numismatist Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Perhaps I'm missing something, but what's the differance between this at £4.5kand an EF one at a tenth of the price. Or is there some desiding feature that theactual Proof of this year has ? I see many described as Prooflike ... thanks 1 Quote
Peckris Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Here's an EF example - make up your own mind. I suspect it's more to do with rarity however, than superiority. Mind you, a currency piece in similar condition to that proof would command a high premium. Quote
HistoricCoinage Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Also, bear in mind that it hasn't sold for £4,500 and so that is Chris Taylor's opinion on its value. Quote
azda Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Its only EF and therefor technically not a proof, its now a proof strike in EF and not worth £4500 Quote
numismatist Posted March 24, 2014 Author Posted March 24, 2014 This was sold by DNW as a Proof , and though the photo is not too goodI think this is how a real Proof ought to look. I feel that the £4.5K so calledabout FDC Proof is not a Proof at all . ( Thats going by the Photo ) Quote
numismatist Posted March 24, 2014 Author Posted March 24, 2014 and a far superior 1821 sold as EF by Spinks recently for £700To me it looks far more " Proof-like " than the £4.5K Cointhough its just a currency coin according to Spinks Quote
pokal02 Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Spink does give £4.5k as the value of an 1821 proof, but not sure why anyone would spend that much given that it's identical to the currency piece (assuming it's not the TERTIO edge error), unless they specifically collect proofs. Where they're different from the currency pieces (eg 1746) or no currency piece exists (eg 1839) they tend to be much more sought after, even in lower grades. Quote
NRP Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Also, bear in mind that it hasn't sold for £4,500 and so that is Chris Taylor's opinion on its value.It came out of the last London coins sale I'm sure, it was nice but not a strict FDC, anyone know what it went for? Quote
HistoricCoinage Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 £3,000 if it's this one: http://londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=144&searchlot=1357&searchtype=2 Quote
Paulus Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 £3,000 if it's this one: http://londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=144&searchlot=1357&searchtype=2Whether it's that one or not, I don't like it at all! Proof or not, it is unattractive and has way too much wear IMO! Quote
HistoricCoinage Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Whether it's that one or not, I don't like it at all! Proof or not, it is unattractive and has way too much wear IMO!LC's description doesn't seem to add up, somehow..."Proof ESC 247 UNC" - is that meant to be two grades, or the strike and then a mention that it wasn't circulated? Quote
NRP Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Whether it's that one or not, I don't like it at all! Proof or not, it is unattractive and has way too much wear IMO! LC's description doesn't seem to add up, somehow..."Proof ESC 247 UNC" - is that meant to be two grades, or the strike and then a mention that it wasn't circulated? The London coins one was definitely a proof, I viewed it. It was ok but had a few marks and cabinet friction on the high points Quote
Paulus Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Whether it's that one or not, I don't like it at all! Proof or not, it is unattractive and has way too much wear IMO! LC's description doesn't seem to add up, somehow..."Proof ESC 247 UNC" - is that meant to be two grades, or the strike and then a mention that it wasn't circulated? The London coins one was definitely a proof, I viewed it. It was ok but had a few marks and cabinet friction on the high pointsAs a buyer/collector, if I chose to buy a proof, by and large it needs to be FDC or very near so. If I was a date or proof collector I may accept less than that if it was scarce or rare.The wear on the reverse of this proof coin (however it came about, 'cabinet friction' is a euphemism for 'wear' to me) renders it totally undesirable to me, each to his or her own I know! Edited March 25, 2014 by Paulus 1 Quote
NRP Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Whether it's that one or not, I don't like it at all! Proof or not, it is unattractive and has way too much wear IMO! LC's description doesn't seem to add up, somehow..."Proof ESC 247 UNC" - is that meant to be two grades, or the strike and then a mention that it wasn't circulated? The London coins one was definitely a proof, I viewed it. It was ok but had a few marks and cabinet friction on the high points As a buyer/collector, if I chose to buy a proof, by and large it needs to be FDC or very near so. If I was a date or proof collector I may accept less than that if it was scarce or rare.The wear on the reverse of this proof coin (however it came about, 'cabinet friction' is a euphemism for 'wear' to me) renders it totally undesirable to me, each to his or her own I know! Quite true, that is exactly why I didn't bid!!! At that price it would have to be flawless as a proof should be Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.