4 Points Difference Is Valued At £350

[Gary D 76]

Well I think from the 2 or 3 1902 matt proof crowns that have appeared on here up to now that CGS92 is not particularly exceptional. I would even go as far as saying Nicks is probably better.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Gary D

[Coinery 1,153]

Well I think from the 2 or 3 1902 matt proof crowns that have appeared on here up to now that CGS92 is not particularly exceptional. I would even go as far as saying Nicks is probably better.

I have to say I didn't take such a close look at Nick's, being dazzled by that CGS 92, but you could be right! That is a beautiful coin Nick I definitely prefer the toning on your's too!

[Nick 329]

Well I think from the 2 or 3 1902 matt proof crowns that have appeared on here up to now that CGS92 is not particularly exceptional. I would even go as far as saying Nicks is probably better.

I have to say I didn't take such a close look at Nick's, being dazzled by that CGS 92, but you could be right! That is a beautiful coin Nick I definitely prefer the toning on your's too!

Thanks. It is a nice looking coin and the toning is not unattractive, which is not something you can always say about toned 1902 matt proofs. Indeed the shilling from the same set is decidedly unattractive.

I'm not sure whether this one would grade 92 or higher, but we're not going to find out.

[Peckris 579]

I grieve that the scans of my own (non-proof) crown are so poor I'd love for you all to see how it really looks. :(