LCA December

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

23 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Thanks chaps. Evidently this is quite a contentious issue. 

As you say @VickySilver paying £5000+ for a coin of uncertain pedigree (VIP or not?), seems somewhat impetuous.    

Not really sure I would say IMPETUOUS, I probably could think of a few choicer words...

[craigy]

18 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Cheers craigy. I get it now. 

expand ? 

[1949threepence]

12 hours ago, craigy said:

expand ? 

What you said:-

 

Quote

You would know the difference immediately as the V.I.P proof is Frosted and the mirror surface is almost black like looking into an abyss. LCA VIP V my sad offering normal one 

Drew the distinction between the appearance of a VIP proof and an ordinary proof.

[craigy]

so what is the crown classed as in this set, the other side is just as frosted, trying to see if i have a pic on me 

[Rob]

On 13/11/2017 at 1:03 PM, craigy said:

lca a say a lot of thing, the whole vip proof thing is debatable i think, 

Historically, or at least say 10-20 years or more ago, VIP was only attached to those years in which proofs were made in limited numbers (a handful of examples), i.e. the years in which sets were not made for the masses. The years in which it applied started from 1926 onwards when a few proofs were struck of all current denominations and continued up to the early 1960s. Notwithstanding the debate about the first year which some contend are not (though I'm happy that my 1926 halfpenny is one), there are coins extant with proof quality finish for all years in between, though not necessarily all denominations for every year due to gaps in the dates of currency issues. It should be noted that not all proof coins of these rare issues exhibit frosted devices.

During the past 10 years, the phrase 'VIP' has been misappropriated in my opinion to include superior strikes with a cameo effect with a resultant explosion in the number of 'known' examples. There has been an occasional example of a set in contemporary boxes that were different to those issued for the masses, which if it could be proved were genuinely issued to 'VIP' recipients by the mint, could therefore be justifiably be classified as such. As VIP means very important person, it should include the likes of the Chancellor or the Queen, not Mrs Smith of 16 Acacia Avenue, Bognor Regis.

The whole thing is a case of semantics in my opinion, and arguably a triumph of marketing over reality.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Rob

[VickySilver]

Yes, more or less my opinion as well although there were what were proof/specimen strikes of the 1920 silver issues and have seen the shilling, florin, and half crown which I have posted and listed in Bull.

[Rob]

4 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

Yes, more or less my opinion as well although there were what were proof/specimen strikes of the 1920 silver issues and have seen the shilling, florin, and half crown which I have posted and listed in Bull.

As I said - from 1926 onwards. There were various trials and off-metal strikes in the first half of the decade, but from 1926 onwards, things like the Derwent Wood and McMillan patterns aside, they conformed to the regular currency designs.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Rob

[coin watch]

On 11/11/2017 at 1:31 PM, 1949threepence said:

Precisely David. 

I wonder what the explanation is? It ought to be a good one considering the lower and upper estimates applied.  

Could it be that this image has been 'photoshopped' where each coin image was taken out of the case and then each one superimosed back in? To get the best colour/light etc, then maybe someone made a mistake and left out the English Shilling image? the Scottish one looks to be the exact same coin to me?......could be wrong though!

Edited November 15, 2017 by coin watch

[zookeeperz]

4 hours ago, Rob said:

Historically, or at least say 10-20 years or more ago, VIP was only attached to those years in which proofs were made in limited numbers (a handful of examples), i.e. the years in which sets were not made for the masses. The years in which it applied started from 1926 onwards when a few proofs were struck of all current denominations and continued up to the early 1960s. Notwithstanding the debate about the first year which some contend are not (though I'm happy that my 1926 halfpenny is one), there are coins extant with proof quality finish for all years in between, though not necessarily all denominations for every year due to gaps in the dates of currency issues. It should be noted that not all proof coins of these rare issues exhibit frosted devices.

During the past 10 years, the phrase 'VIP' has been misappropriated in my opinion to include superior strikes with a cameo effect with a resultant explosion in the number of 'known' examples. There has been an occasional example of a set in contemporary boxes that were different to those issued for the masses, which if it could be proved were genuinely issued to 'VIP' recipients by the mint, could therefore be justifiably be classified as such. As VIP means very important person, it should include the likes of the Chancellor or the Queen, not Mrs Smith of 16 Acacia Avenue, Bognor Regis.

The whole thing is a case of semantics in my opinion, and arguably a triumph of marketing over reality.

Have you got Mrs Smith's Phone number Rob I want to buy her set 

Edited November 15, 2017 by zookeeperz

[Rob]

The argument for calling them VIP proofs was that sets were thought to be made in limited quantities for people in high positions. It was also thought that having received one, the same people would be unlikely to advertise their prior ownership indicating their having made a bob or two from a gift, hence the lack of provenances indicating receipt directly from the mint. It all made for a feasible story.

Having said that, I have also heard an unverifiable story that a visit by a party to the mint on one occasion finished with each of the participants striking a coin to take away as a momento. This was allegedly a proof, but as I said, unverifiable. It was however, one of the pieces that appears to crop up more often than others. Only the RM can provide a definitive answer - not the collecting or dealing fraternity.

 

[zookeeperz]

1 hour ago, Rob said:

The argument for calling them VIP proofs was that sets were thought to be made in limited quantities for people in high positions. It was also thought that having received one, the same people would be unlikely to advertise their prior ownership indicating their having made a bob or two from a gift, hence the lack of provenances indicating receipt directly from the mint. It all made for a feasible story.

Having said that, I have also heard an unverifiable story that a visit by a party to the mint on one occasion finished with each of the participants striking a coin to take away as a momento. This was allegedly a proof, but as I said, unverifiable. It was however, one of the pieces that appears to crop up more often than others. Only the RM can provide a definitive answer - not the collecting or dealing fraternity.

 

Yes I think that the real VIP coins would be with provenance as they were only given on special occasions to dignitaries. Foreign ministers visits from heads of states. as has been already stated I guess the most famous but equally as elusive the EEC 50 pence Piedfort proof that was also only given to the foreign ministers to celebrate (god knows why) joining the european community.(I wonder if they will make a brexit version? )

So unless there has been a mass clear out from all the foreign ministers to the public at large (which I highly doubt) something like that you would never part with. Unless there was a death and a family member moved the on. It wouldn't come in a 50mm airtite without a box or C.O.A 

[craigy]

5 hours ago, coin watch said:

Could it be that this image has been 'photoshopped' where each coin image was taken out of the case and then each one superimosed back in? To get the best colour/light etc, then maybe someone made a mistake and left out the English Shilling image? the Scottish one looks to be the exact same coin to me?......could be wrong though!

the set is in my possession, all the silvers (or silver coloured) are cameo and the half penny the rest are not, other side of crown, i assume the vips were struck in silver not cu-ni 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by craigy

[craigy]

[1949threepence]

7 hours ago, coin watch said:

Could it be that this image has been 'photoshopped' where each coin image was taken out of the case and then each one superimosed back in? To get the best colour/light etc, then maybe someone made a mistake and left out the English Shilling image? the Scottish one looks to be the exact same coin to me?......could be wrong though!

Don't think it's the same coin. If you click on the link I provided, you can see the obverse, and the two are clearly different coins.

[craigy]

nope defo 2 different coins, 

Edited November 16, 2017 by craigy

[craigy]

11 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Don't think it's the same coin. If you click on the link I provided, you can see the obverse, and the two are clearly different coins.

he's not rendal ingram in disguise is he ?  (a hint towards my 53 frosted proof crown business) 

[1949threepence]

8 hours ago, craigy said:

he's not rendal ingram in disguise is he ?  (a hint towards my 53 frosted proof crown business) 

Rendell Ingram probably doesn't know how to photoshop, if the abysmal quality of his website pics are anything to go by. Sometimes I think he takes pics in the dark !  

[PWA 1967]

14 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Rendell Ingram probably doesn't know how to photoshop, if the abysmal quality of his website pics are anything to go by. Sometimes I think he takes pics in the dark !  

More takes them like that to hide what they really look like.

[PWA 1967]

A post on another thread made me look at this but dont have a clue about them.

Lot 2972 is a 1917 Sixpence looking at prices are they weakly struck and is this estimate cheap ?.

Can anyone give an opinion on grade and price please.......if only for me to learn from 

Sorry i cant put the link up.

Edited November 23, 2017 by PWA 1967

[jaggy]

35 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

A post on another thread made me look at this but dont have a clue about them.

Lot 2972 is a 1917 Sixpence looking at prices are they weakly struck and is this estimate cheap ?.

Can anyone give an opinion on grade and price please.......if only for me to learn from 

Honestly, I don't think it looks like a great sixpence and certainly not a lustrous UNC. LCA photos tend to flatter the coin and this one does not which suggests to me that it is not as described. The reverse is better than the obverse. The coin might make EF in my opinion.

The estimate is very light. A top quality 1917 would go for anywhere from 90 - 130 pounds. I think the LCA estimate reflects the quality of the coin.

They do tend to be weakly struck and the snub nose lion on the reverse is typical. Other years in the George V sixpences, you can find a much nicer nose on the lion.

[Nick]

Here's the link for the 1917 sixpence: http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=2972&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue

I can't see any wear, so I wouldn't have a problem calling it UNC.  Whether or not it is actually lustrous remains to be seen, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it fetch £120 or maybe a bit more.

[PWA 1967]

Thank you both so much for your replies .

Its also interesting to find such a big difference in opinion as a full grade.I suppose as always its hard to tell from a picture but have learned the fact its a Key date and they can be weakly struck.I will be interested to see what it does sell for and will have to keep an eye out for a really nice one for myself 

[Peckris]

16 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Thank you both so much for your replies .

Its also interesting to find such a big difference in opinion as a full grade.I suppose as always its hard to tell from a picture but have learned the fact its a Key date and they can be weakly struck.I will be interested to see what it does sell for and will have to keep an eye out for a really nice one for myself 

Fully struck up examples of coins normally found weakly struck always carry a premium. For example the 1895 YH farthing, and 1918/1919H pennies. That sixpence looks better than normal for that date and as Nick says, might fetch significantly more than estimate.

[VickySilver]

Nick, I quite agree. That coin appears to be uncirculated, but unfortunately quite softly struck as is seen for this date. I have an extremely well struck example that took some effort to find, so they are out there. IMO that coin obviously dipped however....

[1949threepence]

Did anybody get anything?

I managed to win the Freeman 1, Lot No 1005. Been after one for ages.