NGC will continue to designate BU strike-on-the-day 200th anniversary sovereigns as proofs.

A little background: The Royal Mint decided to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the "modern" sovereign gold coins. So, several types of gold commemoratives were to be struck including a 1 sovereign BU gold coin with a plain edge. It was to be struck only on the day of the 200th anniversary, and only 1817 were to be struck.

My first clue that something was amiss was when I was told by the mint my order would be delayed because they needed to print more COAs. Turns out they erroneously stated on the COAs of the first coins shipped that the coins were proof rather than BU. The Royal Mint sent a letter and correct COAs to those to whom they had already shipped coins. The rest of the customers, including me, received COAs with our coins that stated that the coins are BU.

Problem is that some of the early shipments were sent by their recipients to NGC before the correct COAs were issued. Based on the erroneous COAs and appearance of the coins, NGC designated the coins as plain edge proofs.

Before sending my coin for grading, I asked on the NGC forum if NGC was going to continue to call the coins proofs. The moderator (a NGC rep) stated: " Thank you for your question. Based on information from the mint and the opinion of the graders we decided to designate these as proof coins. The strike differences are too minor for us to designate as MS and PF. "

Link: https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topi...n-bu-strikes-have-grades-of-ms-instead-of-pf/

So, if I send my BU coin to NGC it will be slabbed as a proof. I'm not sure any have been submitted to PCGS; their terminology for sovereigns is a bit arcane.

Cal

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

First let me say that I'm no fan of TPGS's. What is going on with these coins makes no sense! IMO, this is a typical TPGS CYA. They did what looked to be correct at first and called the coins Proofs. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem results when they decided not to make any correction after learning the Mint made an error. Shame on them. It's the same thing as labeling all kinds of coins these days as "Specimens."

 

Which version are you talking about the Shield Privy one?

 

Just like the Silver Eagles that were erroneously labeled as coming from a particular mint based simply on the shipping label or mark on the box. "Get 'em graded before the truth comes out."

 

They weren't. The mint tried to destroy the market for those for some reason and then they made their release and it turned out the original information was correct.

 

How can an organization whose sole purpose is to correctly identify coins not know the difference between BU and PF. It is their job to know, regardless of what the mint may say.

 

There is only one 1 sov gold coin, strike-on-the-day, 200th anniversary BU coin. It has a plain edge. See pics.

 

As a follow-up, a screen shot of the NGC census for 2017 proof sovereigns is below. The BU coins are being designated as plain edge proofs (last row). With only 24 coins graded, it wouldn't cost NGC much to set it right at this point. Cal

 

From the response they gave you it seems like they'd rather double and triple down on their mistakes.

Send it to PCGS in the OGP I bet you could get them to do it MS

 

I'm leaning that way, but will wait a bit.

 

Soon there will be more wrinkles around the Queen's eyes than there are folds on St. George's cloak.

 

Whatever happened to "Buy the coin, not the..."

never mind.

 

Even coin collecting is entitled to its "reality show moments".

 

sakata, posted: "How can an organization whose sole purpose is to correctly identify coins not know the difference between BU and PF. It is their job to know, regardless of what the mint may say."

Possibly because the coins looked exactly like a Proof. Usually, when a TPGS realizes that they are in error, they correct it. I cannot speak for NGC.

I don't know how experienced you are or how many modern issues you see from countries around the world so I'll try to clue you in. Go on to the Internet and look at recent coins from China or Australia. The majority of them have a deep mirror surface just as good as any Proof modern issue. Yet, they are considered to be MS. So it doesn't matter if you, me, or the TPGS calls them Deep Cameo Proofs. We didn't make them.

 

And we, who are paying the bill, as at least I do, are permitted to change the channel.

 

I'm taking a step back here...this is now strictly mano a mano!

 

I am reminded of Schroedinger's Cat here. You bombard the TPG with enough particles, some come back as 69... some as 70...

 

And some, perhaps, don't come back at all (the cat is dead).

 

Not always to any avail....