one-kuna Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 is this a real proof: http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574633083&toolid=10001&campid=5335826004&customid=&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg&icep_item=150563066041 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Could be proof - just bad photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigistenz Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 is this a real proof: http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574633083&toolid=10001&campid=5335826004&customid=&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg&icep_item=150563066041 I think that cannot be told from the picture taken thru the plastic holder. On the poor picture it looks like having been cleaned Sigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholasz219 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Either way, this is a pretty sharply struck coin. In many 5K and 10K of this series the center of the reverse in particular is weakly struck. This example has a very nice strike, especially when you look at the letters. I am hoping that Gx is right because the obverse looks like a bad photograph (hopefully). I don't buy $4k proof or proof-like coins, so I really don't have much experience to speak of concerning coins of this caliber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKB Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 obviously NGC believes it to be a Proof 64. If it said Proof 60 (or, like I saw once, Proof 58) there would be room for doubt. But I do not think they would make this kind of a mistake. Thus, it is safe to assume that the coin is a proof strike. It looks a lot like a novodel 1830 em 5 kop that I have. (the strike, the color, even the discolorations) Possibly, it is also a novodel... I do not think someone is crazy enough to pay $4000 for it. At $2000 he would have a better chance. But, with these crazy Russian coin collectors you just never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Citizen Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 obviously NGC believes it to be a Proof 64. If it said Proof 60 (or, like I saw once, Proof 58) there would be room for doubt. ... Even if it were Proof-58 or Proof-50 (as i once had) , it is still a PROOF coin. The number in the grade reflects the condition of the coin , and not its method of production (MS vs PF). So, there is no doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregoncoin Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 obviously NGC believes it to be a Proof 64. If it said Proof 60 (or, like I saw once, Proof 58) there would be room for doubt. But I do not think they would make this kind of a mistake. Thus, it is safe to assume that the coin is a proof strike. It looks a lot like a novodel 1830 em 5 kop that I have. (the strike, the color, even the discolorations) Possibly, it is also a novodel... I do not think someone is crazy enough to pay $4000 for it. At $2000 he would have a better chance. But, with these crazy Russian coin collectors you just never know. The pics are bad, but it looks like a proof to me... "hammered" full strike, squared rims about 1/2 a mm tall, squared lettering, smooth fields (that probably are more reflective at a different angle). I always assumed that proof = novodel, so I don't know why NGC didn't label it as such - they probably just don't know. It actually looks like a nice coin that's been the victim of poor photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.