azda

What you have to remember is that not everyone wants to slab a coin, the 1887 crown i have remains unslabbed because i enjoy looking at it without plastic around it. The prices for the Secundos in high grades are quite healthy, better than the Victorian crowns apart from the Proofs, how many proof Victorias do you see slabbed for 1887 and 1893, i bet a few more, hence the reason IMO there are more of these slabbed than you'll see of the Common Victoria crowns.

I think the other point to make on this is that American collectors/flippers tend to fight out over a raw high grade in the hope that the eventual slab number will make them a tidy profit. In my mind i'd prefer a Secundo to say a Jubilee or Widow head, also look at the 1934 Wreath crown, 934 minted but there's always one available somewhere because people think they have a potential of growth but because they are so often for sale i think that's stagnated a little. Between the 3 of these types i'd buy the Secundo, just my personal choice, i have one Viccie Jubilee head Crown and only because it had huge eye appeal, haven't ventured for a Secundo yet and i won't touch a 34 Wreath whether slabbed by LCGS, PCGS or NGC, it's such a boring design and has nothing going for it for me. Also take into account how many of the 500k Secundos are around in high grades, i'm guessing not a lot due to the amount you see in low grades.

You seemed to have answered your own question lol

You're probably failing to take into consideration length of reign, George IV 10 years, Victoria 63 years. Crowns struck for George IV was for 1821 and 22, Victoria was over 10 years, so in essence there in an over abundance of Victorian crowns compared to George IV. So compare the mintage of crowns, George IV maybe 500,000 in total, Victoria maybe at a guess 4 million for the older head Crowns

Ok, another for the farthing boys, maybe, maybe not. Inverted Vs for As in GRATIA? URL=http://s277.photobucket.com/user/azda68/media/Screenshot%202017-02-16%2019.49.28.png.html][/URL]

True, but it would seem strange that it looks the same thickness as the 1 in the date. Maybe it's just how the picture is, but they look similar widths

The leg of the 4 looks quite thick though at the bottom near the serif

This is being described as 4 over 1, a bit of a dog but unlisted, your thoughts,

I'd be asking the BM rather than Spink right now.....

STEWIEEEEEEEEEEEEE

The circles we walk and the brick wall we beat our heads against

Always regard it as part of the history of these coins, not many of these shillings are perfect

Regardless of how low the grade is, if it's a proof then it will always be proof in their eyes

It boosts prices and profits

Spink

The pictures in the hammered section are of milled coins, at least 4 or 5 of them, never went any further after that, couldn't be arsed

The catalogue is a complete train wreck

Did'nt want to disapoint Rob

I wonder if its a buddy grade, i'll be surprised if that sells at all, thanks also sword. Also noticed lots of errors in the catalogue, milled in he hammered section, wrong pics etc, getting sloppy

Fairly surprised at the grade LCs have put on this Edward VI shilling, in fact i think it's pretty poor grading, loads of wear on the face and robe, mine is GVF as comparison

Yet he keeps getting away with it.......

hopefully a bit better

I noticed that also, but have also seen videos from PCGS who also handle them without gloves which really bloody irritates me, they should handle all these coins with gloves and especially so proofs. I uploaded the video because someone mentioned on here the reason LCGS were so good was because they have 3 graders for each coins, so now we know that NGC also have the same amount of graders, although they certainly took about 90 seconds to look over and submit the grade which i could also do if you sent me $30

Lol, since that was written in 2010 i must have forgotten all about it