Leaderboard

All the contradictions are generated by those who wish to have a proof designated VIP because suitably attributed coins would probably see a sudden increase in value. Everyone wants the rare coin rather than being content with a bog standard one - think about the number of people claiming to have a satin proof Churchill. Oddly enough, it is probably easier and cheaper to buy a regular 'VIP' proof from the non-set years, than a wishful thinking 'maybe it is' from 1937 or 1953 etc. The VIP label was always given as the rationale for the very low mintage proofs. As to where they went? Who knows. The mintage determined the exclusivity and so the phrase was coined. In the case of the toothed reverse penny, you do have a particularly rare variety, so their VIP attribution could well be a reflection of the people it was made for. The same might possibly be said for the Freeman 465A halfpenny. For an R14 I have seen precious few examples, and the picture on the link above does suggest the rim might be a bit thicker than normal.

i'm going for 10fcfffc wotsit lol

Paddy If you get any closer than London mint my daawg can have my rib-eye steak planned for my supper.

How would you tell? It's a proof, full stop.

A toothed reverse on a 1953 penny is very rare, and is the only way to distinguish a VIP coin from a normal proof. The other coins in the set may well be "VIP" too but there is probably no way to distinguish them from normal proofs. As Rob says, the only sure way to know a VIP is if it's a coin not issued as a 'normal proof' (i.e. dates after 1953).

People have been mixing and matching sets since they were made. Even if the original coins make up the set, there is no rule which stipulates they have to tone the same, nor whether they are frosted or not. People are still getting far too exercised over this VIP nonsense.

For sheer ineptitude this one surely takes the biscuit: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/6-KING-GEORGEVI-BRASS-FARTHINGS-DATED-1937-1941-2-3-4-5/372226389083?hash=item56aa6bf45b:g:cnkAAOSwSPBaev3W Not only has he mis-identified threepences as farthings, but he his listed it in the halfpennies category!

Yikes, this bit about frosting is always disconcerting and repeated on these Boards ad infinitum. I think it arbitrary but convenient to define ex post facto what is and is not "VIP (Record)". The 1937 Crown is particularly problematic if one lets it bother him/herself. I am fine with a nice mark free 65 proof in Cam or DCam as a decent proof, and save the arguments for when there is little else to do. Frosting on a particular coin is a function of so many processes, and many were not always fastidiously employed and so hate to use that as a sole criteria. I like metal and strike quality as well, and though I admit some pieces are a bit better than even a 65Cam (not sure if that is so with a DCam though), can not fathom a huge price differential. I'll be impressed when somebody shows me an XRF done on a specimen that shows sterling rather than 0.500 content. Proofs are quite something in the silver/CuNi series from Vicky to E2 as quality is all over. I think I have shown before my 1839 half crown that is much finer in presentation than proofs struck 125 years later, but coins such as the Wreaths that are almost always better described as "Specimen" IMO than proof leave much to be desired. This VIP status thing has its limits. I might also add that I have had some discussion with Steve Hill about the Bull apparent attempt at dividing "regular" from "VIP version" proofs of G6, particular to the non-standard year proofs of the 1940s, and we are both of the opinion that the latter is not a separate category and is erroneous as his are listings for many coins from the 1940s that are listed as mattes but yet to be confirmed...

No thats not a VIP Proof, there is little or no frosting to the reverse. VERY hard to tell from photos, in the hand its much easier and becomes obvious that the VIP coins are different. As I said I have the VIP and the PF65CAM, both PCGS slabbed, and the difference is clear in the hand but not in images. Hence it can lead to a lot of confusion when comparing images.