Proof Wreaths (other than 1927)? Many are NOT!

[VickySilver 883]

I have touched on this many times, but IMO  many of the "non-standard" year proofs are simply not, and this includes specimens graded by the TPGs. As one example, the Heritage Sale #3071(6 Jan., 2019) Lot 30670  coming up in two weeks is again IMO clearly NOT a proof. Many of the 1934s that have been slabbed are also suffering from the same inaccurate grading malady, so buyer beware.

Someone, please help with the pictures.

 

[1949threepence 3,368]

36 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

I have touched on this many times, but IMO  many of the "non-standard" year proofs are simply not, and this includes specimens graded by the TPGs. As one example, the Heritage Sale #3071(6 Jan., 2019) Lot 30670  coming up in two weeks is again IMO clearly NOT a proof. Many of the 1934s that have been slabbed are also suffering from the same inaccurate grading malady, so buyer beware.

Someone, please help with the pictures.

 

There you go:-

 

[Sword 1,517]

No problem VS. Photos below. A nice and well struck coin all the same. I don't think I can tell the difference between currency and proof wreath crowns. If pushed, I might suggest that the rim is not that sharp. Top of ear is not that well defined and the 5 marks in the hair looks like contact marks with the rim of another coin which is more likely for currency. For this particular coin, would there be a significant difference in price difference between a proof an a  MS currency?

[Sword 1,517]

OK, Mike just beat me to it.

[copper123 1,553]

When you buy a 1934 inacurate gradeing will  be of little conseqence  compared to finding out its a fake

[1949threepence 3,368]

1 hour ago, VickySilver said:

I have touched on this many times, but IMO  many of the "non-standard" year proofs are simply not, and this includes specimens graded by the TPGs. As one example, the Heritage Sale #3071(6 Jan., 2019) Lot 30670  coming up in two weeks is again IMO clearly NOT a proof. Many of the 1934s that have been slabbed are also suffering from the same inaccurate grading malady, so buyer beware.

Someone, please help with the pictures.

 

They describe it as a proof - link - but I don't think any Crown proofs were issued in 1928.   

So to the best of my knowledge that's an inaccurate description by Heritage.   

 

[Sword 1,517]

46 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

They describe it as a proof - link - but I don't think any Crown proofs were issued in 1928.   

So to the best of my knowledge that's an inaccurate description by Heritage.   

 

ESC lists both a proof and a VIP proof for 1928 with rarity of R5 and R6 respectively. CGS is claiming they have slabbed at least 4 proofs. Would love to see what the alleged VIP looks look. 

[VickySilver 883]

ESC, according to S. Hill (and myself, if that can be of value), is incorrect and that with the off year proofs that there is not separation between Proof and VIP Proof. I will try to post (with help) a picture of a 1928 Wreath in proof.

IMO, the edges should be much sharper, the hair, cheekbone, and brow ridge should all be much better and sharper.

I know they are just selling what PCGS has deemed proof, but I have had some issues with their grading before. They are NOT consistent with Record proofs and especially the matte proofs,  both 1902 and the later scarcer bits struck for "photographic" purposes.

 

The reverse on this coin is much better struck than normal for a currency and so are mustache and central beard detail. Value in such a venue would be, in dollars, up to maybe 400 for currency and up to 2k for proof.

 

 

[VickySilver 883]

PS - They pulled this from the auction as they should have. Now only if PCGS gets their act together on the sucky grades and attributions of George V era proof silver and copper, especially the former.

[Nicholas 51]

A simple test (not 100% fool proof)  is to look at the band around the orb - splitting the date - typically even the very best uncirculated circulation wreath crowns will not be fully struck up. The example shown is IMHO therefore is likely a proof specimen. 

Happy to be disproven - no probs 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Nicholas

[Peckris 2 2,193]

13 hours ago, Nicholas said:

A simple test (not 100% fool proof)  is to look at the band around the orb - splitting the date - typically even the very best uncirculated circulation wreath crowns will not be fully struck up. The example shown is IMHO therefore is likely a proof specimen. 

Happy to be disproven - no probs 

Not so sure? The orb doesn't look FULLY struck up, and the thistles top and left also don't look fully struck, nor do the diamonds on the crown. And the hair detail on the obverse doesn't convince me either. However, this likewise is merely opinion.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Peckris 2

[Nicholas 51]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

Not so sure? The orb doesn't look FULLY struck up, and the thistles top and left also don't look fully struck, nor do the diamonds on the crown. And the hair detail on the obverse doesn't convince me either. However, this likewise is merely opinion.

🤔Just had a quick scan on heritage auctions searching GB Wreath Crowns - can’t find one circulation strike example with a struck up orb as I suspected. The proofs definitely better. NB this is just a rule of thumb guide!

Edited January 9, 2019 by Nicholas

[VickySilver 883]

The obverse is a wreck and the rim definition is very poor, absolutely IMO a currency strike with NO business in a proof holder.

[Nicholas 51]

6 hours ago, VickySilver said:

The obverse is a wreck and the rim definition is very poor, absolutely IMO a currency strike with NO business in a proof holder.

Yes, on closer inspection is that chatter in front of the kings moustache?