Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;robp, post: 24849268, member: 96746&quot;]In the case of a 6 figure coin, it is a Petition Crown. It&#039;s in a PCGS SP53 slab and is the former Norweb (lot 223) coin which was sold in the New York Goldberg/Markov etc sale on 10th Jan 2018, lot 1103. For the record, the estimate was $550K.</p><p><br /></p><p>J B Bergne noted the scratched initials in the field in his 1854 survey of known examples (Numismatic Chronicle 1854, p.137) and this coin was no.7</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1592450[/ATTACH]</p><p>The graffiti was subsequently partially polished out, but is still detectable, as is the rubbed down area of field. </p><p><br /></p><p>In my view it has also been plugged, or an attempted piercing has been filled in the gap between II in the obverse legend. I haven&#039;t been able to see the coin in hand, but it clearly isn&#039;t right from the pictures compared to the other examples of this type. No. 7 first, the Slaney coin second (not known to Bergne in 1854).</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1592456[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1592457[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>If it had a hole in it, this would go a long way to explaining why the dealer Edmonds picked it up &#039;for a trifle&#039; from a jeweller on the Strand. Don&#039;t get me wrong, it&#039;s still a desirable high grade coin, but if you are going to set standards, then you have to keep them. </p><p><br /></p><p>Second is a gold pattern halfpenny I purchased in 2008 which had a very obvious scuff to the cheek.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1592460[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>2 years later I sold it, only to re-appear 6 months later, repaired, in an NGC proof 64 Ultra-Cameo slab. </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1592461[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>On the day it sold to a US dealer for £21K ($30K) including juice, who presumably then made a mark-up when he sold it on. Obviously PF64 ultra-cameo is a better selling feature than UNC details (scratched). It is unique, so desirable even with the scuff, but given the documentary evidence known for coins such as these two, TBH the TPGs should do better. </p><p><br /></p><p>I remain a sceptic. Sorry for the long-winded reply, but to make an argument, you must show the evidence.[/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