VickySilver

I seem to recall reading that Heritage owned a percentage, possibly as much as 40 of NGC....

OK well very good then, maybe he's ironed it out. I don't have anything else at home so may send one or two more out. My first few did not go through this past week.

No, not him I don't believe as to the best of my knowledge he does not write on any coin forums. I concur that his or Mark R.'s opinion would certainly trump anybody's at Heritage, NGC or PCGS. I might be able to forward the pictures to him though.

Mercifully...Neil has written me that the system does not seem to take bids from Apple products like iPad & iPhone. I was wondering why my bids did not seem to register. So I put in about 5 or so bids from work computer; I think the activity will escalate considerably come Monday...

The site is www.baldwin.co.uk He should be able to be reached through there. He was at Spink for a long, long time. There also is (but he is harder to reach) Mark Rasmussen at www.rascoins.co.uk PS - That is my coin & the obverse looks like the coin was dragged on the street, not quite as bad in person - so I say, LOL!

The OP was on Cointalk under title GB Silver. The images of the 1934 seem to be of better quality, or at least magnify with better resolution on my computer, where there appear to be stigmata of casting in both the field and also on the bust. The problem areas to me are most obvious on the obverse as were pointed out. Badexample did show a bit of rim problem there as well. I have a GEF example that I might lamely try to post through somebody else if they take emails - PM me if that might be possible.

I think a big problem reveals itself when looking at the original post in the other forum. I quite see the micro casting marks when blown up on Mac Book Pro as well. Also, I agree that the Obverse ear detail and hair detail, especially at the nape of the neck and just above is just not right. I have seen a lot of these 1934s as well and must admit to this one being quite different overall in metal appearance from those I am certain were legitimate, even the variable of just how it oxidizes at the wear spots on the higher points. I agree that Mr. Hill at Baldwin would have to be considered amongst the very best at late milled identification. I don't remember before seeing any fake 1934 NGC-slabbed pieces, but there is much incentive to reproducing this date. I have also seen Wreaths identified as proofs by both PCGS and NGC that are clearly not, and then subsequently seen Heritage pass them through their auctions without further comment. The coins were not fake, just not properly graded

If you will recall I "busted out" CGS on gross overgrazing of a Specimen Jubilee 1935 crown that had a grade of 85. There was not only the ugly chloride deposit growing on it, but much more wear than the PCGS 65 or NGC 65 specimens that I also have of that date. However, in general, I don't think they do a bad job - just not clearly above the competition from across the Pond, despite the negative publicity those TPGs have had.

I think the 1863 farthing in the current sale is of that ilk. Not a proof IMO...Yours, Colin?

I don't think the RM was always up for the full monte, and it is almost amusing to me that some of us (including me on occasion) want to be such sticklers for what is proof and what is not; IMO they did not always spend as much time as would be best for even specially prepared coins that many would call proof or for that matter even Maundy issues (particularly of Victoria in the '40s and '50s). I have seen one coin offered as a matte 1908 that may have been the aforementioned LCA specimen that was not as clearly such. BTW, is the specimen pictured the Gerald Jackson specimen?

Wow, very nice coins. I sure like that last '16 HC that is so very deeply struck. Keep posting here, the other post is a bit unwieldy.

Those struck in gold were in many cases unique - but often there were many variants on a theme and so each of these variants is unique. I got about three for bullion at the time, or barely above. I too have the catalogue but not a spare.

However Bull in ESC has it wrong with several issues as on "non-standard" year proofs, there is not discernible or readily separable differences between Record and VIP record proofs & some of the listings from 1942-44 have mattes listed as being struck, when in fact as best I can determine and has been confirmed by late milled experts they were not As far as the "standard" years of proofs (i.e. 1937, 1950, 1951, 1953) there are some proofs more equal than others we might say. Whether these are early strikes or had special care taken no doubt will continue to be a source of argument; I find it ludicrous to attempt to find the line on coins like the 1937 proof crown & therefore have not bothered to get a so-called VIP, settling for an above average proof specimen with "cameo" contrast to G6 bust and the reverse heraldic devices. Prax, perhaps you wrote in error about the sandblast bit as these are not a standard of the Record coins but rather of the matte specimens (of which of course there are 1953 specimens in all types as you seem to point out). My recall is that Norweb had a 1954 Record proof set that did include the 3d but will have to check. Like Rob I have only the 1960 3d in Record proof as my proofs are of earlier eras. As a PS, the RM seemingly took liberties or more likely allowed for relatively poor quality control in the 1950s and especially the 1960s and so the crowns have all sorts of edge errors, rotational & other issues that may or may not have been intentional or just plain sloppy. And so I did let the plain edge 1951 pass me by at 3600+ quid.

Yours? I just was not willing to part with that amount of money for such, though a nice piece.

Is that the one just sold? Looks proof, is it?

I'm always amazed that coins like the 1917 6d when close to fully struck with full lion's nose, tail, etc. and then great hair detail on G5 don't attract more premiums when up for sale. I can PM pics but have shut down on being able to directly post....Dinosaur that I am. Keep the great pictures coming.

That 1915 is well struck to both methinks.

Brow ridge and hair detail not to keen on this one and like the points introduced IMO are a result of soft strike/worn dies. Although these are common malady issues for the war years primarily 1914-18 some specimens can be found that have surprisingly few. CGS does seem to have been a bit lenient on this one. Technical grading, BTW, would not "hit" a coins numerical grade for soft strike as that would be how it left the dies. So-called "market grading" would of course ding the numerical grade for soft strike; one problem is that there is year to year variance, and even likely die variance between coins.

Hey, I know that one! No, actually another specimen....At least CGS is a bit nicer to matte proofs when it comes to grading than the US TPGs! An exception occurred with the 1927 mattes that went through ? Superior or Heritage recently that did get SUPERGRADES but not nicer than other specimens of that date.

I second that - very, very nice penny there.

Wow, like your enthusiasm after 35 years! Not to pirate the thread, but the just-finished Heritage auction had a currency 1937 crown in NGC65 that appeared a bit pedestrian in my eyes for the grade and they had some '02 crowns earlier that just did not seem to match the grade; the American TPGs are very hard on these usually in my experience as they do not tolerate the "mint wipes" on the '02s or any cheek/eyebrow chatter on currency crown bits.

Yes indeed, that's my experience as well. The only thing I can say is that they are not at all consistent in grading of these 1902 mattes, not to mention those of later date "non-standard" years. One can only speculate as to the reasons because I can not say I agree at all with some of the grading on individual specimens. I have also seen some auctions such as Goldbergs that have numerous specimens of both the crown and the larger gold with what appear to be very liberal grading. On the other hand I did get one of the old ANACS graded matte pieces that was in fact far better than its "60" grade. 91 has got to be a sensational coin and would like to see well-lighted pictures in Hi Def of it....

Yes, it's those capsules I'd like to get a few of as I have some loose bits and they are not only large but evidently not commonly sized. I really like the central design on the 1984 coin that shows the Native guide just above Balboa's shoulder pointing out to the Pacific.

And I wanted to see "The Coinery" collections....

I guess if you get the number and the slab it might be off to Heritage? I was shocked at some of the prices fetched in the Central States auction just finished.