The difference between

[Monsmoy]

Please could someone explain to me the difference between a PF70 SOTD and the same sovereign in a PF70 Proof Cameo?

Why is one more desirable, therefore more costly, than the other when they are both graded the same?

Thank you

[MJCOIN]

Firstly, all modern SOTDs produced to date are not proofs so will be graded as MS70 rather than PF70.  SOTDs are BU (brilliant uncirculated) not proofs.

A lot of SOTD sovereigns have a plain edge rather than milled (although not all of them) and many of them are a matte finish, but again not all.

The biggest factor (in my opinion) is the low mintages of SOTDs.  Some have very low mintages in the region of 650 or so.  

These factors make SOTD sovereigns unique and highly collectable (although not everyone would agree with this statement - horses for courses).

[Monsmoy]

19 minutes ago, MJCOIN said:

Firstly, all modern SOTDs produced to date are not proofs so will be graded as MS70 rather than PF70.  SOTDs are BU (brilliant uncirculated) not proofs.

A lot of SOTD sovereigns have a plain edge rather than milled (although not all of them) and many of them are a matte finish, but again not all.

The biggest factor (in my opinion) is the low mintages of SOTDs.  Some have very low mintages in the region of 650 or so.  

These factors make SOTD sovereigns unique and highly collectable (although not everyone would agree with this statement - horses for courses).

That is great, thank you for sharing your knowledge.

[kimchi]

Also, the two main grading companies (NGC and PCGS) wrongly graded the 2017 SotD as a PF and not an MS (the quality can be very similar, which is why I personally believe the Mint switched to Matte SotDs, to differentiate). The Mint actually sent out incorrect CoAs with the 2017s saying they were Proof, a big mistake!

Some people sent their graded coins back, to be reholdered as MS and not PF, and exchanged their CoAs with the Mint. Others like me have kept the 'error' CoAs and the coins graded as PF. So you may see a 2017 graded as PF, or even (I guess) people trying to sell as one without explaining the history.

I have not seen one myself but recently on here someone posted that another SotD had been wrongly graded as PF.

All SotDs should be classed as MS, even if many of us think they are almost as good as, or even as good as, proofs.

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by kimchi

[Roy]

For bragging rights  example:

😃

[Monsmoy]

5 minutes ago, kimchi said:

Also, the two main grading companies (NGC and PCGS) wrongly graded the 2017 SotD as a PF and not an MS (the quality can be very similar, which is why I personally believe the Mint switched to Matte SotDs, to differentiate). The Mint actually sent out incorrect CoAs with the 2017s saying they were Proof, a big mistake!

Some people sent their graded coins back, to be reholdered as MS and not PF, and exchanged their CoAs with the Mint. Others like me have kept the 'error' CoAs and he coins graded as PF. So ou may see a 2017 graded as PF, or even (I guess) people trying to sell as one without explaining the history.

I have not seen one myself but recently on here someone posted that another SotD had been wrongly graded as PF.

All SotDs should be classed as MS, even if many of us think they are almost as good as, or even as good as, proofs.

 

Thank you. All this helps to build up a picture of how people view the market and that there are other factors to consider when assessing future desirability

[MJCOIN]

Snapo.

 

 

[Roy]

13 minutes ago, kimchi said:

Others like me have kept the 'error' CoAs and the coins graded as PF.

That's 3 of us so far!

[kimchi]

8 minutes ago, Monsmoy said:

Thank you. All this helps to build up a picture of how people view the market and that there are other factors to consider when assessing future desirability

There have been quite a few now, but not too many to spend a day or two researching which are which, what the differences are, and which ones you think are key (or may be key) in future. Also, of course, which ones might be a good investment going forward (you will get differing opinions on this)!

Any more questions please do ask

14 minutes ago, MJCOIN said:

Snapo.

 

 

Very nice indeed but @Roy has just pipped you with his 'First Releases' designation!

13 minutes ago, Roy said:

That's 3 of us so far!

Lol, I wonder how many actually took up the offer - maybe those are the extremely rare and desirable ones!

Mine is a PCGS PF69 which would easily cross at 70, but then I'd lose the PF. However if it's one of only a handful in an MS (and I still have the error cert)...🤔

[Roy]

I'd leave it as is @kimchi, the risks are low but it could go missing/stolen etc.

You might not find another, certainly not at RRP!

I won't be returning mine.

👍

[kimchi]

I can walk it to NGC London to consign myself, but I think you're right Roy. Always worth pondering on and reassessing your collection/pieces from time to time though!

A different subject really but I do have a few coins for grading. With all the uncertainty in the world right now though, I am keeping them where they are until steadier days, better safe than sorry atm imo.

It's such a stunning coin, and I do love my PCGS holder and all the story that goes with it - the whole bundle. I don't think it'd be the same in a new slab. 69 or 70 doesn't matter to me and it's never leaving my collection anyway

Some of us say 'buy the coin and not the holder' often. I've realised now that I don't simply enjoy my coins often enough. I am not grateful enough for what I have. I shall aim to both enjoy them and be appreciative more

Edited February 7, 2022 by kimchi

[Tn21]

how did ngc get strike of the day right in the label but mess up/ mix up on the pf and ms 70. 

[Roy]

I can't quite recall the official 'excuse' but when you have the coin in hand, you might think it's a proof.

 

[kimchi]

7 minutes ago, Tn21 said:

how did ngc get strike of the day right in the label but mess up/ mix up on the pf and ms 70. 

I had just started out then, so I post only to be corrected It was PCGS as well as NGC. I don't know if and to what extent the error 'proof' certificates from the Mint played a part. But I believe it was the first 'huge' SotD (and certainly still a - if not the - very noteworthy one) they both received for grading. It was and is prooflike, it's stunning (as I'm sure you know) - like many of the subsequent SotDs.

The very strange bit came when people questioned/tried to correct them, and then the Mint issued the 'please send back your error certificates for exchange - it's not a Proof'. They both still stuck to their guns for a while with their proof designation.

As I've said, someone recently said on here that another (subsequent) SotD was given a PF designation, but I've never seen one or heard of that before.

[Roy]

8 minutes ago, kimchi said:

I don't know if and to what extent the error 'proof' certificates from the Mint played a part

I think that's where it began, trusting 'the source'!

Bit embarrassing for the grading companies, really 😀

[SidS]

Took me a while to figure out what SOTD meant! Never heard that term before.

You live and learn.