Sword

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.

The saving grace is that they are faking these in silver plated base metal. The problem will be more serious if they start using sterling silver for forgeries.

I am a little confused with what is the “current†accepted definition of FDC. At the beginning of my coin collecting days, I have taken FDC to mean the perfect coin, i.e. without contact marks, wear or hairlines and perfectly struck. Hence only proof coins can ever be graded as FDC and this definition is similar to the American MS 70. Then it soon occurred to me that no coin can really be “perfect†especially under magnification. Some auction houses are happy to describe their predecimal proof coins as FDC but there are virtually always defects even visible to the naked eyes. Others prefer the terms aFDC or nFDC or FDC with “defects†described. What are your expectations of this grade?

Merry Christmas to you too Coinery!!

Might be it is best to leave discussions regarding slabbing and TPGs at least until the festive season is over? Lets wound down rather than heat up before Christmas! :) :)

Most experienced collectors would spot the tell tale signs of a coin that has been dipped, as the "lustre" appears flat, and does not radiate from the surface in the same way that natural lustre does. Interesting article here Many thanks for the article 1949. I don't think I am experienced enough at the moment to distinguish between the different types of lustre but I prefer toned silver coins in any case. Nice photos by the way, Azda. Last year, I brought a matt proof 1902 crown with a really nice golden tone. (The coin is not quite FDC because of a tiny contact mark on the reverse which was almost invisible in the original auction photo. The tiny bits of grey in the photo is due to reflection of some kind and is not seen on the acutal coin in hand). If nice toning like this can potentially lower a coin's grade from FDC, then so be it in my view. FDC or not FDC, I still prefer toned silver coins. There are lots of sweeping faint lines on your photo of the coin Sword, what do you put those down to? I am not sure why it has toned like that. I can't see any hairlines under magnification and it is much less noticeable in real life. Photo 2 attached.

Most experienced collectors would spot the tell tale signs of a coin that has been dipped, as the "lustre" appears flat, and does not radiate from the surface in the same way that natural lustre does. Interesting article here Many thanks for the article 1949. I don't think I am experienced enough at the moment to distinguish between the different types of lustre but I prefer toned silver coins in any case. Nice photos by the way, Azda. Last year, I brought a matt proof 1902 crown with a really nice golden tone. (The coin is not quite FDC because of a tiny contact mark on the reverse which was almost invisible in the original auction photo. The tiny bits of grey in the photo is due to reflection of some kind and is not seen on the acutal coin in hand). If nice toning like this can potentially lower a coin's grade from FDC, then so be it in my view. FDC or not FDC, I still prefer toned silver coins.

That's interesting. Traditionally toning hasn't affected a grade of FDC as long as the coin is technically perfect; possibly because so many collectors regard attractive toning as superior to no toning at all? It's where the toning is ugly that I have reservations, but that makes it all very subjective, I agree. I have read Derek's book and it is indeed excellent work. If a trace of toning would exclude a coin from graded FDC, then could any silver proof coins prior to say the 1930s be described by this grade? I think all silver proofs inevitably tone over time (unless it has been sealed in plastic since day one). As Peck pointed out, if the the toning is really beautiful, wouldn't this make the silver coin even more desirable? Beautiful toning is valued with currency coins and there is no reason why this shouldn't be the case with proofs. I would suspect any silver proof more than 80 years old and with no trace of toning as having been previously dipped. If the toning has been removed by dipping but without imparing the lustre, then would the coin qualify for FDC again? I do think that that the term FDC has been affected by grade inflation somewhat. London coins recently described a 1935 raised edge crown as "choice FDC". This is of course impossible if FDC is already prefect. The said coin has only been graded by cgs as UNC 88 (88 out of 100) and so is hardly prefect. Some interesting ideas, and food for thought there. If a toned coin lost its FDC status by virtue of that toning, then by definition, it would be virtually impossible to obtain a FDC silver coin over a certain age, even if it had never seen any circulation whatever, having spent its entire life in a collector's cabinet. With regard to dipping, you'd surely have to say that such a process would immediately invalidate the FDC status. If a proof silver coin has not been impaired by light dipping (i.e. it has retained its full lustre and is blazing white afterwards)then I think it would be difficult to deny it the FDC grade. Afterall, no one can prove it has actually been dipped if no damage has been done? (I have never dipped a coin before and so am only thinking about this as a theoretical situaltion. Is it even possible to dip a coin without damaging it in someway?) I feel that the seller would be misrepresenting the truth if describing a dipped item as FDC. If I knew, then I certainly wouldn't accept such an item as FDC ~ would you ? Interesting question! I would certainly prefer to collect coins that have not been tempered with in anyway. Hence, I do prefer nicely toned silver coins over blazing white ones. But what if a coin has not been damaged by dipping and has changed hands several times since .... Then the latest owner / seller might not be any wiser. Personally, I would want to pay less (as a matter of principle) if I suspect a coin has been previously dipped but has full lustre. It will tone back in time in anycase. However, I am unlikely to buy it altogether if the lustre has been dulled by dipping.