Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;7Jags, post: 24494576, member: 78719&quot;]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:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1552293[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1552294[/ATTACH] </p><p>I realize it is from a photo but GTG if you’d like. </p><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p><br /></p><p>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. </p><p><br /></p><p>Anyway, just wanted to share some thoughts and broach a taboo subject.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in