VickySilver

OK, this was a trick post - the coin is certified as TWO reverse dies, a genuine double-reverse coin!

Edges a bit square..

I got this coin recently and looks almost normal. What do readers think? I will show a second picture ASAP

Well, that is a nice coin but would likely some to a different conclusion about the cleaning....

Wow, I will say that was a steal. To be fair, it may have been cleaned but it is certainly far better preserved than the average.

Wel Spink and St. James do alright on some of their sales as well...

Marketing. Pump, pump, pump it up. There is a lot of hype on these and people go for this (including me on occasion if I just HAVE to have a coin).

Wow! Well, good on you for the 3d. The 1934 date may be a bit scarcer; I secured one off Spink back when the SNC was a viable entity....Ex-Norweb.

I was astonished to see prices for George V proof silver going "Big Boy". All are prices as knocked down and not the final gross: THe 1931 Proof Crown went for 12k USD The 1934 Proof Crown went for 20.5k USD The 1934 Proof Halfcrown went for 10k USD The 1934 Proof shilling and 3d went for 3k USD These were all very nice coins, but frankly surprised me just a bit as they went for multiples of what I had seen similar coins go for. One other thing to keep in mind though is that many proof Wreath crowns, or at least those slabbed as proof by TPGs are IMO not really proofs. These two both would get my stamp of approval as legitimate proofs however. I managed to squeak by on the 1934 6d which I had been missing (I most certainly try NOT to buy coins at such venues, but where do you find another?).

I absolutely agree. Complete rubbish and lacking aesthetics; I wouldn't even pay spot for it.

OK, as you might imagine I was hopeful that Spink might have something up my alley in their latest e-Sale. Well, basically NO! There is a good date run of halfcrowns for the period 1820 through QE II. HOWEVER, most including the scarcer dates were CLEANED! What in the world? Will collectors please stop trying to "improve" their coins? Especially if they haven't a clue about cleaning or conserving coins. There are no pictures yet, and not that they are that great anyway of late at Spink but their descriptions suffice. I think the only coin I might bid on is the 1846, 6 over 8. The rest including the very rare currency 1839 are CLEANED!!!! Yikes. Well, sorry for the ravings of a lunatic, but I was horrified...

I wonder the same...If they don't change some of the proof and pattern designations, will submit changes for them - if they take them.

OK, no surprise and possibly the explanation then....

I agree nice coin but just a bit dear for what you ended up with. If it was a big enough issue then I suppose LCA could be approached. I tend to be more passive and let the lesser bargains such as this pass and remember the good ones - maybe karma or ?? I have some fights occ. with the TPGs about "proofiness" of Vicky silver bits (eg an 1859 shilling bought as proof from Spink many years prior)....

Double, me either on 1949 post...

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).

True. No telling on motivation factors, but the coin just [possibly] irrationally irritates me. I would say though that 4k quid is no small change...

Run, Forrest, Run! I liked that line from Forrest Gump. This coin even on photos FAILS and really is the sort that irritates me beyond reason probably. It is right up my alley and the real thing would have held tremendous interest to me. A coin like this would have to come with pristine provenance to even be remotely considered and I feel sorry for the buyer....

In the better states of preservation only, in worn states not so. This one is supposedly CGS88 which may or not be the same as PCGS or NGC 67. I will have a look if it ever does make it here.

I think that is what they bring at auction and IMO somewhat of a bargain at that price point. I think that is why the 1937 crown went for so little, even at CGS 88 (I am still hoping on a currency).

Very nice ID there Lotad. Less detail in the leg and arm = Type I More detail in leg and arm = Type II I think even I can remember that!

Yes, and will try to post the halfpenny as well...

Yes, I have used that technique to not much avail. It is amusing that when attending live auctions, the auctioneer does what s/he can to beat these down. I do hope that the crown I won is a currency strike as that would be a steal, but even if proof not a bad price in any case. But I have too many already...LOL

I won both small lots at quite a bit less than bid max, however they were so small as to not be on the radar. I did get the OMS 1965 halfpenny but am concerned that is possible plated given its weight (despite CGS slabbing). Bruce, I think that piece is currency as well and if so would have to have been a steal at 75 Quid. I don't usually have that sort of luck....

Lot 1491 was listed as a proof 1937 crown - can't tell from the pictures, is it proof or currency?