Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

I've just been looking at some G6 proof coins on the Heritage website, dated 1939. I can't find any proof coins for this year in Spinks, can anyone clear this up for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im guessing at vip proofs.....ESC suggests they exist.

ski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They exist for all years from 1927 up to 1964ish. Some are more common, others are decidedly rare. A few year/denomination combinationss exist in greater numbers than others, the reason given by someone being that a group visiting the mint had a coin struck for each of them.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, gents! Does anyone know why spink omit them from their catalogue, and where I might find numbers minted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, gents! Does anyone know why spink omit them from their catalogue, and where I might find numbers minted?

Numbers don't exist and they are omitted on space grounds. You could include proofs of most silver and bronze from Victoria, together with the above period. It was only from 1893-1926 that the year sets were the only ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, gents! Does anyone know why spink omit them from their catalogue, and where I might find numbers minted?

I imagine that if Spink produce their catalogue in a future century, they will be listed but as at present - Extremely rare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoinCraft lists them too, Stuart. For instance, 1939 Proof English Shilling, £350 in 1999.

Does CoinCraft list all the G6 proofs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They exist for all years from 1927 up to 1964ish. Some are more common, others are decidedly rare. A few year/denomination combinationss exist in greater numbers than others, the reason given by someone being that a group visiting the mint had a coin struck for each of them.

Can rarity be determined from any other source other than experience and present Heritage market prices?

Edited by Coinery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They exist for all years from 1927 up to 1964ish. Some are more common, others are decidedly rare. A few year/denomination combinationss exist in greater numbers than others, the reason given by someone being that a group visiting the mint had a coin struck for each of them.

Can rarity be determined from any other source other than experience and present Heritage market prices?

Use the first, ignore the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I also ask what is meant by cameo in reference to proof coins?

It was introduced by the TPGs to suggest the coin has a portrait with greater contrast to the background i.e. it is like a cameo picture. Often frosted as this gives the best contrast, but essentially is another term for people to aspire to or bump up the price. You should still buy the coin and not the label. It is a lottery whether the label is applied or not.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I also ask what is meant by cameo in reference to proof coins?

Cameo proofs mean that the design has a frosted appearance and the fields look mirrorlike.

When it comes to American coins, the Franklin half dollar is apt to be the one that shows a huge difference between a non-cameo and cameo proof.

353059_slab.jpg.

The first image shows a typical non-cameo proof. The coin is shiny, but the design isn't frosted. It is clearly a proof coin, but not a cameo.

The second image shows a cameo proof (or if you believe American TPGers, a "Deep Cameo"). The fields are mirrorlike and the design is frosted. When held in hand it looks a bit like a carved cameo.

If you believe TPGers there are several different classes of cameo proofs, ranging from Cameo, to Deep Cameo, to Ultra Cameo.

post-6783-025775300 1356834859_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heritage prices are really so far out of context, 1911 Half Sov proof, starting price $875 which is basically Spink 2013 book price for this coin, its estimate is $1750, so double Spinks guide. This is one of the reasons i never bid at Heritage, definately an overpriced auction house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I also ask what is meant by cameo in reference to proof coins?

Cameo proofs mean that the design has a frosted appearance and the fields look mirrorlike.

When it comes to American coins, the Franklin half dollar is apt to be the one that shows a huge difference between a non-cameo and cameo proof.

353059_slab.jpg.

The first image shows a typical non-cameo proof. The coin is shiny, but the design isn't frosted. It is clearly a proof coin, but not a cameo.

The second image shows a cameo proof (or if you believe American TPGers, a "Deep Cameo"). The fields are mirrorlike and the design is frosted. When held in hand it looks a bit like a carved cameo.

If you believe TPGers there are several different classes of cameo proofs, ranging from Cameo, to Deep Cameo, to Ultra Cameo.

Yes this is something I get annoyed about. Take the 1935 raised edge crown for instance. With a mintage of just 2500 and probably all minted at the same time how can you differentiate between them, the TPGs are just making it up for their own gains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks Rob & Generic Lad, another enlightenment in the bag!

I'm always staggered by the Heritage prices, something to be taken advantage of I think, a good way to grow a collection if the funds are flowing in the right direction.

It certainly seems like a step too far to separate out the proofs from a mintage of just 2500, I agree Gary, though I guess they study diamonds at this level, looking for any little improvement in one over the other to make an extra buck! Definitely an investment-led invention, nothing to do with just having a 1935 proof as a collector!

Thanks all! Very much appreciated...now, about this BCW Rose 9 on my earlier threepence, does anyone... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I also ask what is meant by cameo in reference to proof coins?

The frosted appearance is produced by sandblasting the sunk portions of a die. It's actually a particular minting technique, and should be distinguished from - e.g. - proofs produced in the 1970s, which are non-frosted mirror-like proofs. The particular difficulty is with George VI - some of the proofs have a very mild frosting appearance (which may or may not have been caused by treatment of dies), while others of the same year / denomination don't show any.

I often wonder what the Edward VII matt proofs would have been like if the matt effect had been restricted to only the raised portions of the design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this is something I get annoyed about. Take the 1935 raised edge crown for instance. With a mintage of just 2500 and probably all minted at the same time how can you differentiate between them, the TPGs are just making it up for their own gains.

I agree that there is no point trying to describe some 1935 raised edge crowns as "cameo" and others as "deep cameo". I read in a review that there are also non cameo (no frosting) 1935 proof crowns but have never seen one myself. Has anyone seen one before? If so does anyone know why the different types exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeman lists proof bronze pennies and halfpennies for 1939 at R18 ~ 6 to 15 estimated to be in existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeman lists proof bronze pennies and halfpennies for 1939 at R18 ~ 6 to 15 estimated to be in existence.

Freeman gives virtually all the G5 & G6 proofs as R18 and all the E2s (bar 1953) as R19, which is patently wrong. As always, it is a case of guesstimating rarities because readers demand a number. Spadework is required to establish the relative rarities and numbers for each year.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Christmas is now past so put on your iron shorts. LOL

KG6 is known in proof for all years and Spencer in his Numismatist 1982 article performed an excellent reprise. I am perhaps nearly as familiar with this series as anybody and note that I have seen all silver in proof for KG6 as well as the later CuNi EXCEPT for the 1944 3d, the 1945 3d, the 1945 E&S Shillings, 2/- and 2/6, the 1946 (S) and 2/-. PM me if you are interested in any further investigations.

Cameo and Deep Cameo are really quite evident in UK or USA issues, and after you have seen a few there really is no mystery. Quite honestly the latter are much more attractive, and all the more compared to the usually less contrasty bits that come up for sale, however infrequently. An astute collector might be expected to nearly always pick such a coin preferentially. So not a marketing instrument necessarily. Many of the KG5 an 6 issues that are not "contrasty" are actually quite unattractive and not much more visually than the already bland currency bits. Some are exceedingly rare (i.e. 1930 halfcrown in proof); also shocking how poorly some of these were handled and note that TPG slabbing have been a Godsend for these with all respect to the naysayer crowd on this board with regards to trying to protect them; one example is the vulnerable cheek of KG5 to "cabinet friction". Let me say that again: "The TPGs have been a Godsend for these with all respect to the naysayer crowd" - I just likely to hear the crowing!

If somebody knows a source for any of the bits I have missed, please let me to know via PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - We don't need any help on bidding at Heritage, I ' d rather get the odd bargain by doing my homework and letting people make their assumptions. And let the fancy grades get their prices, who cares? I have occ. purchased exact bits supposedly sold in their sales for less not that much later. Also, we can fluff our feathers a bit when a coin that we feel that we have equal or superior to sells for high or even outrageous amounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Christmas is now past so put on your iron shorts. LOL

KG6 is known in proof for all years and Spencer in his Numismatist 1982 article performed an excellent reprise. I am perhaps nearly as familiar with this series as anybody and note that I have seen all silver in proof for KG6 as well as the later CuNi EXCEPT for the 1944 3d, the 1945 3d, the 1945 E&S Shillings, 2/- and 2/6, the 1946 (S) and 2/-. PM me if you are interested in any further investigations.

Cameo and Deep Cameo are really quite evident in UK or USA issues, and after you have seen a few there really is no mystery. Quite honestly the latter are much more attractive, and all the more compared to the usually less contrasty bits that come up for sale, however infrequently. An astute collector might be expected to nearly always pick such a coin preferentially. So not a marketing instrument necessarily. Many of the KG5 an 6 issues that are not "contrasty" are actually quite unattractive and not much more visually than the already bland currency bits. Some are exceedingly rare (i.e. 1930 halfcrown in proof); also shocking how poorly some of these were handled and note that TPG slabbing have been a Godsend for these with all respect to the naysayer crowd on this board with regards to trying to protect them; one example is the vulnerable cheek of KG5 to "cabinet friction". Let me say that again: "The TPGs have been a Godsend for these with all respect to the naysayer crowd" - I just likely to hear the crowing!

If somebody knows a source for any of the bits I have missed, please let me to know via PM.

Ooooooh, slabbing..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeman lists proof bronze pennies and halfpennies for 1939 at R18 ~ 6 to 15 estimated to be in existence.

Freeman gives virtually all the G5 & G6 proofs as R18 and all the E2s (bar 1953) as R19, which is patently wrong. As always, it is a case of guesstimating rarities because readers demand a number. Spadework is required to establish the relative rarities and numbers for each year.

So where is your more accurate source ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeman lists proof bronze pennies and halfpennies for 1939 at R18 ~ 6 to 15 estimated to be in existence.

Freeman gives virtually all the G5 & G6 proofs as R18 and all the E2s (bar 1953) as R19, which is patently wrong. As always, it is a case of guesstimating rarities because readers demand a number. Spadework is required to establish the relative rarities and numbers for each year.

So where is your more accurate source ?

On my computer. Spadework produces information. e.g. Someone on the PCGS forum collected 1958 VIP halfpennies who almost reached R18 on his own. Knowing full well that there were other identifiable sales that were not his, the conclusion is apparent. As always, some rarity numbers are overestimates and others under. Whilst you can never achieve definitive numbers from catalogues, you can make a pretty good stab at relative rarity based on images from sales because most will be identified for what they are. At best, Freeman's estimates are taken from auction catalogues with only some of these illustrated because his work predates the internet making any number more unreliable. Inevitably some rarity estimates will be correct, but only by accident and intuition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×