Grading

[Rob 3,000]

Usually, but not always. 1887 coins are difficult, as are 1821 crowns and even Geo III shillings when they are properly struck. I have a YH Victoria shilling that is so stunningly prooflike, but shouldn't exist as a proof.

Still, the wreath on ebay certainly isn't a proof.

Most of the issues post 1816 are prooflike in many instances and here the letters are the key. The 1887s have to have razor sharp milling - almost to the point where it cuts the fingers although the double florin rims are wider for the proof and it goes without saying that the rim/edge angle is usually perfect. Excess metal is only occasionally found on the rims of proofs. Most years of the Victorian shillings exist with prooflike fields where you need to examine the edge and lettering usually to confirm it is just a normal type. There is also the additional problem whereby during years in which large quantities of proofs were made for public consumption it appears the overall standard of striking was lowered for the sets, presumably so that not too many were rejected. When only a handful of proofs are struck in any one year there is little wear to the dies. This does not apply if you are making thousands of each denomination.

[guyincog 0]

Is it the opinion of people here that the 1918 KN was UNC, then? I am not saying it wasn't. I am genuinely interested.

To me it looks like it has wear. I would - and did - grade that coin as Good EF.

[Chris Perkins 223]

It's a tough one, the pictures are small. It could well be UNC but with flat areas from a weak strike.

[Peter 615]

I have several bits of George V which can be deemed weak strikes but obviously GEF/UNC.

However,as so few KN coins were minted it should not be worn die's.

Saying that the KN's in general seem to exibit area's of early wearing ie Brittannia's shield is flat on moderatly circulated specimens.

Either way its a nice coin which I would love.

It was bought cheaply and sold on the high side.

Regardless of what the Vendor says there was sufficient evidence of the coin pictured (caveat emptor)

and a good day at the office.

I can imagine looking at a coin like this at the Midland coin fair which is lit by a 40 watt bulb every 10 metres.

[wybrit 2]

Great thread.

I know of a fair number of "ebay serial offenders" that Rob mentions, but I for one would be rather squeamish to list them on any public forum.

The biggest offenders on the UK side are those who sell pieces that are hairlined or whizzed from cleaning - using scans tends to mask this problem. Even many "reputable" sellers list coins without any reference to them having been cleaned. What is frustrating is that many good sellers who sold gem pieces 3-4 years ago are now overgrading/cleaning their pieces because the gems are basically gone fom the accessible market.

In the US, it is just flat out overgrading of British coins, including many that are in slabs. They're too busy dipping US coins generally to worry about that "foreign stuff."

I can not believe the price of that 1918 KN! I would have to see it in hand or have a trusted eye on it from afar before I would bid that type of money.

Edited November 16, 2005 by wybrit

[Rob 3,000]

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 0]

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 3,000]

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 223]

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 615]

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.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Peter

[Rob 3,000]

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 615]

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.com/coin_view.aspx?id=905761

[Rob 3,000]

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.com/coin_view.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 615]

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 3,000]

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 615]

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 615]

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

[Rob 3,000]

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 615]

Do you count Proofs and Patterns as COINS ???

I shall refrain from adding to this

[Rob 3,000]

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 615]

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 3,000]

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 615]

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 3,000]

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

Half price unwanted bottles of Jamesons.

[Peter 615]

Send them this way