Proof Crown 1821 What Makes This A £4.5K Proof

[numismatist 2]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what's the differance between this at £4.5k

and an EF one at a tenth of the price. Or is there some desiding feature that the

actual Proof of this year has ? I see many described as Prooflike ... thanks

[Peckris 579]

Here's an EF example - make up your own mind. I suspect it's more to do with rarity however, than superiority. Mind you, a currency piece in similar condition to that proof would command a high premium.

[HistoricCoinage 146]

Also, bear in mind that it hasn't sold for £4,500 and so that is Chris Taylor's opinion on its value.

[azda 979]

Its only EF and therefor technically not a proof, its now a proof strike in EF and not worth £4500

[numismatist 2]

This was sold by DNW as a Proof , and though the photo is not too good

I think this is how a real Proof ought to look. I feel that the £4.5K so called

about FDC Proof is not a Proof at all . ( Thats going by the Photo )

[numismatist 2]

and a far superior 1821 sold as EF by Spinks recently for £700

To me it looks far more " Proof-like " than the £4.5K Coin

though its just a currency coin according to Spinks

[pokal02 44]

Spink does give £4.5k as the value of an 1821 proof, but not sure why anyone would spend that much given that it's identical to the currency piece (assuming it's not the TERTIO edge error), unless they specifically collect proofs. Where they're different from the currency pieces (eg 1746) or no currency piece exists (eg 1839) they tend to be much more sought after, even in lower grades.

[NRP 38]

Also, bear in mind that it hasn't sold for £4,500 and so that is Chris Taylor's opinion on its value.

It came out of the last London coins sale I'm sure, it was nice but not a strict FDC, anyone know what it went for?

[HistoricCoinage 146]

£3,000 if it's this one: http://londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=144&searchlot=1357&searchtype=2

[Paulus 1,975]

£3,000 if it's this one: http://londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=144&searchlot=1357&searchtype=2

Whether it's that one or not, I don't like it at all! Proof or not, it is unattractive and has way too much wear IMO!

[HistoricCoinage 146]

Whether it's that one or not, I don't like it at all! Proof or not, it is unattractive and has way too much wear IMO!

LC's description doesn't seem to add up, somehow...

"Proof ESC 247 UNC" - is that meant to be two grades, or the strike and then a mention that it wasn't circulated?

[NRP 38]

Whether it's that one or not, I don't like it at all! Proof or not, it is unattractive and has way too much wear IMO!

LC's description doesn't seem to add up, somehow...

"Proof ESC 247 UNC" - is that meant to be two grades, or the strike and then a mention that it wasn't circulated?

The London coins one was definitely a proof, I viewed it. It was ok but had a few marks and cabinet friction on the high points

[Paulus 1,975]

Whether it's that one or not, I don't like it at all! Proof or not, it is unattractive and has way too much wear IMO!

LC's description doesn't seem to add up, somehow...

"Proof ESC 247 UNC" - is that meant to be two grades, or the strike and then a mention that it wasn't circulated?

The London coins one was definitely a proof, I viewed it. It was ok but had a few marks and cabinet friction on the high points

As a buyer/collector, if I chose to buy a proof, by and large it needs to be FDC or very near so. If I was a date or proof collector I may accept less than that if it was scarce or rare.

The wear on the reverse of this proof coin (however it came about, 'cabinet friction' is a euphemism for 'wear' to me) renders it totally undesirable to me, each to his or her own I know!

Edited March 25, 2014 by Paulus

[NRP 38]

Whether it's that one or not, I don't like it at all! Proof or not, it is unattractive and has way too much wear IMO!

LC's description doesn't seem to add up, somehow...

"Proof ESC 247 UNC" - is that meant to be two grades, or the strike and then a mention that it wasn't circulated?

The London coins one was definitely a proof, I viewed it. It was ok but had a few marks and cabinet friction on the high points

As a buyer/collector, if I chose to buy a proof, by and large it needs to be FDC or very near so. If I was a date or proof collector I may accept less than that if it was scarce or rare.

The wear on the reverse of this proof coin (however it came about, 'cabinet friction' is a euphemism for 'wear' to me) renders it totally undesirable to me, each to his or her own I know!

Quite true, that is exactly why I didn't bid!!! At that price it would have to be flawless as a proof should be