[Rob]

Here's a wonderful example of incompetent grading and pricing. 1701 1/2d

I guess it couldn't make the usual "Practically as struck" description due to the absence of most detail, but the presence of legend and a date allowed for almost UNC . At least the pricing will ensure that nobody buys it.

[Emperor Oli]

Rob, on Dec 21 2005, 12:15 PM, said:

Here's a wonderful example of incompetent grading and pricing. 1701 1/2d

I guess it couldn't make the usual "Practically as struck" description due to the absence of most detail, but the presence of legend and a date allowed for almost UNC . At least the pricing will ensure that nobody buys it.

I've bought off her before, and when I did (which was about a year ago) her grading was spot on. Interesting how it has slid...

[Rob]

Emperor Oli, on Dec 21 2005, 12:41 PM, said:

Rob, on Dec 21 2005, 12:15 PM, said:

Here's a wonderful example of incompetent grading and pricing. 1701 1/2d

I guess it couldn't make the usual "Practically as struck" description due to the absence of most detail, but the presence of legend and a date allowed for almost UNC   . At least the pricing will ensure that nobody buys it.

I've bought off her before, and when I did (which was about a year ago) her grading was spot on. Interesting how it has slid...

Her basic problem seems to be that coins are graded using copy and paste. Almost without exception a coin is "practically as struck" or "practically mint state". She buys a lot and clearly acquired a lot of half crowns at Spink a fortnight ago. If you buy enough coins in auctions where there are high grade pieces, some will invariably be practically as struck. Oli, you bought a coin on which you presumably did a mental assessment of grade and also considered her grade, but how many did you reject? It's not the grades you agree with, but the number that you disagree with that determines whether you accept that given by the vendor.

[Chris Perkins]

I hear usually negative things about her. I bought something once and wasn't pleased with the 'as struck' description, because it wasn't. I kept it though, as it was inexpensive. She told me at the time that she has a BNTA member do the grading for her....As if that were some kind of guarantee, like all BNTA members can grade properly!

I for one, don't think I'll buy anything again.

[Peter]

I always try and look for positives...these are.....
1)William 111 copper is a devil to get in good grades due to generally slip shod currency manufacture over his reign.
2)I have seen "as struck" coins which only merit GVF.
3)William (as is true to 1724) is better collected by eye appeal (in my opinion) I hate high grade scabby coins.
Give me a lower grade on good copper everytime.

If her coin started at 99p i would probably bid to £50 ish....there are one or two bidders out there who would pay more.

Then there are her regulars who accept her grading (or are blinded by it)

Oh & from the pictures I would grade it at AVF/F. The reverse is weakly struck....

4)It has eye appeal.
5)She will probably throw in a Spinks ticket.

This post has been edited by Peter: 21 December 2005 - 02:16 PM

[Rob]

Peter, on Dec 21 2005, 02:15 PM, said:

Oh & from the pictures I would grade it at AVF/F. The reverse is weakly struck....

Lend me your night vision glasses and I might be able to up it a bit

[Peter]

Rob
Where would you grade this...??? Good Copper !!!!!

Ignore the grade assigned on Omini coin (There are only 4 grades to select and you can't mix etc)

http://www.omnicoin.....aspx?id=905761

[Rob]

Peter, on Dec 22 2005, 10:50 AM, said:

Rob
Where would you grade this...??? Good Copper !!!!!

Ignore the grade assigned on Omini coin (There are only 4 grades to select and you can't mix etc)

http://www.omnicoin.....aspx?id=905761

I'd give it good fine because of the lack of laurel wreath detail and Britannia's left leg is a bit devoid of detail too. Parts of the detail are however very good, clearly unworn and better than good fine, but when grading, I always weight it towards the worst area. So a VF face is offset by a fine at best wreath for example.

To give you an idea of how I would grade a farthing, I listed the coin below, mentally graded as about VF. Opinion welcome if you think it is under or overgraded.1675 farthing

[Peter]

It is a very nice coin and grades in what I deem collectable for currency Charles 1/4d's.
I wouldn't disagree with VF overall however the reverse has a weaker strike in the region of Britannia's head.
Going back to my coin I think the obverse merits VF (obverse's always seem to be better).
The reverse is harder for me but between GF and NVF.
Overall it hasn't any problems and in this instance I wouldn't try to upgrade with the one you sold.
I've noticed on another site 3 or 4 examples between £70 to £140 of which a lesser grade with good copper is the most expensive.
I think Colin Cooke had it right when he graded coins as Bold or Pleasing.

[Rob]

Peter, on Dec 22 2005, 04:52 PM, said:

It is a very nice coin and grades in what I deem collectable for currency Charles 1/4d's.
I wouldn't disagree with VF overall however the reverse has a weaker strike in the region of Britannia's head.
Going back to my coin I think the obverse merits VF (obverse's always seem to be better).
The reverse is harder for me but between GF and NVF.
Overall it hasn't any problems and in this instance I wouldn't try to upgrade with the one you sold.
I've noticed on another site 3 or 4 examples between £70 to £140 of which a lesser grade with good copper is the most expensive.
I think Colin Cooke had it right when he graded coins as Bold or Pleasing.

I marked yours down because of the flat areas on the reverse where I wouldn't expect so much flattening and because obverses are usually better, so wouldn't have expected so much loss of laurel detail. Unless of course there is die infilling to consider which is difficult from a picture.

Weakness in the head area of the reverse seems to be endemic in early copper and tin until you get to Anne with the exception of some of the W&M proofs. If you look at Nicholson's pictures, all of his Charles 2nd have weak reverses even when virtually as struck as do my pieces. This is continued through the tin series and even up to the end of William. There is a marked increase in design relief with the last W3 issue where his best two currency reverses were 108 and 147, but these aside only 138 came anywhere close and here you have to allow for wear. The improvement in relief on this issue is offset to a great extent by the manufacturing standards which at their best are crap with most worse. A dire issue in all senses.

Re my farthing, I was just interested how a farthing collector would grade it, not having much interest in farthing personally. I am quite willing to stick my neck out and say I feel many are overgraded on dealers' sites or maybe it's just that I also grade with an overemphasis on eye-appeal.

[Peter]

I agree fully that early 1/4d's are overgraded in general to 1700....1/2d's as well !!!
Even Colin Cooke falls into the trap of "F or VF for issue".....
but according to this doctorine my 1698's are both low grade...but VF & GF for issue.)
Maybe catalogues should recognize this and bring the grades down and maintain the pricing.
Because a series is older collectors/dealers tend to give higher grades to the coins.
I rant on because I have returned NVF/VF examples....which were less than Fine in my opinion(I never buy this series blind now) and the desirability of a piece of Fine (Worn Tat) on Ebay and a genuine Fine is considerable.
It worries me that "New collectors" are learning their grading skills from Ebay and making a mockery of the catalogue pricing.

I'm getting pushed further and further into the hammered field ( & I don't mean Xmas Spirit ).....although I've just cracked a bottle of Jamesons .
Maybe I should start on those patterns and proofs.

[Peter]

I've just noticed I'm a Forum God....I always knew I was special

[Rob]

Peter, on Dec 22 2005, 08:16 PM, said:

I agree fully that early 1/4d's are overgraded in general to 1700....1/2d's as well !!!
Even Colin Cooke falls into the trap of "F or VF for issue".....
but according to this doctorine my 1698's are both low grade...but VF & GF for issue.)
Maybe catalogues should recognize this and bring the grades down and maintain the pricing.
Because a series is older collectors/dealers tend to give higher grades to the coins.
I rant on because I have returned NVF/VF examples....which were less than Fine in my opinion(I never buy this series blind now) and the desirability of a piece of Fine (Worn Tat) on Ebay and a genuine Fine is considerable.
It worries me that "New collectors" are learning their grading skills from Ebay and making a mockery of the catalogue pricing.

I'm getting pushed further and further into the hammered field ( & I don't mean Xmas Spirit ).....although I've just cracked a bottle of Jamesons .
Maybe I should start on those patterns and proofs.

Fair is a grade only found on tin pieces and 1685 James 2nd plume reverse shillings in the eyes of many on eBay because these are the only milled pieces in Spink where it is mentioned. There are precious few hammered either, the only ones noticed during a quick flick through being the portcullis and greyhound overstamps of Edward VI from Elizabeth 1st. Accordingly, with Spink being the most widely read as the bible of collecting, fair has to be absolutely dire and only used in extenuating circumstances and all else has honorary fine status irrespective of grade as an absolute minimum. Good doesn't exist, nor does poor.

A further rant. Northeast Numismatics have an 1893 proof shilling graded PR67. The note on the website says it all. "Could 68 today". Coins in slabs don't mature like a fine wine, they can only degenerate from chemical reaction. If they get higher grades the longer they are slabbed, it makes a mockery of grading.

If you like less than perfect coins, there are a few mishandled proofs and patterns out there to collect

[Peter]

Do you count Proofs and Patterns as COINS ???

I shall refrain from adding to this

[Rob]

Peter, on Dec 23 2005, 11:05 AM, said:

Do you count Proofs and Patterns as COINS ???

Certainly do and sorry, that was just a dig to your reference on another thread that you prefer a gVF to an EF. I must atone and being the season of goodwill to all, wish you an almost merry Christmas.

[Peter]

I thank you Sir.
AND seasons greetings to you.....trouble is my mother is staying in my study and I've been ordered to clear the Dining table/room of my Coin
paraphernalia.
Now where is that Jamesons ? & Diazipam

[Rob]

Peter, on Dec 23 2005, 03:57 PM, said:

trouble is my mother is staying in my study and I've been ordered to clear the Dining table/room of my Coin
paraphernalia.

Jamesons Jamesons Jamesons Jamesons .......... Paracetamol

[Peter]

The Jamesons has been sorted.
Anything stronger that bitter is being resisted.

New Year to survive ?
Does any one want to suggest a bargain today which will be an investment for the future?

I will start with Wreath Crowns.
1960 Polished die crown
17C/18C quality CURRENCY copper.
1876H RFG unc....COS I JUST GOT ONE

[Rob]

Peter, on Dec 27 2005, 04:50 PM, said:

Does any one want to suggest a bargain today which will be an investment for the future?

Half price unwanted bottles of Jamesons.

[Peter]

Send them this way

[1949threepence]

Interesting, if very old thread.

There are numerous examples of lustre traces surviving on less then EF coins. Indeed, some weak strikes have already quickly downgraded to VF whilst still retaining considerable lustre.

[Kronos]

With all this confusion do you think thats why the 'Coins of England and the United Kingdom' only grade as high as Unc, apart from FDC (not even BU) when valuing coins in their books?

This post has been edited by Mark Sarul: 02 November 2009 - 08:10 PM

[Rob]

Mark Sarul, on Nov 2 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

With all this confusion do you think thats why the 'Coins of England and the United Kingdom' only grade as high as Unc, apart from FDC (not even BU) when valuing coins in their books?

But they do say that copper prices in UNC are for examples with full lustre, so that covers BU. cf. p.446 in the 2009 tome.

[Kronos]

Rob, on Nov 2 2009, 10:51 PM, said:

Mark Sarul, on Nov 2 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

With all this confusion do you think thats why the 'Coins of England and the United Kingdom' only grade as high as Unc, apart from FDC (not even BU) when valuing coins in their books?

But they do say that copper prices in UNC are for examples with full lustre, so that covers BU. cf. p.446 in the 2009 tome.

I never spotted that . But to get me out of the hole I have just dug why do other books state different prices for Unc and BU coins. On another note how can you determine a correct price for a coin with say 25%, 50%, nearly full lustre, or is this left to the seller’s opinion.

What I am trying to say is I AM CONFUSED, when I look at one of my coins and one is brighter that the other how do I put a value on the coin when no book can specify this in detail. I think this can lead to confusion for the collector, especially for someone new to the hobby.

Forgive me for being a bit thick, but this is the only part of coin collecting that I am not confidant about (grading). I have the 'Standard Guide to Grading British Coins' but to this extent I am still none the wiser. I suppose it’s like buying a car, to the seller the car can look in great condition but to the purchaser it can look ok, until the time you want to sell the car after you have purchased it.

Mark

[Rob]

Mark Sarul, on Nov 3 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

Rob, on Nov 2 2009, 10:51 PM, said:

Mark Sarul, on Nov 2 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

With all this confusion do you think thats why the 'Coins of England and the United Kingdom' only grade as high as Unc, apart from FDC (not even BU) when valuing coins in their books?

But they do say that copper prices in UNC are for examples with full lustre, so that covers BU. cf. p.446 in the 2009 tome.

I never spotted that . But to get me out of the hole I have just dug why do other books state different prices for Unc and BU coins. On another note how can you determine a correct price for a coin with say 25%, 50%, nearly full lustre, or is this left to the seller’s opinion.

What I am trying to say is I AM CONFUSED, when I look at one of my coins and one is brighter that the other how do I put a value on the coin when no book can specify this in detail. I think this can lead to confusion for the collector, especially for someone new to the hobby.

Forgive me for being a bit thick, but this is the only part of coin collecting that I am not confidant about (grading). I have the 'Standard Guide to Grading British Coins' but to this extent I am still none the wiser. I suppose it’s like buying a car, to the seller the car can look in great condition but to the purchaser it can look ok, until the time you want to sell the car after you have purchased it.

Mark

The correct price for a coin with whatever percentage of lustre (or in any other grade for that matter) is what the buyer is happy to pay. This obviously varies from person to person. You can't have a binding, fixed recommended retail price for coins any more than you can for any other item.

[VickySilver]

Luster, that part of grading can really create some contraversy. Red usually equates with lustre, but many opinions on what other surface colour can also demonstrate luster - some very brown specimens can demonstrate a silky luster as well, for example.

[scott]

yes toning also, i have coins that are lustrous but you cant really see it in the normal way (my 1953 penny is toned in such a way you have to rotaste the coin to see the lustre. and i have a high grade australia penny which is dark brown with great details and has a sort of shine, but not lustrous, just a shine.
better if you see what i mean tbh

the toning, you can see the lustre via the light reflection here

and the australia example, as you can see detail is high but all it has is a shine

[1949threepence]

Mark Sarul, on Nov 2 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

With all this confusion do you think thats why the 'Coins of England and the United Kingdom' only grade as high as Unc, apart from FDC (not even BU) when valuing coins in their books?

Rob, on Nov 2 2009, 10:51 PM, said:

But they do say that copper prices in UNC are for examples with full lustre, so that covers BU. cf. p.446 in the 2009 tome.

Mark Sarul, on Nov 3 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

I never spotted that . But to get me out of the hole I have just dug why do other books state different prices for Unc and BU coins. On another note how can you determine a correct price for a coin with say 25%, 50%, nearly full lustre, or is this left to the seller’s opinion.

Because there is a difference between UNC & BU. A big difference, which is almost wholly related to lustre. A coin can still be UNC in terms of wear, but have dulled tired lustre. Conversely, there is no mistaking the bright new looking attractiveness of a genuinely BU specimen.

A BU will nearly always command a premium ~ sometimes a substantial one ~ over one that is simply UNC. BU coins have considerable cache, especially in older coins.

Mark Sarul, on Nov 3 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

What I am trying to say is I AM CONFUSED, when I look at one of my coins and one is brighter that the other how do I put a value on the coin when no book can specify this in detail. I think this can lead to confusion for the collector, especially for someone new to the hobby.

Forgive me for being a bit thick, but this is the only part of coin collecting that I am not confidant about (grading). I have the 'Standard Guide to Grading British Coins' but to this extent I am still none the wiser. I suppose it’s like buying a car, to the seller the car can look in great condition but to the purchaser it can look ok, until the time you want to sell the car after you have purchased it.

Mark

Value will always be somewhat subjective, and the value relating to what any given individual is willing to pay for a coin, will vary, and is dependent on a number of different factors. But generally the BU will usually attract more money than the lesser specimens.

[Peckris]

1949threepence, on Nov 3 2009, 07:28 PM, said:

Because there is a difference between UNC & BU. A big difference, which is almost wholly related to lustre. A coin can still be UNC in terms of wear, but have dulled tired lustre. Conversely, there is no mistaking the bright new looking attractiveness of a genuinely BU specimen.

A BU will nearly always command a premium ~ sometimes a substantial one ~ over one that is simply UNC. BU coins have considerable cache, especially in older coins.

I'd sound a note of caution here. I once bid for an AU Cartwheel Twopence at auction that had part lustre, but I wasn't successful. A dealer over the road had promised me his AU specimen at a discount if I didn't get the auction coin. His coin had no lustre, but over time, its evenness of tone and uniform silky sheen has made me glad I didn't win the auction.

Also I have two AU Vic copper pennies, 1858 and 1859 - neither has lustre, but both have gorgeous even tone, and are stunningly beautiful. Whereas my 1854 halfpenny, Unc with 50% lustre, looks patchy and dowdy by comparison. What I'm saying is, some collectors actually PREFER an Unc coin with no lustre, to one that is part-lustred. And a BU coin, though having full lustre, is no different from any other BU coin of the same type. Whereas one that is toned or patinated or prooflike or rainbow-hued, will be distinctively unique and special.

In the end, it's eye-appeal and beauty that decides the desirability of a coin, and much of that is in the eye of the beholder.

[Red Riley]

Peckris, on Nov 4 2009, 12:11 AM, said:

And a BU coin, though having full lustre, is no different from any other BU coin of the same type. Whereas one that is toned or patinated or prooflike or rainbow-hued, will be distinctively unique and special.

In the end, it's eye-appeal and beauty that decides the desirability of a coin, and much of that is in the eye of the beholder.

I think I agree with you, but I'm afraid that I don't like and never have liked the BU grade and seldom use the term myself. I have seen coins in this condition, straight out of the mint and with no handling whatever - but anything of any age which has not been tampered with will have fallen below that category unless it's been stored in outer space for its whole life. In my view, any grading system falls down once we establish that a coin has not been circulated. With base metal, indicating a percentage of lustre can help, but what of coins where the lustre has dulled uniformly, what of silver?

I have gone off at a slight tangent, but returning to the main point, don't try too hard to ascribe a grade to an unworn coin, just describe what you see, oh, and include a photograph!