PCGS submissions, Grading Opinions

[serial]

nice work on that 28!

[trout]

I have just sent yet another batch of wedding set coins off to PCGS.
This time I specified in the grade column  MS/SP/PR as SP and in the description I put Wedding Set Specimen.
I also enclosed the back of a box from a 2002 Wedding set, I doubt that they will take any notice But even Blind Freddy can see the huge  difference between a circulation/Mint set coin and these should be attributed accordingly IMHO.
With this sort of thing its all about keeping nocking on the door, Look how long it took for PCGS to attribute the 2000 incused coin.
It didn't happen overnight but in the end it DID happen

[wwwww]

They're not by definition specimen strikes. For a coin to be a proof or specimen, it must be labeled such by the issuing mint. The Wedding set coins are called Gem Uncirculated by the RAM which makes them Uncirculated business strikes (and thus an MS holder).

That being said PCGS will follow the market and the Aussie market often calls them specimen strikes, they call the 1934 specimens as proofs so you might be able to convince them. I personally would like to see them differentiated as the regular strikes in MS69 and very rare but because of the availability of wedding set issues, the regular strikes are undervalued.

[trout]

They are not only called "Gem uncirculated" on the box But they also state that they have been 'Specially" Produced to be free of blemishes usually associated with "Uncirculated" Coins.

My argument is if they are NOT Uncirculated Coins and are NOT Proof Coins then they must be by definition "Specimen" coins because of the way they were "Specially" Minted

The fields and the strike quality on these coins is astonishingly good and if you place a wedding set coin alongside an uncirculated/mint set coin the difference in quality and strike is undeniably different .

[robbiegal]

That being said PCGS will follow the market and the Aussie market often calls them specimen strikes, they call the 1934 specimens as proofs so you might be able to convince them.

I have been pondering on tha,t as there is a sudden spike in proof 1934/5 florin comings out of WA
I started to wonder of the mintage figures are faulty or if, the very early specimen/business strikes are being mistakenly described as proof issues?

[wwwww]

That being said PCGS will follow the market and the Aussie market often calls them specimen strikes, they call the 1934 specimens as proofs so you might be able to convince them.

I have been pondering on tha,t as there is a sudden spike in proof 1934/5 florin comings out of WA
I started to wonder of the mintage figures are faulty or if, the very early specimen/business strikes are being mistakenly described as proof issues?

I was actually referring to the 1934 standard specimens (half penny to florin), they were classed by the mint as specimens and H.G. Williams sold them as MS strikes.

You are correct though, the same applies to the 1934/5 except that there are actually true proof of record strikes (about 6 with at least half in museums). At least one of the proofs slabbed by PCGS is a true proof of record strike, at least one of the others is possibly one of the coins sold through H.G. Williams (it's from the same die).

These were special strikes indicating the possibility of an SP designation but the quality was poor compared to say the 1934 specimens or the proof of record strikes. As a result only 50 were sold, if the mint produced more then they would have either been melted or sold to the public through the Centenary celebrations.

[serial]

it is my coins being discussed here so I figured I would weigh in. There are several factors that id the coins as proof strike along with supporting documentation that has been obtain by some learned coin collectors and out of respect for their researching efforts and I assume future publication of results I will not go into great detail. I can confirm that all the coins currently graded as proof's by PCGS are in actual fact proof strikes most likely struck within a few minutes of each other on the same day during a specific recorded event. Furthermore if you put a proof strike along side a normal strike the difference is clear and as with all proofs the devil is in the detail or in this case fine sharp details.
I know that some people deny the existence of the proofs but they are out there and PCGS has reject significantly more coins that people have attempted to have recognised as proofs as they did not fulfil the criteria to be recognised as one. With this in mind PCGS will not attribute a proof designation willy nilly and to argue that the existing graded coins are not proof strikes is to fly in the face of overwhelming evidence obtained through long research
Remember that for a long time a lot of coin collectors/dealers denied the existence of the 1/2 penny mule and there is still no official record of how it came to be but it happened. They would have better spent that time looking to obtain an example

[wwwww]

There were 4 different strikes produced (these categories can be further subdivided but for simplicity purposes we'll leave it to these 4):
Trial strike, 2+, Royal mint London
Proof of record strike, 6+, Royal mint Melbourne
Wire rim (50 sold to H.G. Williams), 50+, Royal mint Melbourne
Bevel rim, 75,000, Royal mint Melbourne

Your coin is a Wire rim type, these were specially produced by the Melbourne mint at the request of H.G. Williams who bought 50 but didn't purchase any more as they were in his words of "inferior quality". Considering two dies were used, it is likely that more were produced.

Whether it should be considered PR/SP or MS is simply a matter of opinion on the definition of these terms, the Melbourne mint however did not consider them proof strikes.

[Robster]

Good topic, discussion, and answers.! :good:

[robbiegal]

was HG Williams the New Zealand buyer?

[serial]

"Your coin is a Wire rim type, these were specially produced by the Melbourne mint at the request of H.G. Williams who bought 50 but didn't purchase any more as they were in his words of "inferior quality". Considering two dies were used, it is likely that more were produced"

you know I have 2 right?

[trout]

Your coin is a Wire rim type, these were specially produced by the Melbourne mint at the request of H.G. Williams who bought 50 but didn't purchase any more as they were in his words of "inferior quality". Considering two dies were used, it is likely that more were produced.

 Whether it should be considered PR/SP or MS is simply a matter of opinion on the definition of these terms, the Melbourne mint however did not consider them proof strikes.

As far as I am aware (With my Limited knowledge) the Specimen coins had a "Nipple" on the rider that upset the sensibilities of some people back then and was removed for the Business and the Proof strikes of this particular coin.
I see NO evidence of a Nipple on Serials coin But the strike does look like a proof issue.
Maybe the Melbourne Mint had a few proofs left over and they got flogged of in the Foy bags instead of wasting them like the others they melted down.
Nobody really knows and all the people involved in this mintage are probably all dead and buried by now anyway, So we will never know with absolute certainty.

[robbiegal]

but we have the material history to tell it's story
and a small number of experts who are able to accurately identify special coins
not all pcgs guys either

the 1930 penny was denied until the material history proved that wrong!

[trout]

but we have the material history to tell it's story

NO we don't, We have hearsay conjecture and Urban Legends with this coin.
The experts have done a bloody good job of identifying these differing coins with the limited "Hard Facts" available , But nothing can be written in stone without factual and accurate information :ok:

[robbiegal]

yeah
we have the coins