Sword

I think many would agree that with high grade British milled coinage, the observe can often show more wear than the reverse. I assume this is due to fewer "high points" on the observe and so these points experience more pressure when rubbed. E.g. the cheek of George V, the laurel leaves etc. Derek also pointed out in his book that the area of the beard just below the ear on Edward VII crowns wears more rapidly as it is the highest point and sits proud of the rim. However, I also think that the observe often suffers more contact marks then the reverse. I wonder if you agree with this. If so what do you think are the reasons. The reverse design is a lot more "busy" than the observe and minors marks are less noticeable as a result. But I still think that in the majority of cases, there are just more contact and bag marks on the reverse.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. 'Unc' for a proof coin always seems anomalous because a proof coin is either perfect or it isn't. Anything which impairs the coin after production is ultimately wear and the next step down should surely be GEF shouldn't it? Traditionally the term 'proof impaired' was used but seems to have gone out of fashion now; nonetheless the term didn't say how much the coin was impaired, so was I guess only of limited use. I have been led to believe that 'Proof' was not a grade at all, rather a reference to the polished and normally superior dies used. While you might expect a Proof coin to be high grade as they are not intended for circulation, the grade of a coin is something completely separate, is it not? I have seen some low-mid grade Proof coins! Quite, and a low grade Proof pocket piece should be graded F, VF etc. Once it has lost its FDC status then its back on the normal grading system. I am certainly no expert and is probably a bit naive when it comes to grading. But I think there can be difficulties when we use the same terms for grading top end proof and currency coins. A curreny coin at GEF has a definate amount of wear (or at least a rather high number of minor contact marks). Hence I think it is too harsh to describe a proof coin as such if it has the slightest impairment such as a single tiny contact mark or a couple of faint hairlines. I think such a coin should at least be described as UNC as an UNC currenty coin allows a few minor contact marks (or even a bit of cabinet friction (aka very minor wear)). Slightly impaired proof coins have never been circulated and has only been slightly mishandled at some point. Hence describing them as UNC seem OK to me. Otherwise the GEF term would cover coins in a rather wide range of conditions. If it were up to me, I would use the follwing grades for proof coins: FDC (perfect), PAS (with very slight impairment), UNC (with more minor contact marks or hairlines but has never been used as currency. Hence no wear and reflective fields and damage is still only caused by mishandling)and then GEF (if it has acutally been circulated and has wear).

I would presume that "choice FDC" refers to a coin that's beautifully toned? However, I do think the term is piss poor, as a picture or description of the toning would be better than such puff. And yes, AFDC is without meaning (it's as stupid as "almost unique"). I don't think they even meant toning as they described a matt proof 1902 halfcrown as "choice FDC" and it hasn't got great (or much) toning. That auction house also seem to brag about nice toning explictly whenever it can. Sorry I omitted a word earlier. I meant they called a coin "choice AFDC". Personally, I have some symapthy with the pharse "aFDC". I agree that the term doesn't make sense if one is strict and it is really just an "imaginary grade". The gap between UNC and FDC is rather big for proof coins as UNC can include quite a few contact marks and a few hairlines. Hence the term might apply to a coin with say just one tiny contact mark or a couple of very faint hairlines. It is like aUNC, aEF or aVF which really mean coins in the very top ends of EF, VF and F respectively.

I particularly dislike the term "choice FDC" used by a London auction house. If FDC is perfect, then what on earth is "choice FDC"? They recently described a 1935 raised edge proof crown as choice FDC and the said coin has been slabbed by CGS as UNC88. UNC88 (88 out of 100) is hardly perfect in the first place! I think one might reasonably conclude that coins they describe as plain "FDC" are even less perfect. They have also used the terms "AFDC" and "choice FDC or near so" which I think are even more meaningless.

That's another worry,you think they are slabbed correctly,turns out the slab is faked so the content is also worthless,or worst scenario,the slab is correct,and it's a third party grader that's wrongly slabbed a fake.I think with the internet,more and more people will start to rely on a slabbed coin for authenticity. If you can prove that they have slabbed a fake, the more respectable TPGs like PCGS, NGC or CGS will compensate you to the market value of the real coin. For NGC or CGS, you can use the number on the slab on their databases and get a photo of the coin originally slabbed. This should tell you if you have got a fake coin in a fake slab. NGC only takes pictures of the coins that have paid the extra fee for pictures. Almost half or more don't have pictures. I think CGS takes pic's of all coins. (I think). They have had pic's of all of the coins I have followed up on at least! If you are referring to CGS UK, I believe that they do now always take pictures, but have not always done so. There used to be a cheaper option that gave you a slab and a grade, but no photo. Yes, CGS UK always take photos now. They used to offer the cheaper option (£2 less) only for coins worth less than £200.

That's another worry,you think they are slabbed correctly,turns out the slab is faked so the content is also worthless,or worst scenario,the slab is correct,and it's a third party grader that's wrongly slabbed a fake.I think with the internet,more and more people will start to rely on a slabbed coin for authenticity. If you can prove that they have slabbed a fake, the more respectable TPGs like PCGS, NGC or CGS will compensate you to the market value of the real coin. For NGC or CGS, you can use the number on the slab on their databases and get a photo of the coin originally slabbed. This should tell you if you have got a fake coin in a fake slab.

PCGS even has the cheek to state on its website that its guarantee does not cover certain "obvious" errors that they make. E.g. "a variety attribution that is obviously incorrect". I think they are rather shameless in saying that "A blatantly obvious clerical input mistake with respect to the actual grade of the coin. For example, if you had an 1893-O Morgan dollar and the PCGS holder showed the coin as MS65 (a Gem quality coin), but the coin was so beat up and marked up that it would grade MS60 at best, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as this would be an obvious input error. The rule of thumb here would be a difference of more than two points on the grading scale". Does it mean that if they will take no responsibility if they grade a MS64 coin as MS67 (a difference of more than 2 points)?

Like Vicky, I also believe that TPGs do take into account on the position of the marks. The PCGS website give the following defintition for MS65 "Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike". By "focal" areas, I assume they mean the face or an important part of the design on the reverse.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks. Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense. I do agree that contact marks are more obvious in clear fields. This a very long shot, but could it be possible that because the obverse is generally flatter (having more field etc), a clash of two coins can produce two (or a least a bigger) contact mark(s) because one coin can skid on the surface of another. The reverse has more design and so might result in less skidding? Also for the same contact, the mark would be larger if it occur on the field rather than the design as the design protect the surrounding field from damage? There is one fact that's indisputable : 99% of obverses have a similar design, i.e. a head surrounded by a circular legend, with clear fields between. Reverses are enormously varied, from the complex and fussy (Eliz II florins and sixpences, George V halfcrowns, Vic JH shillings, etc), through a mid range where there is at least some clear field (Britannia, Vic JH and Geo V florins, lion on crown), to the simple and uncluttered with a lot of field (farthings from 1937, thrift brass 3d, silver 3d to 1936, wreath 6d, etc). I stand by my earlier claim that we would be less inclined to collect a coin where there was obvious damage to a portrait, than a similar disfigurement to a reverse. I'm not sure why this is, but it could be just human psychology, as I said before (though you made no comment). y I do agree with you Peck that a mark on the portrait is a lot more significant that one in the field. Sorry that I forgot to reply earlier. It is a matter of human psychology in the sense that we care a lot more about how our face look than say our hands. (If we were to have a place a scar on our body, then no one will choose to put it on his face!)I was just wondering whether are other factors at play in addition to this especially for the larger coins with fussy reverse designs.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks. Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense. I do agree that contact marks are more obvious in clear fields. This a very long shot, but could it be possible that because the obverse is generally flatter (having more field etc), a clash of two coins can produce two (or a least a bigger) contact mark(s) because one coin can skid on the surface of another. The reverse has more design and so might result in less skidding? Also for the same contact, the mark would be larger if it occur on the field rather than the design as the design protect the surrounding field from damage?

I just did a quick bit of research on the London coins website. I searched the pharse "contact marks on the obverse" in the "realised prices" and it came up with three pages of results. I then tried "contact marks on the reverse" and it only came up with one page. OK, this is only a very crude attempt and might not mean much. But the difference is significant.

Interesting, do you have a theory as to why this might be the case? I can't think of any reason why one side of a normally circulated coin might experience more contact or nag marks than the other! I don't have any theory at the moment! I will be interested to know if others will agree with the observation that there are often more marks on the observe. (I mistakenly said reverse at the end of my last post. I make a lot of mistakes when I am hungury and still waiting for dinner ...)

Very pleased for you. Well done indeed!! I have no sympathy for the seller even if he brought it believing it was genuine. By refusing to refund you, he was just as low as ----xxxcoinxxx--- who allegedly sold it to him.

I was looking for a high grade 1911 currency halfcrown and has just brought one form a well known auction house (the one that doesn't do photos and charge low buyers premium). I have never brought anything without photos before and probably won't be doing that again for a very long time! It was described as "unc nice light tone, graded MS64 by PCGS". It arrived yesterday and the coin is pleasing, with very few contact marks, nice light gold tone on the observe. However, there are also some light green spots on the reverse localised mainly on the bottom right quarter of the shield as shown in the photo. Are these verdigris spots? Are most green spots verdigris? I only collect silver and don't have any knowledge in this area. I am annoyed with the auction house as it should have been mentioned and am thinking of returning it as a matter of principle. However, it is not a high value coin and I am also fine keeping it and take it as a lesson learnt. What are your opinions?

Yes, I always thought that verd was a copper, bronze & nickel brass issue, rather than a silver one. Had a strange experience with my uncirculated 1919 shilling a few months back. Took one of the shilling drawers from my cabinet, and noticed what ~ for all the world ~ looked like green verd at the base of the 1919 shilling reverse. On removing the shilling, and very lightly rubbing the base of the shilling, the green material just fell away as though it was powder. Obviously it wasn't verd, but quite what the hell it actually was, I've absolutely no idea. No residue was left behiind. Incidentally, talking about slabs, does anybody know if any form of spontaneous or continued deterioration, can occur in the slab ? Or does the act of slabbing arrest the action of any deleterious outside agent already on the coin ? Probably sounds a naive, simplistic question, but I'm no metallurgist. If there is a harmful chemical already on the coin (but initally undetected), then there is no doubt that slabbing cannot prevent it from reacting with the metal in due time. The link in my last post describes a situation where a spot (damage due to previous long term contact with PVC) only developing after the coin has been slabbed. However, I do think these cases relatively uncommon. Obviously, such coins will develop problems whether you slab them or not and so slabbing cannot be blamed for the issues.

Did you take the offer? Which one (if you still have got it)?

Just out of interest, I have just come across an article on PCGS Spot removal service on http://news.coinupdate.com/pcgs-spot-removal-service-0701/ According to the second post from the bottom (which might or might not be accurate), PCGS now charges $50 in fees to remove PVC spots on slabbed coins but they used to do it for free.

I don't think anyone would remotely suggest that the plastic of slabs can react with coins.

No one buy blind from strangers in ebay but I thought the risk is significantly lower from an established auction house... Without pictures or being at the auction house itself, and as was stated by coinery above, the grading is a little generous, so as i said, why would anyone buy blind. Also if it's your first time buying from ANY auction house, then in theory said auction house is also a stranger, no? There's overgrading in a lot of auction houses, having the ability to grade yourself gives you the choice of where your bid goes, having nothing at all to go by is Russian Roulette of the highest order no matter which auction house it is. Azda, I think leaving an absentee bid is always a bit of a risk. The photos you normally get do not often show hairlines and might sometimes hide much worse defects. A scan doesn't show the tone and might not even be able to tell you if a coin has been previously cleaned. I think most of us have made disappointing purchases by absentee biding. Hence, you always have to rely to some extent on the auction houses' descriptions. Work usually prevent me from attending any auction in person. I do grade coins (reasonably accurately I hope) and take the lower of the two grades (mine and the auction house's) when I decide on a bid. On this occasion (the first time I have bid blind), I was tempted to some extent to try an auction house with a low buyer's permium. The item was not high value and I knew it was returnable if there are issues. Hence it wasn't really much of a risk but just annoyance when things go wrong.

No one buy blind from strangers in ebay but I thought the risk is significantly lower from an established auction house...

Here are the photos. It is not looking too bad now but it might get worse with time. I haven't paid for it yet so I guess I will be able to return it. (How many auction houses would send the goods to a new buyer before they get paid?) It is not a high value coin and so it is either returning it or keeping it as it is for me.

If it is definately plastic damage, then it is easiest just returning it, as the coin might just get worse in the slab. I have never tried cracking a slab before (or cleaning a coin with chemical either) and will probably just make a mess of things with my current luck! (what are the chances of getting plastic damage on a PCGS slabbed coin?) I am aware that their grading at the high end can be somewhat "optimistic" according to the previous reviews on the forum. However, I thought that I might give them a try due to the very low buyers' premium. I bought about 4 coins blind from there...2 uncs barely made EF, and the other two were 1/2 grade lower. Great auction if you are attending but, personally, I would'nt ever blind bid with them again! Charging low premium by cutting down overheads like photos and catalouges is a great concept in theory. But if the grades are not accurate, then it doesn't do anyone any favours and will surely cost them business.

If it is definately plastic damage, then it is easiest just returning it, as the coin might just get worse in the slab. I have never tried cracking a slab before (or cleaning a coin with chemical either) and will probably just make a mess of things with my current luck! (what are the chances of getting plastic damage on a PCGS slabbed coin?) I am aware that their grading at the high end can be somewhat "optimistic" according to the previous reviews on the forum. However, I thought that I might give them a try due to the very low buyers' premium.

I agree that there is no point trying to describe some 1935 raised edge crowns as "cameo" and others as "deep cameo". I read in a review that there are also non cameo (no frosting) 1935 proof crowns but have never seen one myself. Has anyone seen one before? If so does anyone know why the different types exist?

Great coin Mike! I didn't manage to buy a coin for Christmas and so spent the money on a cheap break to Spain instead. Had a good time and the weather was dry and relatively warm.