1934 Wreath Crown Fake or Genuine

[azda]

10 hours ago, 1934 Wreath Crown said:

So basically you feel it is a genuine coin???!!! Steve Hill was also leaning towards that opinion but left the final decision to me. Having discussed it with HA and as AZDA said, in the interest of a little more peace of mind, I have decided to send it back to HA and NGC for review and re-evaluation. It will cost me upwards of $200 but well worth it, in my opinion.

Should it be found to be a fake i would also be asking for the costs to be paid back also, but i think you're doing the right thing

[brg5658]

I think part of the concerns (about colour of the metal) are unfounded.  Circulated silver, when lit with overly diffuse light, shows up with an almost coppery tinge on points of wear or weak strike.  I know next to nothing about this particular coin, but I know enough about photography to know that the pictures posted in the OP are not how the coin looks in hand. Short of any obvious die markers missing (which I don't see mentioned here), I think an in hand review of the coin by an expert would be the only way for you to get an honest answer to this question.

It's a hassle, but returning the coin for review is better than the musings of keyboard warriors spouting off opinions (biased largely by their vitriolic hatred of NGC and PCGS) based on so-so pictures.

Just my tuppence...

[1934 Wreath Crown]

48 minutes ago, brg5658 said:

I think part of the concerns (about colour of the metal) are unfounded.  Circulated silver, when lit with overly diffuse light, shows up with an almost coppery tinge on points of wear or weak strike.  I know next to nothing about this particular coin, but I know enough about photography to know that the pictures posted in the OP are not how the coin looks in hand. Short of any obvious die markers missing (which I don't see mentioned here), I think an in hand review of the coin by an expert would be the only way for you to get an honest answer to this question.

It's a hassle, but returning the coin for review is better than the musings of keyboard warriors spouting off opinions (biased largely by their vitriolic hatred of NGC and PCGS) based on so-so pictures.

Just my tuppence...

Thanks Brg. Not tuppence but a whole crown's worth of advice

Yes I have arranged to send it back for review. Having taken the coin out of the bank and seen it again, the coppery tinge is in fact just the shading in photography as you rightly pointed out. Yes there seems to be some 'scraping' at the high points but to me this could be the result of a one time accident, not an intentional filing of a coin that has been cast.

I also feel that such obvious pointers of at forgery would, most certainly, have been picked up by the graders at NGC and we are naive to think that they would miss them. 

Should have feedback in about 2-3 weeks and will post the results here.

[VickySilver]

Please rethink the second to the last paragraph. NGC has missed on a number of coins as has been pointed out here. They have absolutely blown counterfeits, even denominations and proof vs. currency calls. They are the entity have shown to be rather naive or lacking care on many counts. Let's not go there with the unrelated issue of abysmal grading on occasion.

 

Please note the issues are simply not just with the coppery appearances of high points, but rather the quality of the metal and striking issues that are IMO quite worrisome. As has been pointed out, they are perhaps the not best of their own judging and not the source  I would go to in such an instance.

Edited June 1, 2016 by VickySilver

[azda]

And here's another example how NGC get it wrong http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1897-Great-Britain-Penny-High-Sea-Level-NGC-MS-64-Red-Brown-/162088884604?hash=item25bd40197c:g:lZwAAOSwIjNXJp~w

This isn't a high tide, which is rarer than the normal tide, which this coin is

[CartwheelTwopence]

NGC obviously get it wrong, on occasion, however I feel as though your 1934 Wreath crown is genuine and that perhaps the picture is responsible for the issues. This, or it's a really good fake.

[1934 Wreath Crown]

On 1 June 2016 at 1:24 AM, CartwheelTwopence said:

NGC obviously get it wrong, on occasion, however I feel as though your 1934 Wreath crown is genuine and that perhaps the picture is responsible for the issues. This, or it's a really good fake.

Thanks. I too think it is genuine. Anyway it's been sent back for re-evaluation so we shall know in a few days. I'm sure NGC will look at it much more closely now that it is a coin that has raised doubts.

[VickySilver]

PM me, and I will send you pictures of each Wreath date in currency and VIP proof - although some are locked up in safe deposit box. I used to have two of the currency 1934s (sold one) & proof is ex-Spink. BTW, many of the slabbed proofs in fact are early die state currency which in the case of the lower mintage 1934, 1932 and 1936 is nearly the entire issue. This is also all the more reason that there should be better striking detail in the areas I have outlined previously.

Not quite sure why some readers seem to be missing the issues I have brought up, which are actually quite germaine and unfortunately bring this specimen into question. Also will note that NGC have not always been on mark and I have had to continually resubmit a few coins with supportive documentation as to type/variety and they with a few have held on pigheadedly to their initial opinion; finally gave up on them

[1934 Wreath Crown]

Hello Everyone who had been following this thread. I have just heard back from HA who had submitted the coin to NGC for re-evaluation. NGC have confirmed that the coin is 'struck and genuine'. Therefore, it is not a cast fake item.

I am happy with their findings and can finally put this issue to bed. Thanks to everyone who supported and encouraged me. As for the person who started all this, on Coin Talk, I would say....Hope you have more interesting things to do in life and perhaps instead of writing books you need to do some research first. Cheers!!!

[azda]

At least you now have peace of mind.........

[VickySilver]

I think his response is rather a good one - not to advertise for Coin Talk. I likewise would not be at peace with NGC's own evaluation of how they did unless specifics were given, and that he is correct in stating they (NGC) should specifically address points brought up by him there and a few here as well as running down the basics.

 I like him (the poster on CoinTalk) referencing the resubmission to NGC and asking them to assess their own assessment as there would naturally tend to be a bit of bias on their part as some have previously said here - a bit hollow like his own mother or sister praising his school recital. Smacks a bit of drinking the Koolaide as I have seen them say on the PCGS boards.

 Possibly insulting someone is not so brilliant a move. Understandable if you have parted with your monies for such a coin & nobody likes to be challenged. However, he did discuss what research should be done and there so far is no evidence that it was. That last bit you tossed in there was likely not called for. Further, I had suggested you consider an alternate authentication to NGC as well and doubt a commercially-driven enterprise of their likes would "find" against themselves either.

Edited July 26, 2016 by VickySilver

[brg5658]

 

I'm confused.  I always thought @VickySilver here was Jags7 on CoinTalk, and 7Jaguars on the PCGS forums.  

Given that VickySilver is talking about the poster in the CoinTalk thread in the 3rd person I guess that's not the case?  What is the screen-name here for the person who is Jags7 on CoinTalk?  And, why don't they speak up here?

[1934 Wreath Crown]

Vicky Silver I took every bit of practical advice offered to me and asked all the experts for their opinion. If I send the coin to anyone else for evaluation and it is removed from the NGC holder, what recourse do I have at any time with the auction house or NGC....NONE.

 I had the coin in hand and although I am not an expert, I looked at it carefully under 40X and 60X magnification. It looked OK. It is not MS and the wear looked normal. The brownish colouring is only in the photographs not on the coin itself.

I have a simple question from all forum participants….why do we get coins graded IF we feel that the independent graders are such novices that they would mistake intentional filing and scuffing of a coin for normal wear and tear? Or miss telltale signs!!! And are NGC so petty, dishonest and irresponsible that both they and HA would ignore a client’s concerns for a few $$$ and intentionally give a false opinion a second time? I don’t think so.

Which is why I prefer to pay a little more for a graded coin rather than buy an ungraded coin from a dealer who might want to slip a fake to me for personal gain. I have suffered a large loss on eBay at the hands of a long-standing unscrupulous dealer with 100% positive feedback.

 What irks me is that while others tried to be positive and helpful, a single individual was insisting he was right even when the best, most respected experts in the business said it looked OK in the photos BUT they could not be certain without having the coin in hand (a conclusion I can accept and respect). However, this one individual is almost certain that the coin is a fake???

 I stand by my opinion of him and don’t care if he does not post any comments on my coins or threads in future.

[Stuntman]

Seems a bit harsh.  

 

I read through the thread on cointalk and I thought that the poster in question was merely expressing concern over the coin's genuineness and actually giving you some decent advice.  I'm really pleased for you that NGC have confirmed the coin as being genuine and if you're happy, that should be the end of it from your point of view.  But the poster in question's follow-up points about what has or hasn't been provided as evidence (etc) are well made too, in my opinion.

 

I get why you prefer to have graded coins for the peace of mind it gives you.  Enjoy cherishing them!

[Guest Roland56]

The 'KG' engravers initials on the reverse is not as fine and sharp as those seen in genuine Wreath crowns.......

[Colin88]

Although Coins of England 2017 may suggest otherwise , I would argue that the price of 1934 Crowns has actually decreased in recent times because of so many of the (mainly Chinese) fakes that are currently on the market and that buyers have and that buyers should be,  extremely wary of spending £thousands on these coins.

Also interesting to see that in the Coins of England book is that the 1933 Crown is asterisked as a coin that is often faked but not so the 1934...in my experience of collecting these I have very rarely seen a 1933 fake but have seen many 1934 fakes.....and 27 and 28 come that.

 

 

 

[Rob]

I just ignore them

 

[1949threepence]

On 5/21/2016 at 2:25 PM, Rob said:

There is also the RM museum. They may still have the original dies to compare. It would take a while to hear back from them.

Also, if I recall correctly from the £2 fake coin thread, the RM have a machine which can precisely calibrate the metal mix in any given item, to see whether it matches exact specifications from the time of minting, or whether there is a significant variance. Chinese forgers may not give as much thought to that, as they do to the exactitude of design copy - don't know, just a thought.

Purely academic as the OP's issue is clearly resolved in his favour.      

[VickySilver]

I have to disagree. NGC backs themselves up and says their opinion correct but then no rationale is given. On an unrelated coin issue I have absolutely blown them out of the water on doing this (backing up their own original erroneous opinion, although still ongoing as they have requested the coins in question back a THIRD time now). IMO that is not a genuine looking coin from the pictures, though admit to not having seen it in hand.

BTW, otherwise I am generally alright with them - NGC.