20th Century Predecimal Crowns and the TPGs

[VickySilver 883]

This is an area of problem, or at least IMO (in my opinion). Guilty parties, as prejudged by me, are the usual suspects: PCGS, NGC, CGS...

First, as we have come to generally appreciate, they are not consistent and grading on one day may be off a point or two (or more). Examples are the 1902 Crowns in both currency and matte, when seemingly on one day the hairlines placed evidently by the diligent mint workers at the time on the mattes are on occasion punished more severely in grade than at other times and this seems to be even more true for the larger gold 2 and 5 pound pieces of this year. I have seen coins graded 65 that are not as nice overall or in respect to wipe/polish lines as those graded 62 & in one example saw an ANACS 60 graded piece superior to many in the 62 and 63 category (bought that one!). Interestingly, these ANACS graded pieces in the small holders may yield pieces undergraded even in other denominations...

Even the currency pieces of this year in the crown and larger gold are problematic and inconsistently graded, with coins as far apart as, say, 63 and 65 being reversed in terms of quality. And yet in a venue like Heritage or even LCA the second higher slab-graded piece will go for multiples of the the first. This is not spilt milk, but rather a warning to be careful and also a "heads up" that if you do get an overgraded slab that is not grossly so, there may be opportunity for profit.

I almost did not want to touch the subject of VIP versus Standard specimens of 1937, 1951, 1953 and 1960. This was covered just today on the PCGS foreign columns by poster "7jaguars", and the reason I am also covering it to some degree. I agree with his commentary, although he did not exhaustively cover the "hypervarietals".

If we take the 1953 crown as an example, and leaving out the matte which are distinct in appearance and much scarcer (possibly 8 or as many as 10 estimated in private hands as opposed to the oft-published figure of "1-2 minted for photographic purposes") there are the basic divisions between box standard proofs and the so-called VIP proofs (hello Rob, do you know who coined this term?), and these in regular, cameo and deep cameo presentations. With all due respect again to the hypervarietal collectors, there also seem to be two basic types of strikes which are perhaps related to die state or die pressure and this is best seen on the Queen's visage and facial structure and boot details (amongst other details) on the reverse: one with blurry indistinct features & the other with more facial and boot detail.

As far as cameo and "deep" or "ultra" cameo, this can be seen on either standard or VIP specimens & generally have previously been related also to die state with the state of cameo (if I can use that term) deteriorating with die life after preparation.

Why is this important? Well, if you care, a coin designated as VIP can many times bring very much more money than one that is not. But that is only a label, and who put it there? If a TPG, it gives one would think, a bit more credence than any "Joe blow" off the street. However, it is my opinion that they are not regular in these designations. As an example, a recent Heritage auction had a proof VIP cameo sell in 64 for over 3k US Dollars. For fun, I just bought one on ebay at "Buy It Now" price of 27 quid that looks superior from the pictures [with the caveat that all such coins really need to be seen in hand].

So a well struck deep cameo standard piece may appear superior and match or overmatch in details a VIP!

What this means to us crown collectors is that one should use caution in buying such coins and not get overly excited by a coin slabbed or even just called VIP. I could also carry on by date as there are some infamous problems with the Rocking Horse 1935 crown and those termed proofs of the standard incuse 0.500 issues that may in fact NOT be that as yet another example.

Sorry for the blah, blah, blah....

[Rob 3,221]

I have no idea where the term VIP first appeared, but would suggest it has long been in general use to describe those years where only a handful of sets were made (i.e excludes 1937, 1953 etc). I agree regarding the cameo effect as being merely a state of the die which subsequently degrades and suggest it could also apply to a regular common year set. There are undoubtedly special commemorative boxes even for the common proof years implying that these would likely go to the same sort of recipient as in the rare proof years given their rarity.

I think it is yet another triumph of marketing over common sense. I look at a proof to see if it is nicely frosted or not, look at it closely for any reason to mark it down and then adjust the price accordingly. The number on the slab has no bearing on the price because an ex-slabbed coin (which it would inevitably become) loses any premium attached to the plastic.

Edit to add - 'Ere. Who's that 7jaguars bloke.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Rob

[Gary1000 41]

Owning both VIP proofs and out of the box proofs I can honestly say they are like chalk and cheese. You can tell just by picking one up, the reeding feels like it will cut your hand, and the 1937 as an example has different areas of frosting compared to the out the box proof. 1965 was only issued as a VIP proof.

[VickySilver 883]

What I was saying is that there is overlap, and that over 25 years I have seen this to be the case and not only with respect to amount of cameo, but also edge "sharpness" and indeed, even the details as struck up (i.e. the facial features and boot detail on the mounted QE II on the reverse of the 1953 Coronation crown. Dare I say that I have a complete set, currency and proof including mattes and patterns (xpt the 1926 Wreath pattern rev., the .925 Incuse edge proof Rocking Horse, the E8 issue and a couple of the minor edge varietals).

I do agree that in most cases one can tell the difference and to repeat was stating that I have seen overlap and also that the TPGs don't always pick this up.

This does not make or break my case, but a minor example appears to be the recently closed eBay item # 381371293896

Please linkify if able.

[Paulus 1,980]

linkify

Edited September 10, 2015 by Paulus