Leaderboard

I agree - to me it's only really a proof if it's mirror finish with frosted devices, though I know in many cases that's wrong. My understanding was that a lot of 19th century proofs (and possibly early 20th century) "proofs" (i.e. without contrasted finish) were just nice early strikes anyway, but were labelled as proofs.

I am VERY suspicious of it. There are an awful lot of modern copies of this and other rare date coins out there these days and would always want proper provenance or a dealer's guarantee or willingness to take returns if I was not able to see the coin in hand. This seller, I see, won't take returns and that just doubles my suspicion. Coins like this really need to be seen in the flesh by experienced eyes - one cannot tell a thing for sure from photos and so personally I would avoid...

Hmm, yes, possibly. But would you still think there was something special about it if it was just being sold as a BIN for £80 on e bay? If you would, then fair enough.

The OP coin does appear to be a proof, at least to me. However, I quite agree with your statement. I believe the "case for proofiness" has to be proved before being accepted In the Vicky silver series (LOL) there are many exceptional business strikes that have very prooflike appearance but IMO are not. And Peck's point about 20th C. "VIP" proofs are correct as well - I see examples of such with the 1951 and 1953 crowns and other coins from the sets of these years. Also, many TPG slabbed Wreaths in "proof" are IMO not at all, and these have been sold through at auction fairly frequently (I have posted my opinion on some of these several times on these boards as well).

I wouldn't like to comment of whether the 1859 coin is a proof. However the parallel lines on the reverse of the coin may be due to some cleaning or wiping in the past.