London Coins June Auction

[mrbadexample]

59 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Jon, I have to say that LCA tend to be quite conservative in their grading, such that - if anything - they undergrade.

Well that's encouraging at least.

[Prax]

On 11/05/2016 at 8:18 PM, alfnail said:

Does this help clarify!?

[PWA 1967]

I have looked at this picture a few times.

Another thread made me doubt some pennies as proofs.

Lot 3193............ 1896 penny.......is that a proof ?.

I understand its hard to tell from pictures but would like to get an opinion 

Pete

 

[PWA 1967]

Looking back 1908 proof penny LOT 2472.

From the pictures i would not of spotted that one ......£2600 plus BP 

[Nordle11]

As far as I'm concerned, that's neither matt nor proof. This is a matt proof 1908 (and looks like one too);

 

[PWA 1967]

Yes Matt with that one not a doubt 

[Paulus]

5 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

As far as I'm concerned, that's neither matt nor proof. This is a matt proof 1908 (and looks like one too);

 

I had no idea there was a proof 1908! Just checked Freeman, so there is!

Edited May 18, 2016 by Paulus

[Nordle11]

Indeed there is, just not the one from the last LCA auction

[Colin G.]

I often find the same with many farthings that are described as proofs, yet I have difficulty accepting a majority as such. They may be specimens or coins struck specially for a specific reason, or even just early strikings in come cases, but I just can not accept them as proofs. When compared against known proof years (where sets were issued for example) there are very clear differences.

 

[azda]

5 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

As far as I'm concerned, that's neither matt nor proof. This is a matt proof 1908 (and looks like one too);

 

Now that is a handsome bugger, pity all his coinage wasn't struck the same

[mhcoins]

3 hours ago, azda said:

Now that is a handsome bugger, pity all his coinage wasn't struck the same

i did that photograph

 

[PWA 1967]

2 minutes ago, mhcoins said:

i did that photograph

 

Have you still got the coin ?.

[mhcoins]

sadly it wasn't mine, i took the photograph for the auctioneer

[VickySilver]

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?

[Colin G.]

I think the problem is that I would not be willing to pay that much of a premium for what could have been a bad day making proofs at the mint, whilst it may also realistically just be an early strike of a currency example. If I am to convince myself I have bought a proof and the premium that they command, I expect its classification to be undeniable...like the specimen above.

[VickySilver]

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

[Colin G.]

Yes I would definitely agree, but at least they have cast some doubt over the "proof" status of this one

[1949threepence]

On 5/18/2016 at 10:32 AM, PWA 1967 said:

I have looked at this picture a few times.

Another thread made me doubt some pennies as proofs.

Lot 3193............ 1896 penny.......is that a proof ?.

I understand its hard to tell from pictures but would like to get an opinion 

Pete

 

There's nothing to distinguish it from a normal currency strike, Pete. That's the difference between a "wannabee" proof and an obviously actual one, like the 1908, Matt posted. A real proof hits you in the eye as soon as you see it.    

[secret santa]

Surely not a proof or even a specimen - look at the state of those border teeth !

[PWA 1967]

Thanks for the replies and that was my thoughts.

But wasnt sure if i was missing something.

LCA must be convinced .

Although will be interested to see if it does sell.

[Prax]

90% certain that it's not a proof, weak striking around teeth, waves and Britannia's foot. I always look at the rim first because proofs have a very polished yet sharp rim. With veiled heads I've also noticed far more detail on Britannia's foot for instance the toes are clearly cut. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=152&l=2458&f=r&s=l

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/img.php?a=124&l=784&f=r&s=l

Surely you'd think LCA can't get it wrong twice in a row or can they?

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by Prax

[mrbadexample]

On 5/11/2016 at 7:24 PM, Rob said:

Grade is an opinion, attribution is not, or at least shouldn't be.

You can argue the case if the grade is wildly out, but half a grade either way, not a chance.

Well here's my chance to test that. I bought lot 1703 at the June auction. Bit of a punt as no photos, but this is the "11 leaf" 1797 penny they sent me:

[Rob]

Which it isn't

[mrbadexample]

Exactly. Now I get to test Semra's legendary customer service skills. Oh joy. 

Edited June 11, 2016 by mrbadexample

[VickySilver]

Hmm, better get your leather pants on.