Search the Community

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....