Posted pictures

[coinkat 21]

In an effort to share images of British coins purchased raw, I posted a 1698 Half Crown, a 1758 Shilling, an 1893 Crown and a 1734 Crown in separate posts. A 1902 Crown was added to the 1902 discussion that was already ongoing. These were graded and photographed by PCGS. I hope the participants here take the opportunity to see them. 

These images sort of illustrate that it is not easy to obtain a 65 grade for a Victorian Crown and especially the Edward VII Crown.

The 1734 Crown shows the high relief and how problematic obtaining a well struck example. It is a challenge to examine these at the high points- especially the hair and eye

Good luck in your collecting endeavors

[Garrett 76]

Thanks, they are nice coins. 

[Rob 2,999]

I saw them but didn't know what grades were assigned. Are you saying they were all given a 65? For me the pick was the 1698, but if all given 65 then I will confess to being surprised. There's nothing wrong in terms of wear, but the 1893 has a dig on the horse's rump and the 1902 some reverse rim marks, so if 65, then presumably PCGS don't factor in these when assigning grades? The two George II pieces I would have expected lower based on the friction seen.

[Sword 1,330]

Nice coins and some very nice toning. The grades (from the  PCGS website) are:

1902 crown MS64

1893 crown MS64

1758 shilling AU58

1743 crown AU58

1698 halfcrown                 The PCGS website is really messed up here and thinks that this certificate number is a 1868 American one cent!

 

[coinkat 21]

Thanks for your comments Rob. The only MS coins were the 1902 Crown, 1893 Crown and 1698 1/2 Crown- all those graded 64. Before posting the grades, I thought it might help to have some thoughts as to the look of these coins, the good the bad and just plain old thoughts as to how these measure up to what a collector anticipates for a certain grade. To answer your questions, I suspect your observations likely are why both the 1902 and 1893 did not grade 65. The 1698 1/2 crown has a terrific look-not sure the image really captures the coin. Part of the problem with early milled coins is expectations. These coins are a product of the times. Collectors and graders sometime just miss the obvious in terms of the strike and quality which includes haymarking among other challenges of the time. A 64 grade for that coin is fine... the look is better in hand. Part of what i wanted to share is that obtaining a 65 grade with certain British coins is very difficult.

The 1734 Crown graded 58- It is clearly is not mint state, but how often does one see a George II young head crown that has an original look? I should add that I have a Mint State example of this date that was graded by NGC. And there is a significant difference. My point here is merely to show the challenge of finding a well struck example of this high relief coin.

And the 1758 Shilling was posted mainly because there was a nice image to share. It is a common coin but still worth sharing.

[Rob 2,999]

I personally still think the grade assigned is a lottery as I've yet to see any great consistency and the seeming reluctance to put anything greater than a 65 on anything begs the question of whether 66-70 have any meaningful significance. I have a coin that was in a 61 slab that I would grade higher than a similar one given 65. For comparison's sake, the attached was given 65 by NGC. But, if it is genuinely that good, over and above your albeit PCGS graded examples, I fail to see why the obvious wear to the hair curl in front of the ear and the one between the A and laurel are not holding it back. Sure the coin is not far off mint state with virtually full lustre, but the wear as seen means I can't give it any better than good EF. It isn't simply a PCGS/NGC issue either because I also used to have a 1675/3 that was in a PCGS 64 holder, but I couldn't see it past EF. It's almost as if they are more critical on the popular coins, which by definition they will encounter more often, but when it comes to the scarcer types, you get the feeling that the grade assigned is done more on the basis of a whetted finger and the wind speed/direction.

There is no point revisiting the pros and cons of slabbing, TPGs and the grades assigned as we will all beg to differ and no meeting of minds will take place. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just to be objective rather than the subjective topic that is grading.

[jacinbox 36]

10 hours ago, coinkat said:

Thanks for your comments Rob. The only MS coins were the 1902 Crown, 1893 Crown and 1698 1/2 Crown- all those graded 64. Before posting the grades, I thought it might help to have some thoughts as to the look of these coins, the good the bad and just plain old thoughts as to how these measure up to what a collector anticipates for a certain grade. To answer your questions, I suspect your observations likely are why both the 1902 and 1893 did not grade 65. The 1698 1/2 crown has a terrific look-not sure the image really captures the coin. Part of the problem with early milled coins is expectations. These coins are a product of the times. Collectors and graders sometime just miss the obvious in terms of the strike and quality which includes haymarking among other challenges of the time. A 64 grade for that coin is fine... the look is better in hand. Part of what i wanted to share is that obtaining a 65 grade with certain British coins is very difficult.

The 1734 Crown graded 58- It is clearly is not mint state, but how often does one see a George II young head crown that has an original look? I should add that I have a Mint State example of this date that was graded by NGC. And there is a significant difference. My point here is merely to show the challenge of finding a well struck example of this high relief coin.

And the 1758 Shilling was posted mainly because there was a nice image to share. It is a common coin but still worth sharing.

Very useful information.

[coinkat 21]

I am not attempting promoting TPG, just sharing images of my coins that I thought would be of interest here. Collectors have different objectives and it is up to the individual collector to determine what role TPG may have, if any, in their collection.

Rob, we can agree that grading has a subjective component. And that likely will not change in the foreseeable future. 

Grading remains a process that is used to best describe the state of preservation of a coin- And really should be subject to efforts to improve the process. Such efforts should seriously consider the variation in the strike of a coin, the dates within a specific series instead of applying a one size fits all approach. While subjectivity will never be eliminated, it seems that we can make the process reflective of the times.

Nice Farthing- And I would like to see the reverse before offering a definitive opinion. However, in looking at the high points and the fields, I would likely call it MS.

[Rob 2,999]

6 minutes ago, coinkat said:

I am not attempting promoting TPG, just sharing images of my coins that I thought would be of interest here. Collectors have different objectives and it is up to the individual collector to determine what role TPG may have, if any, in their collection.

Rob, we can agree that grading has a subjective component. And that likely will not change in the foreseeable future. 

Grading remains a process that is used to best describe the state of preservation of a coin- And really should be subject to efforts to improve the process. Such efforts should seriously consider the variation in the strike of a coin, the dates within a specific series instead of applying a one size fits all approach. While subjectivity will never be eliminated, it seems that we can make the process reflective of the times.

Nice Farthing- And I would like to see the reverse before offering a definitive opinion. However, in looking at the high points and the fields, I would likely call it MS.

It isn't a farthing, it is a halfpenny. The coin is in the unlisted varieties section - the 1675/3/2, but done on a scanner. It is the only one NGC have given a 65 (or at least last time I looked), but they got the date wrong (1673). I have played around with the image to make it look more like in the hand on my screen. Focus could be better

 

[coinkat 21]

My mistake- It is one terrific coin

I have a 1673 Farthing graded MS62 by NGC- I think I submitted it over 15 years ago.

Edited May 4, 2016 by coinkat
added comment about a 1673 farthing

[copper123 1,352]

Slightly week strike on the hair - normal really- you would do very well to find a better one though