1860 Bronzed Proof Penny - Photos

[azda 973]

So a relevant question whilst on the subject of conservation, what is the actual difference when a TPG does this and someone at home perhaps going through a similar process? If a TPG picks up on this it gets a body bagged label stating "hairlines cleaned" why are TPGs allowed to do this and it's ok, yet John Doe gets a cleaned label.

The other gripe i have is to do with the Matt proofs wiped at the mint, i got a PF62 grade for hairlines and IMO it was better than a lot i've seen in that grade, but Catherines also has hairlines on the REV from cleaning and gets a 66 grade, so are we talking favouritism towards certain submitters?

[Nordle11 564]

2 minutes ago, azda said:

So a relevant question whilst on the subject of conservation, what is the actual difference when a TPG does this and someone at home perhaps going through a similar process? If a TPG picks up on this it gets a body bagged label stating "hairlines cleaned" why are TPGs allowed to do this and it's ok, yet John Doe gets a cleaned label.

The other gripe i have is to do with the Matt proofs wiped at the mint, i got a PF62 grade for hairlines and IMO it was better than a lot i've seen in that grade, but Catherines also has hairlines on the REV from cleaning and gets a 66 grade, so are we talking favouritism towards certain submitters?

Do as they say and not as they do seems the rule there.

I mean they do look at coins in a LOT of detail so could be something we can't see with the naked eye? I don't know, but IMO a coin with die wipe lines on should definitely grade higher than a coin cleaned by someone outside of the mint if the actual grades are exactly the same. 

[mhcoins 95]

11 hours ago, secret santa said:

No-one yet has answered my question as to how PGCS managed to produce such fantastic photos.......

All to do with a good lighting set up and the magic of photoshop !

[PWA 1967 1,841]

13 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

What does catty mean 

Still not any wiser can anyone tell me ?.

[Nordle11 564]

Meow. Hsss.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

3 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

Meow. Hsss.

Yes i am catty 

[1949threepence 3,366]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

Cathrine, I don't know what you paid for the coin but I'd be inclined to keep it. These coins very rarely survive in pristine condition unless they've been protected from day one and your own coin photos show exactly how most of these early proofs appear in hand. I just wish I had the knowledge to photograph my coins in the way that PCGS did - my collection would look absolutely stunning !

Absolutely agree with this. For a start it isn't 100% clear whether the reverse scratches are on the slab or the coin, and furthermore, it's a very nice coin anyway. As you rightly say, Richard, these coins rarely survive in a literally perfect state. After 156 years that would be amazing.

[Nordle11 564]

3 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Absolutely agree with this. For a start it isn't 100% clear whether the reverse scratches are on the slab or the coin, and furthermore, it's a very nice coin anyway. As you rightly say, Richard, these coins rarely survive in a literally perfect state. After 156 years that would be amazing.

I want to clarify, I would send the coin back if I was buying the coin from the picture and received the coin OP has, because the price (I am assuming) was based on PCGS photos which definitely improve the overall look and state of the coin and therefore the value. The actual coin itself is, as everyone says, stunning and a keeper  if there's not much in it between the 2 then no matter.

[azda 973]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Absolutely agree with this. For a start it isn't 100% clear whether the reverse scratches are on the slab or the coin, and furthermore, it's a very nice coin anyway. As you rightly say, Richard, these coins rarely survive in a literally perfect state. After 156 years that would be amazing.

If you look at the Spink picture, the scratches are visible on the coin which wasn't slabbed at the time

[1949threepence 3,366]

4 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

I want to clarify, I would send the coin back if I was buying the coin from the picture and received the coin OP has, because the price (I am assuming) was based on PCGS photos which definitely improve the overall look and state of the coin and therefore the value. The actual coin itself is, as everyone says, stunning and a keeper  if there's not much in it between the 2 then no matter.

From that point of view Matt, you are spot on. The PCGS photos clearly misrepresent the true postion.

3 hours ago, azda said:

If you look at the Spink picture, the scratches are visible on the coin which wasn't slabbed at the time

Here are the two pictures side by side, for direct comparison. The raw Spink one, and the slabbed one Cathrine supplied:-

 

[brg5658 111]

18 hours ago, secret santa said:

No-one yet has answered my question as to how PGCS managed to produce such fantastic photos.......

 

The biggest advantage PCGS has, is that they are photographing the coin outside of the plastic.  I have no idea what Spink is doing (also out of the plastic), but their images are awful.  The truth is clearly somewhere in between.  It is clear to see that the coin as photographed by Spink had PVC residue, and Atlas/PCGS likely actually saved the coin from being completely ruined.  

As for how PCGS manages to produce such "fantastic" photos, it is because they photograph coins, particularly proof coins, tilted into the light source.  Thus, the surfaces are often completely blown out with light, hiding hairlines and other potential problems or things that a buyer would want to know/see.  But, accentuating and overemphasizing color.

Phil Arnold (the PCGS lead photographer, who developed the TrueView service line) is mostly interested in photographing coins from an "artistic" standpoint.  He wants to show them in their best clothes.  For those of us who are also numismatic photographers, Phil's photos are known in the business as the glamour shots of a coin.  They are flattering and often hide surface attributes, but they sure are "pretty" (if you collect photographs, instead of coins!).  

Lastly, I will state that PCGS TrueView images are consistently and annoyingly red-shifted.  They are not doing any "funny business" in Photoshop or in post processing (they have to photograph WAY too many coins per day to have time for that), but the lights they use and the white balance they use always shifts the colors and over-saturates the colors toward the higher end of the red spectrum.  This annoys me to no end, and I have told Phil directly that it is not an honest way of presenting coins, but the opinion seems to be it has always been that way, and we don't want to change it now.  

Sigh...

[Paulus 1,942]

16 minutes ago, brg5658 said:

 

The biggest advantage PCGS has, is that they are photographing the coin outside of the plastic.  I have no idea what Spink is doing (also out of the plastic), but their images are awful.  The truth is clearly somewhere in between.  It is clear to see that the coin as photographed by Spink had PVC residue, and Atlas/PCGS likely actually saved the coin from being completely ruined.  

As for how PCGS manages to produce such "fantastic" photos, it is because they photograph coins, particularly proof coins, tilted into the light source.  Thus, the surfaces are often completely blown out with light, hiding hairlines and other potential problems or things that a buyer would want to know/see.  But, accentuating and overemphasizing color.

Phil Arnold (the PCGS lead photographer, who developed the TrueView service line) is mostly interested in photographing coins from an "artistic" standpoint.  He wants to show them in their best clothes.  For those of us who are also numismatic photographers, Phil's photos are known in the business as the glamour shots of a coin.  They are flattering and often hide surface attributes, but they sure are "pretty" (if you collect photographs, instead of coins!).  

Lastly, I will state that PCGS TrueView images are consistently and annoyingly red-shifted.  They are not doing any "funny business" in Photoshop or in post processing (they have to photograph WAY too many coins per day to have time for that), but the lights they use and the white balance they use always shifts the colors and over-saturates the colors toward the higher end of the red spectrum.  This annoys me to no end, and I have told Phil directly that it is not an honest way of presenting coins, but the opinion seems to be it has always been that way, and we don't want to change it now.  

Sigh...

That's very interesting if a little shocking!

Perhaps "TrueView" is not the most accurate name to choose for this service!

 

[cathrine 70]

I returned the coin to Atlas today for a refund. As I've mentioned before, I really appreciated receiving the many diverse comments and opinions that I received from the forum's members. It wasn't an easy decision to make, but I finally decided to take advantage of Atlas's generous return privilege.

[1949threepence 3,366]

33 minutes ago, cathrine said:

I returned the coin to Atlas today for a refund. As I've mentioned before, I really appreciated receiving the many diverse comments and opinions that I received from the forum's members. It wasn't an easy decision to make, but I finally decided to take advantage of Atlas's generous return privilege.

I've absolutely no doubt you already know about this superlative Freeman 4 with added original provenance from L.C.Wyon being offered at the forthcoming London Coins Auction, but just in case others don't, I thought I would post the link.

If I had the funds, I'd go for it myself.

[VickySilver 775]

Yes, ought to go for a pretty penny!  I don't have the proofs, but that one is quite tempting - the anticipated fight for it not so much.

[secret santa 2,016]

This beauty went for only £825-00 in Jun 2014 !

 

[azda 973]

I'm going to make a guess on the Londons Wyon penny and say £4300 hammer, pitch your guesses

[1949threepence 3,366]

£6k - is a possibility.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

£6k - is a possibility.

£6K seems a lot  although so does £4300 

[1949threepence 3,366]

19 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

£6K seems a lot  although so does £4300 

Well it is Pete, but it's not every day you get such distinguished provenance.

Although the cynic in me says anybody could have written that. I wonder if it's been verified as L.C.Wyon's writing by a handwriting expert, comparing it to documented Royal Mint archival record, say. .

 

[Paulus 1,942]

4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Well it is Pete, but it's not every day you get such distinguished provenance.

Although the cynic in me says anybody could have written that. I wonder if it's been verified as L.C.Wyon's writing by a handwriting expert, comparing it to documented Royal Mint archival record, say. .

 

In previous posts about provenance, and how much of a premium members of this group might be prepared to pay for it, the responses have generally been along the line of 'a little but not much' ... obviously it depends on the coin and the provenance, and in some cases (crucially) where it can prove authenticity, but normally I would not expect provenance alone to result in a massive premium? 

[VickySilver 775]

Well that is a bit better than average provenance. And a beautiful coin to boot. I'm thinking 4k or a bit less than above Dave's estimate.

[Paulus 1,942]

3 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

Well that is a bit better than average provenance. And a beautiful coin to boot. I'm thinking 4k or a bit less than above Dave's estimate.

This case is definitely an exception, I will go the highest thus far and say 8k! It has such cache

[1949threepence 3,366]

On 11/13/2016 at 8:48 PM, 1949threepence said:

Well it is Pete, but it's not every day you get such distinguished provenance.

Although the cynic in me says anybody could have written that. I wonder if it's been verified as L.C.Wyon's writing by a handwriting expert, comparing it to documented Royal Mint archival record, say. .

 

In fact my cynical side got the better of me and I e mailed LCA putting that very point to them. I've copied and pasted my e mail and Semra Cetin's reply below. I agree with what she says, with the reservation that I honestly believe the provenance note will attract a much higher premium than usual, due to its unique and very elevated status.

I wasn't sure I'd get a reply, but fair play, I did. I was probably being somewhat fanciful expecting handwriting tests to have been done, in reality. 

 

Quote

 

----- Original Message -----

From: London Coins Auctions

To: 

Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:48 AM

Subject: Fw: Lot 1189 in the December auction

 

Dear Michael,

we recommend to all our bidders to refrain from bidding if they have concerns about related papers attached to coin lots, for the reasons you have stated "It could have been written by anybody.", although we obviously believe it to be genuine.

The coin is as described and authenticate and as members of the BNTA and IAPN London Coins will refund if coins are subsequently shown to be fake.

The estimate for this lot 1189 is in line with what a Victoria bronze proof penny would realise anyway, so we are expecting prospective bidders to value the paperwork as a minor addition and would not be happy to accept the lot back if the Penny is genuine but some argument develops over the paperwork further down the line.

 

Regards

Semra Cetin
General Manager
London Coins Group Ltd
www.londoncoins.co.uk
www.coingradingservices.co.uk

 

From: 

Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 9:10 AM

To: info@londoncoins.co.uk

Subject: Re: Lot 1189 in the December auction

 

Hi,

 

With regard to Lot 1189 shown here. How do we know that the note was actually written by L.C.Wyon? It could have been written by anybody.

 

I wondered if any research into comparative handwriting had been done, analysing the writing on the note with the actual writing of L.C.Wyon, maybe held in Royal MInt records from the time.

 

Thanks.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

 

  

[PWA 1967 1,841]

View the coin and do the research first 

Edited November 22, 2016 by PWA 1967