quite interesting. 

On 11/19/2017 at 10:40 PM, Rob said:

My F329A is ex-Freeman. He says proof, I say not. And so the discussion rumbles on.

What are your respective criterias, and may we see the coin in question to form separate independent judgements?

22 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

What do you think it is Mike ?.

I think enough people will have looked at the coin in hand prior to the auction to decide it was a really nice specimen and was described as that probably due to the Heaton mint. Mark Rasmussen has sold a F74  for a lot more described as proof as i am sure your aware.

Having a look at LCA they sold one in June 2010 for £2800+.....Definately one to get in a slab Mike if it is 

I don't know what to think, Pete. It's a very nice coin, but if I'm absolutely honest, not a proof. Specimen, yes - and described as such by Neil/Lee at the time:-

Quote

 

Specimen Issue. BMC 1698. F 74. Dies 7+H. Small rim nick at 3 o'clock. Virtually As Struck with some lustre.
Ex D. Wallis Collection, DNW Auction 83, 30 September 2009, lot 3372 [from J. Welsh January 2000]. Periodically, the Heaton mint struck carefully finished specimen coins of varying denominations as an example of what the company could produce; in some instances they were presented as gifts to dignitaries and government officials and in other cases were part of the travelling portfolio of a Heaton sales representative (cf. Gunstone, SNC December 1977, p.545; cf. Tansley Collection, DNW 67, lot 369)

   

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by 1949threepence

[Rob 3,185]

Freeman 329A is the bright one, the one on the left is Norweb's F301 (1867 bronzed proof). In my opinion, the letter quality of the Heaton coin is inferior with shallower angles to the sides of the characters and the tops are slightly rounded. In hand the field is not as good as the RM coin for this or other years. I've got Nichoson's 1863 proof on the website, and the same criteria apply. https://www.rpcoins.co.uk/products/00003521

 

[Peckris 579]

18 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

It would indeed by instructive to know that difference, not to mention highly enlightening. By the way, did you mean struck for the Festival of Britain, or were they actually struck at the Festival of Britain? If so, that's quite interesting. 

I thought they'd had a facility to mint them AT the Festival, but actually that would be rather unlikely, given the security issues etc. No, it transpires they were minted in order to be sold as souvenirs at the Festival.  Presumably all the ones with card cases are such souvenirs. I don't know what the significance of burgundy vs green cases was.

[craigy 363]

3 hours ago, Peckris said:

I thought they'd had a facility to mint them AT the Festival, but actually that would be rather unlikely, given the security issues etc. No, it transpires they were minted in order to be sold as souvenirs at the Festival.  Presumably all the ones with card cases are such souvenirs. I don't know what the significance of burgundy vs green cases was.

i did read all the proof ones from the usa were just bagged up and sent back to england

On 11/20/2017 at 8:42 PM, zookeeperz said:

Is this The 1977 V.I.P Proof?

 

no silver proof like that was fairly standard, i think it was the firstof the truely proof if that makes sense 

[1949threepence 3,368]

22 hours ago, Rob said:

Freeman 329A is the bright one, the one on the left is Norweb's F301 (1867 bronzed proof). In my opinion, the letter quality of the Heaton coin is inferior with shallower angles to the sides of the characters and the tops are slightly rounded. In hand the field is not as good as the RM coin for this or other years. I've got Nichoson's 1863 proof on the website, and the same criteria apply. https://www.rpcoins.co.uk/products/00003521

 

Again, very difficult to make a definitive judgement, IMO anyway. 

[1949threepence 3,368]

4 hours ago, Peckris said:

I thought they'd had a facility to mint them AT the Festival, but actually that would be rather unlikely, given the security issues etc. No, it transpires they were minted in order to be sold as souvenirs at the Festival.  Presumably all the ones with card cases are such souvenirs. I don't know what the significance of burgundy vs green cases was.

Yes, that would seem a likely scenario. It certainly would have been a turn up for the books if they'd been minted in some special room reserved for displaying the talents of the RM. 

Burgundy vs Green? who knows?