I don't especially want to give away my own bias, but this is a coin that has me wondering about the TPGs - and not because it is my coin. Do they know how to grade matte proofs?? Note that on the reverse there is still some of the original material from the "sandblasting" adherent to the devices and lettering. There is no detectable wear or hairlines and only a couple of small spots of light oxidation.
From your statements, I'm guessing it got a details, cleaned, grade, which would obviously be wrong. Personally, I would have no experience or knowledge to grade a matte proof.
I think the black spots on the reverse limit the grade to PR66. That said, I have absolutely zero experience grading foreign matte proof coins.
Please forgive my ignorance, as I know nothing of British coinage, but you reference “material from the "sandblasting" adherent to the devices and lettering”. Didn’t they sandblast the dies, and not the coins?
I assume it is a large number of the coin produced, so it would surely be by "sandblasting" of the dies, but the molecular size of the granules would determine what the surface entities would look like as to sharpness, Imo Jim 'Desertgem'
The interesting thing is that from the records I have it was the proof coins that were blasted with whatever medium and not the dies. Steve Hill by recall entirely agrees with this. I think this coin is the best example of such that I have seen as most were more thoroughly cleaned of residual.
Steve Hill comment does put a different face on the situation. Perhaps he knows the total number that was the output and the proportion that was processed with a granular material such as to smooth the surfaces. A return of one with an evaluation by several nonpersonal experts would be very interesting. No offense is intended, as I would expect with blasting individual coins there would mostly be variable difference although small in size. IMO, Jim
Interesting points - actually there seems to be a variance in these mattes and have been fortunate to see pretty much all of them save the Edward VIII issues.
So this coin ended up graded Proof 61 Matte at PCGS. Must say I was a bit shocked by that and entirely disagree.....
Matte proofs are notoriously tough to grade from TruViews alone. There could be hairlines the images don't show, especially with the bright lighting used. In addition, they may have net graded the coin a couple points for the sand. 61 feels well within the realm of possibility to me.
I guess everyone has their own levels, 60-61 would be the top for me if the price was "right", but it wouldn't be much . What I would like to know is why "each coin" was being individually treating as each coin, rather than using the dies? The PCGS photo of a sample would be interesting.. Jim
I guess what was interesting is that the coin came with the set and virtually untouched for 40 years. The bronze was minimally toned but also no hairlines. The other thing is that whomever had it - it went to Spink where I got it 20+ years ago - had left everything as it was, no cleaning, no hairlines, nada. These non-1902 mattes are very scarce on the ground but have noticed some, shall we say "variability" in grades given by the TPGs on individual coins from all the other sets: the 1927s, 1937s, 1950s, 1951s and 1953s. Some are given 66s others even 67 and then specimens like this that appear to match the quality but slammed on the grade. DG, not sure of your question, but this is the PCGS photo. Also, I know each of us have opinions not worth a lot but I did do the Krause GB section for 19th and 20th C. coins so have more than a little background. Also, the TPGs although useful are not necessarily the end-all and have made very serious errors that they many times are not amenable to correcting; such as not getting the attribution of Proof versus uncirculated on coins where it is most obvious or where one or the other is unknown in the state they attributed (ie 1853 groats they've designated as uncirculated which may be unknown versus the still scarce but available proofs, or mixing up essai with currency populations even when the essais are stamped with said designation, etc).
It was stated at that time (2008 and before) that the dies were blasted when at least with the post-1902 issues it was the struck planchets that were blasted.
Funny that the part about blasting of coins post strike was not added to that thread until 11:16 this very morning. Can you point to written documentation of this fact?
That was a 2008 thread so no this was not a new addition. General thoughts on the 1902 sets/coins was as stated previously.
I suggest going back and taking a careful look at the dates and times of the last few posts in that thread.
