Coming up for sale next month is a coin that represents something of a dilemma in the British series of Wreath Crowns. As many readers know, the wreath crowns were struck from 1927 through 1936 (excepting the one year 1935 "Rocking Horse" crown). The 1927s were all issued in proof, though Brits often refer to the crowns of this year as "specimen". After that in numbers ranging from the 1934 low of 932 pcs. to 1928 of some 7k pcs. these were struck and largely released through banks at Christmas time for service as presents, or at least so goes the literary records. In addition, some specially prepared coins were struck each year, and these have been referred to in various sources as specimen, proof, VIP proof, VIP Record proof, etc. There are several problems with discriminating ordinary currency from these special issues in that the ordinary currency runs were very low with many proof-like pieces known from all dates. Some of these even have edges with finning and appearing rather sharp as far as devices, denticles, etc. Another issue is that actual acknowledged proofs of even other denominations rarely demonstrate any cameo effect and in the silver coins especially, overall surfaces that are less than exemplary. In any case, with regard to Wreath crowns, the obverse is the "weak" area in that the strike up as well as rub and early wear show up on the cheek, brow and mustache (and hair). These are areas that should be examined carefully for strike or early stage friction/wear. The reverse has some telltale highlight areas, including the inverted "T" on the orb above the crown, and the stamens of the surrounding rose and central thistle areas, etc. In any case, the following coin concerns me first as to its proof status and also as to the numerical grade (PCGS Proof 65): I apologise in advance for the distortion lines, and the low resolution that is all I can manage. But please look over the central device on the obverse: this appears poorly struck in the areas mentioned, and also significant hits/friction at these areas. The reverse fares better, but IMHO it is the obverse that is the downfall of this coin as far as proof or numerical grade. I brought this coin up to alert readers to concerns, but also to perhaps to generate friendly discussion about the topic. I have no ax to grind on this coin but noticed it and am concerned. I have seen quite a few other "proof" Wreaths in recent years with what are similar issues....
Hard to tell with current photos, but I agree that the obverse does not look as good as the reverse. I would be interested in seeing better resolution photos of this, should they become available.
Yikes, do you see the cheek and the extremely poorly struck details on the obverse? The key area at the cheekbone is massacred with virtually no hair detail on his head - except for the digs/hits...LOL. I will try to find some pictures of real proof wreaths from the Pretoria mint if interested, but you will have to be patient til next week. PS - Check Heritage lot 30870...
[Rant on] This has already been discussed on a UK based forum and the consensus is that it is NOT a proof. There seems to be an assumption in the US based grading companies that all these coins were issued in proof, which is not the case. The VIP coins are extremely rare, and as yet no one has found a reliable picture of one. AND, this does not look to be MS65, even on the more forgiving Sheldon scale. In the UK this would get AU. Heritage are in the clear - they have to go with the grading company, but PCGS are wrong here. I'm afraid incidents like this increase the distrust of grading companies in the UK. [Rant off]
If that's a proof it's the world's worst-prepared proof planchet I've ever seen. I mean let's be real here. I have found quite a few proof coins in circulation (nickels and dollar coins) and they are all immediately obvious that they are proofs. If I saw this in circulation there's really no way I, or anybody else, should be fooled into thinking it's an actual proof strike
Unfortunately, I have seen a number offered as such and even graded as such. If you look at the "pop reports" on PCGS, very few look to be that and that includes ALL of the 1932s. I do believe they exist but that true proofs are quite scarce. And if I dare invoke Steve Hill of Sovereign Rarities, then he is in agreement as well. Again, I don't blame Heritage but have my concerns about PCGS in this regard - and don't get me started about their grading (and NGCs) of 20th Century Matte proofs, both of the standard year - 1902 - and also non-standard years.
