how to identify a old great britan proof?

I stand corrected. Loss for some is a gain for others.

Recent sales HA,

Yung Hi gold 20 won 1909 year 3, 632,000 US
Meiji silver pattern yen year 3 1870, 322,000 US
Meiji proof gold 20 yen year 13, 230,000 US
South African 1892 proof penny 195,000 US

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

i want some of that money at least to get a 1916 d or 1921 ect dime for my mercury dime album

 

Maybe - but as I am sure you know, this is not a proof set, just a set of very nice Uncirculated coins put in a holder - not even by the Royal Mint.

 

Then I am afraid to say I think Krause has it wrong. Wouldn't be their first error I am sure!

 

well then ngc is wrong to

http://www.ngccoin.com/poplookup/WorldCoinPrices.aspx?category=42660&worldcoinid=122933

 

i take back my statment i guess ngc uses the krause stuff

 

... but if you look, they have no mintage figures for any proofs other than 1937. I suspect that assumptions have been made...

I can't see much point in arguing the toss on this - until someone comes up with one, or can find contemporary documentation that confirms they were made, I will continue to believe there are none. Proof sets were issued in George VI's reign in 1937, 1950 and 1951, and those are recognised.

 

Paddy, I agree with you. That uncirculated set could have caused the error. On some sites it is shown as a proof set, but is not. I just wonder where they got the 1200 price from?

 

Is not a fortune, but only the beginning. Buying power are shifting with a large market outside the US. One have to keep an eye on new markets. That is good business. It is estimated that China will pass the US as biggest economy by 2016.

 

I can only assume at some stage someone has made an assumption that there are proof coins for these years, and put them in the lists. They have had to put in a price, and probably come up with a figure - a guesstimate. Thereafter other sites and lists have just duplicated the error. It makes you wonder how much else in Krause is wrong - I have certainly come across other errors before.

The Royal Mint in the UK has kept pretty good figures on mintages for a couple of hundred years, so I think it is unlikely we will suddenly discover there where proof coins around all along.

 

Yes, the new 2013 Krause I bought is full of errors. They even got country descriptions wrong and left out Panama completely. Very bad editing. It is preferred to use the country's records. The pricing is sometimes way off on high grades also. I recently bought a latin coin for 1000 US as recommended in national catalog. The Krause lists it at 150 US. I think a big problem with improving the catalog is a language issue for latin coins. I am just slightly disppointed with the junk bin thing.

 

Here is the Brit version of the last silver shilling (face on).

 

then which version do i have

 

Scotland in my photo. Brit in yours

 

You have the English version - with the Lion facing to the left. Ripley's picture is of the Scottish version, with the lion facing head on. You can also see the shields with the cross of St Andrew and the thistle to re-affirm the Scottish aspect.

Both types were produced in similar numbers by the Royal Mint, and there was no distinction in value or usage. In fact most people probably never even stopped to consider there were two types!

 

oh you confused me when you said this was brit
i like mine better

 

Sorry. Only human ya know.

 

PaddyB is correct when he says Krause is wrong, I only use Krause for identification of coins, anything else and its hit and miss, As an example Krause pricing for Australian and South African coins is just wrong.
The Term "Proof" is a method of striking in the UK and not a grade or description of the preservation as seems to be used in the US like Gem Proof, Choice Proof.