Below is a coin that appears in hand and even in the picture as very decent to say the least. However it broaches the near forbidden subject of challenging the major TPGs as to designation or even grading. The coin first, bit of discussion later: I realize it is from a photo but GTG if you’d like. I have seen many matte and regular proofs from 1839 through 1970 and possibly have come to know them well. What I have found at looking them over and over the last 25 years of seeing them graded is that grading seems to vary quite a bit, sometimes spot on and on other occasions rather not. This coin may demonstrate that point to some degree as it is a rather scarce 1951 matte proof. These coins received the matte surface post strike and were “blasted” with some material and then used for either photography or some other purpose. This coin still retains some of the abrasive used by the Royal Mint in the reverse devices and may warrant study of its composition as this is not recorded to the best of my knowledge anywhere. Well that aside the coin was graded and when shown to me was of some surprise, not unlike a specimen satin proof Halfcrown of 1920 shown on here some while ago. I have seen similar results on coins not heralded from major collections (though possibly originating from older such origins), including some probably quite rare pieces and then seen somewhat lesser coins in recent times come up with numerically higher grades. Anyway, just wanted to share some thoughts and broach a taboo subject.
The major TPGs screw up and often don't know as much about a particular coin as you do - that's not a taboo subject, is it? Unfortunately your images of a computer screen don't allow a good evaluation of the surfaces.
OK, here is the actual image. Are you questioning the grade, or the matte proof designation, or both? I note that their pop is 1, and there is also one 1937 designated matte PR.
Well, the grade as I have seen the coin in hand also. Def. a matte proof from Spink in the grande olde dayes.
I know what it graded because I found it on PCGS. I agree it seems low but they seem to have a different standard for proof and specimen coins.
Older proofs are often tough to grade from truviews because the images will be lit to hide hairlines and other minor issues with the coin. I also don't know if they would hold the abrasive residue against the coin. That said, GTG 62.
Hmm, ok. An interesting thing is that the reverse surfaces are obviously "as struck" and as original as can possibly be seen with the abrasive particles from the matte preparation still in place. I have not seen this on any other matte proofs of the 1950-1953 era which includes all denominations.
This coin graded "61" and was vetted by none other than Steve Hill when he was at Spink. I think between him and Mark Rasmussen and possibly myself that we may have more than a bit of experience on these coins and grading. Unadulterated BS is my humble opinion. This and the 1920 should probably be submitted to the other service as if they ever come up for sale a higher slab grade would reflect a much higher price at auction. BTW, on a related topic as the TPGs in my opinion miss grades on at least some occasions and this leaves room for potential relative bargains: at the recent Monaco (MDC) sale I got an 1848/6 sixpence graded MS62 for a relative song because in-person bidding revealed a much better coin than would be suggested by such a grade. Unbelievably they also had a second specimen of the 1848/6 graded MS61 that was probably overgraded; my opinion is that the first coin was probably of 63 quality conservatively and the second MS58. Caveat emptor!
