Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Paulus

I would value members' grading opinions

Recommended Posts

Then why have the top leaves got complete veins?

That's just the way the reverse was designed. I have an 1887 wreath reverse 6d in EF - the top veins are gone, the rounded parts of the crown are flat, the oak leaves are flattening, etc etc, but the veins on the two lower left leaves are still intact. Overall, the wear on that coin is obvious. There's no apparent wear at all on this one. None.

And the rim nick at 6 oclock on the OBV? Does'nt that count? Paulus emailed me this coin a few days back and i said the coin was GEF, hence why i'm asking now why we have the UNC grade

Does the rim nicks between 10 and 11 oclock and 6 and 7 oclock not count either? The 1 at 11 oclock seems quite big, obviously exagurated by the size of the picture, but if we're talking strict UNC then i'm sure after carfeul consideration you'll probably come to another theory, hence the reason that grading is quite a pain in the rear end and subjective to everyone who buys a coin

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture is a bit bright, but I'd give the obverse better than EF, the rev is probably better than the obverse. I'd hesitate to say unc because both rims have far too many significant marks to say they are bagmarks only and the neck area looks to have a lot of tiny contact marks, so an upper limit of gEF. There appears to be light wear to the beard, but a darker picture would help.

1902_Sixpence_Obv1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture is a bit bright, but I'd give the obverse better than EF, the rev is probably better than the obverse. I'd hesitate to say unc because both rims have far too many significant marks to say they are bagmarks only and the neck area looks to have a lot of tiny contact marks, so an upper limit of gEF. There appears to be light wear to the beard, but a darker picture would help.

The neck area and inbetween the ear and the eye there are a few more contact marks plus the rim nick at 6 oclock on the OBV. When Paul emailed the picture i went with GEF, i think i'm still of the same opinion but as we can see unless you study the coin VERY CAREFULLY and look beyond how nice it is then you can see it's not quite the UNC coin.

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture is a bit bright, but I'd give the obverse better than EF, the rev is probably better than the obverse. I'd hesitate to say unc because both rims have far too many significant marks to say they are bagmarks only and the neck area looks to have a lot of tiny contact marks, so an upper limit of gEF. There appears to be light wear to the beard, but a darker picture would help.

The neck area and inbetween the ear and the eye there are a few more contact marks plus the rim nick at 6 oclock on the OBV. When Paul emailed the picture i went with GEF, i think i'm still of the same opinion but as we can see unless you study the coin VERY CAREFULLY and look beyond how nice it is then you can see it's not quite the UNC coin.

Ok, I accept that there are a few more surface marks and rim nicks than I saw initially and therefore it is not quite UNC. GEF still seems a little harsh to me, but as a novice I'm willing to be educated by those with more knowledge and experience.

It begs the question though: How many bag marks and rim nicks are acceptable for a coin with no wear to be called UNC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture is a bit bright, but I'd give the obverse better than EF, the rev is probably better than the obverse. I'd hesitate to say unc because both rims have far too many significant marks to say they are bagmarks only and the neck area looks to have a lot of tiny contact marks, so an upper limit of gEF. There appears to be light wear to the beard, but a darker picture would help.

The neck area and inbetween the ear and the eye there are a few more contact marks plus the rim nick at 6 oclock on the OBV. When Paul emailed the picture i went with GEF, i think i'm still of the same opinion but as we can see unless you study the coin VERY CAREFULLY and look beyond how nice it is then you can see it's not quite the UNC coin.

Ok, I accept that there are a few more surface marks and rim nicks than I saw initially and therefore it is not quite UNC. GEF still seems a little harsh to me, but as a novice I'm willing to be educated by those with more knowledge and experience.

It begs the question though: How many bag marks and rim nicks are acceptable for a coin with no wear to be called UNC?

A good question Nick, perhaps Derek could clear that up. I know bag marks are acceptable as that part of the minting process cannot be altered, but rim nicks i'm not sure. Perhaps my GEF is a bit harsh, but then again, better to be harsh than thinking you have a coin in a certain grade when it clearly isn't, just my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing - purely from a beginners perspective - would the size of the coin have anything to do with it? I mean that's a sixpence so very much smaller than say for instance a crown, so on the same sized photo wouldn't those nicks and marks translate to be much less prominant on such a small coin? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing - purely from a beginners perspective - would the size of the coin have anything to do with it? I mean that's a sixpence so very much smaller than say for instance a crown, so on the same sized photo wouldn't those nicks and marks translate to be much less prominant on such a small coin? :unsure:

The size of the coin won't matter Debbie, if there's a rim nick and digs etc they will be seen, but as you've obviously just read, Nick and Peckris didn't even spot the rim nick on a picture of that size and quality, so in hand would obviously be harder. This is the very reason i take hi res images so i can check the coin i've just bought for things i possibly can't see in the hand. My opinion is, a good hi res image is probably better than a coin in the hand, especially one so small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting Azda. Given that you can’t always see markings in hand and so have to rely on a magnifying devices, do you think that coin grading could be getting stricter with the improving technology? At what point in time did coin grading start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting Azda. Given that you can't always see markings in hand and so have to rely on a magnifying devices, do you think that coin grading could be getting stricter with the improving technology? At what point in time did coin grading start?

Coin grading is subjective to everyone Debbie, no one will agree 100% on a coins grade, so thats why its down to every individual to try and learn more about this part of collecting, then decide if the coin you want to buy is as graded and if you want to pay the price the seller is selling it for, if not, try and haggle and maybe throw in your own observations of why you think the coin is a lesser grade, which will no doubt piss someone off lol.

The sixpence here is a nice coin, i just hope Paul doesn't think i've been to harsh, but again as with the topic starter picture (1915 HC) he bought that in UNC from a dealer and it has been noted that it's not UNC, so basically Paul has bought a coin THINKING it was UNC and paid UNC money, now going down the grade towards EF in Spink 2012 it's still only 35 quid, so now Pal has to wait a few years before it even hits what Spink suggest this coin is in EF what he paid for in alleged UNC

This is why its better to be harsh on the grading, it may not be music to Pauls ears right now, and i suspect he might have been a tad upset with my grading of the coins he was showing me, but as we have now seen, we can all make mistakes, but hoping they are not to expensive and we can learn from each other in the future.

I again suspect Paul may have bought the sixpence is UNC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the rim nick at 6 oclock on the OBV? Does'nt that count? Paulus emailed me this coin a few days back and i said the coin was GEF, hence why i'm asking now why we have the UNC grade

Does the rim nicks between 10 and 11 oclock and 6 and 7 oclock not count either? The 1 at 11 oclock seems quite big, obviously exagurated by the size of the picture

I wouldn't class those as anything more significant than bag marks, which on some more modern UNC coins look far worse without affecting the technical grade. Remember that's a sixpence shown at around 10 times real size.

The picture is a bit bright, but I'd give the obverse better than EF, the rev is probably better than the obverse. I'd hesitate to say unc because both rims have far too many significant marks to say they are bagmarks only and the neck area looks to have a lot of tiny contact marks, so an upper limit of gEF. There appears to be light wear to the beard, but a darker picture would help.

I think the obverse is a strong strike, which counts in its favour, especially considering there are UNC Edwards of different dates that have less hair detail than that. And don't forget how large the picture has been 'blown up' which ALWAYS affects how it appears.

Ok, I accept that there are a few more surface marks and rim nicks than I saw initially and therefore it is not quite UNC. GEF still seems a little harsh to me, but as a novice I'm willing to be educated by those with more knowledge and experience.

It begs the question though: How many bag marks and rim nicks are acceptable for a coin with no wear to be called UNC?

Grading, as you've seen from this thread Nick, is always a highly subjective art. As for your coin, it's a gorgeous example of an Edward sixpence and anyone who says they wouldn't give it space in their own collection is being economical with the truth. Whether you define it as AUNC or UNC makes little difference in the end. Appearance is everything.

A good question Nick, perhaps Derek could clear that up. I know bag marks are acceptable as that part of the minting process cannot be altered, but rim nicks i'm not sure. Perhaps my GEF is a bit harsh, but then again, better to be harsh than thinking you have a coin in a certain grade when it clearly isn't, just my opinion

There are precious few bag marks on that coin. As for the rim nicks - yes, there's clearly one on the reverse at 6 o'clock, but the others I'm not convinced about, particularly when you appreciate just how small the coin really is in relation to the picture. You don't get perfect edges on business strikes, and some of what you are calling rim nicks, don't look like 'cuts' or 'dents' to me, just the way the rim is slightly folded in places. And maybe not even visible at normal size. If we are going to judge everything on super-size enlargements, then we might as well all throw our non-proof coins into the trash.

Another thing - purely from a beginners perspective - would the size of the coin have anything to do with it? I mean that's a sixpence so very much smaller than say for instance a crown, so on the same sized photo wouldn't those nicks and marks translate to be much less prominant on such a small coin? :unsure:

Debbie - there are many factors to take into account. Not the least of which is that small coins are less collected and popular than large coins, precisely because their detail is much harder to make out without using a glass. However, if you used the same glass where it wasn't needed - e.g. on crowns or pennies - you would soon see a plethora of apparent horror stories, which when you see the coin at normal size would NOT be apparent.

But, you still need that glass to see if there is wear on Edward's hair and beard : as you do also on his larger coins, him being one of the harder monarchs to see hair wear on. And the principle is also true that grading should be consistent across denominations; a fairer comparison in terms of picture would be one that 'blows up' that sixpence to the size of a real life halfcrown.

The other factor to take into account is that detail on small fine parts of the design (e.g. lion faces) is almost non-existent on UNC examples of a small coin, where on a large coin you would use those very parts to judge the first signs of wear. So size does matter when you look at the grade of a small coin, as the die itself contains less detail than the same design on larger denominations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly as a begginer couldn't care less for coin grading in respect of companies, they are there for a commercial reason and not out of love for a coin. I ghave read so many articles about their over grading or undergrading coins for the benefit of iincome etc that it makes me wonder if they even know what they are doing, it is slowly but surely creeping to the point that they are going to be the only deciding force in this hobby that a coin is genuine or is not and what it is worth, unless your coin is in one of their coffins with a pretty sticker or ugly as may be it is going to be non commercial or a fake as far as the rest of the world is concerned. They can't even agree with each other, one slab is ripped open and sent to a different grading company in the hope of a better grade and so it goes on, then you have those professional grading companies who declare a coin as genuine or fake only to end up with egg on their faces and back pedalling when the reverse is proven.

Maybe we could use laser scanning technology to determine a grade in respect to mechanical wear, I have seen them in use for body mapping, so would it be much harder to adapt. Scan a coin, match it to a number of known other grades and you get a more stable and uniform grade ?, then take into account tone etc manually or even with a laser again. Take the greed and human element out of the equation and I might take some note of those places till then I would rather ask those on here with no axe to grind or monetary gain involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly as a begginer couldn't care less for coin grading in respect of companies, they are there for a commercial reason and not out of love for a coin. I ghave read so many articles about their over grading or undergrading coins for the benefit of iincome etc that it makes me wonder if they even know what they are doing, it is slowly but surely creeping to the point that they are going to be the only deciding force in this hobby that a coin is genuine or is not and what it is worth, unless your coin is in one of their coffins with a pretty sticker or ugly as may be it is going to be non commercial or a fake as far as the rest of the world is concerned. They can't even agree with each other, one slab is ripped open and sent to a different grading company in the hope of a better grade and so it goes on, then you have those professional grading companies who declare a coin as genuine or fake only to end up with egg on their faces and back pedalling when the reverse is proven.

Maybe we could use laser scanning technology to determine a grade in respect to mechanical wear, I have seen them in use for body mapping, so would it be much harder to adapt. Scan a coin, match it to a number of known other grades and you get a more stable and uniform grade ?, then take into account tone etc manually or even with a laser again. Take the greed and human element out of the equation and I might take some note of those places till then I would rather ask those on here with no axe to grind or monetary gain involved.

I agree about the greed. But grading will always be subject to the foibles of human beings and long may it be so! If you judge each coin yourself on how it looks and how you feel about it, then decide what it's worth to you, far better than a machine-like approach to things IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the rim nick at 6 oclock on the OBV? Does'nt that count? Paulus emailed me this coin a few days back and i said the coin was GEF, hence why i'm asking now why we have the UNC grade

Does the rim nicks between 10 and 11 oclock and 6 and 7 oclock not count either? The 1 at 11 oclock seems quite big, obviously exagurated by the size of the picture

I wouldn't class those as anything more significant than bag marks, which on some more modern UNC coins look far worse without affecting the technical grade. Remember that's a sixpence shown at around 10 times real size.

The picture is a bit bright, but I'd give the obverse better than EF, the rev is probably better than the obverse. I'd hesitate to say unc because both rims have far too many significant marks to say they are bagmarks only and the neck area looks to have a lot of tiny contact marks, so an upper limit of gEF. There appears to be light wear to the beard, but a darker picture would help.

I think the obverse is a strong strike, which counts in its favour, especially considering there are UNC Edwards of different dates that have less hair detail than that. And don't forget how large the picture has been 'blown up' which ALWAYS affects how it appears.

Ok, I accept that there are a few more surface marks and rim nicks than I saw initially and therefore it is not quite UNC. GEF still seems a little harsh to me, but as a novice I'm willing to be educated by those with more knowledge and experience.

It begs the question though: How many bag marks and rim nicks are acceptable for a coin with no wear to be called UNC?

Grading, as you've seen from this thread Nick, is always a highly subjective art. As for your coin, it's a gorgeous example of an Edward sixpence and anyone who says they wouldn't give it space in their own collection is being economical with the truth. Whether you define it as AUNC or UNC makes little difference in the end. Appearance is everything.

A good question Nick, perhaps Derek could clear that up. I know bag marks are acceptable as that part of the minting process cannot be altered, but rim nicks i'm not sure. Perhaps my GEF is a bit harsh, but then again, better to be harsh than thinking you have a coin in a certain grade when it clearly isn't, just my opinion

There are precious few bag marks on that coin. As for the rim nicks - yes, there's clearly one on the reverse at 6 o'clock, but the others I'm not convinced about, particularly when you appreciate just how small the coin really is in relation to the picture. You don't get perfect edges on business strikes, and some of what you are calling rim nicks, don't look like 'cuts' or 'dents' to me, just the way the rim is slightly folded in places. And maybe not even visible at normal size. If we are going to judge everything on super-size enlargements, then we might as well all throw our non-proof coins into the trash.

Another thing - purely from a beginners perspective - would the size of the coin have anything to do with it? I mean that's a sixpence so very much smaller than say for instance a crown, so on the same sized photo wouldn't those nicks and marks translate to be much less prominant on such a small coin? :unsure:

Debbie - there are many factors to take into account. Not the least of which is that small coins are less collected and popular than large coins, precisely because their detail is much harder to make out without using a glass. However, if you used the same glass where it wasn't needed - e.g. on crowns or pennies - you would soon see a plethora of apparent horror stories, which when you see the coin at normal size would NOT be apparent.

But, you still need that glass to see if there is wear on Edward's hair and beard : as you do also on his larger coins, him being one of the harder monarchs to see hair wear on. And the principle is also true that grading should be consistent across denominations; a fairer comparison in terms of picture would be one that 'blows up' that sixpence to the size of a real life halfcrown.

The other factor to take into account is that detail on small fine parts of the design (e.g. lion faces) is almost non-existent on UNC examples of a small coin, where on a large coin you would use those very parts to judge the first signs of wear. So size does matter when you look at the grade of a small coin, as the die itself contains less detail than the same design on larger denominations.

If the coin was sent to CGS Peck, do you believe it would come back as UNC? Personally i don't think it would, but as i've said, it's a nice coin and for coinerys comment that its "tarnished" well, i'd rather buy this coin than a big shiny one without "tarnish" at least i'd know it had'nt been cleaned ;)

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the greed. But grading will always be subject to the foibles of human beings and long may it be so! If you judge each coin yourself on how it looks and how you feel about it, then decide what it's worth to you, far better than a machine-like approach to things IMO.

I would rather not HAVE to use a machine to grade Peck, I would hate to have a coin damaged by one in the process, but if that is the only alternative to human foibles and greed that will give a more honest consistent grading, then i guess it is an option to consider. I still hate those slabs, I removed a 1964 and 65 kennedy half dollar from them a while back, they look and feel much nicer (for american coins anyway :lol: ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sixpence here is a nice coin, i just hope Paul doesn't think i've been to harsh, but again as with the topic starter picture (1915 HC) he bought that in UNC from a dealer and it has been noted that it's not UNC, so basically Paul has bought a coin THINKING it was UNC and paid UNC money, now going down the grade towards EF in Spink 2012 it's still only 35 quid, so now Pal has to wait a few years before it even hits what Spink suggest this coin is in EF what he paid for in alleged UNC

spinks is only a guide in terms of price , eye appeal is as important as grade to a buyer.....if Paul is happy with the coin at the price he payed.......then thats a good buy for Paul and looking at the pics, a nice addition to a collection.

we may all pay a little over the guide price for a piece for different reasons, to finish a run, to upgrade or simply because of eye appeal.

the bottom line for me is.......is Paul a collector or investor/. if collector....hes got himself a damn near unc tanner with a great look to it.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the rim nick at 6 oclock on the OBV? Does'nt that count? Paulus emailed me this coin a few days back and i said the coin was GEF, hence why i'm asking now why we have the UNC grade

Does the rim nicks between 10 and 11 oclock and 6 and 7 oclock not count either? The 1 at 11 oclock seems quite big, obviously exagurated by the size of the picture

I wouldn't class those as anything more significant than bag marks, which on some more modern UNC coins look far worse without affecting the technical grade. Remember that's a sixpence shown at around 10 times real size.

The picture is a bit bright, but I'd give the obverse better than EF, the rev is probably better than the obverse. I'd hesitate to say unc because both rims have far too many significant marks to say they are bagmarks only and the neck area looks to have a lot of tiny contact marks, so an upper limit of gEF. There appears to be light wear to the beard, but a darker picture would help.

I think the obverse is a strong strike, which counts in its favour, especially considering there are UNC Edwards of different dates that have less hair detail than that. And don't forget how large the picture has been 'blown up' which ALWAYS affects how it appears.

Ok, I accept that there are a few more surface marks and rim nicks than I saw initially and therefore it is not quite UNC. GEF still seems a little harsh to me, but as a novice I'm willing to be educated by those with more knowledge and experience.

It begs the question though: How many bag marks and rim nicks are acceptable for a coin with no wear to be called UNC?

Grading, as you've seen from this thread Nick, is always a highly subjective art. As for your coin, it's a gorgeous example of an Edward sixpence and anyone who says they wouldn't give it space in their own collection is being economical with the truth. Whether you define it as AUNC or UNC makes little difference in the end. Appearance is everything.

A good question Nick, perhaps Derek could clear that up. I know bag marks are acceptable as that part of the minting process cannot be altered, but rim nicks i'm not sure. Perhaps my GEF is a bit harsh, but then again, better to be harsh than thinking you have a coin in a certain grade when it clearly isn't, just my opinion

There are precious few bag marks on that coin. As for the rim nicks - yes, there's clearly one on the reverse at 6 o'clock, but the others I'm not convinced about, particularly when you appreciate just how small the coin really is in relation to the picture. You don't get perfect edges on business strikes, and some of what you are calling rim nicks, don't look like 'cuts' or 'dents' to me, just the way the rim is slightly folded in places. And maybe not even visible at normal size. If we are going to judge everything on super-size enlargements, then we might as well all throw our non-proof coins into the trash.

Another thing - purely from a beginners perspective - would the size of the coin have anything to do with it? I mean that's a sixpence so very much smaller than say for instance a crown, so on the same sized photo wouldn't those nicks and marks translate to be much less prominant on such a small coin? :unsure:

Debbie - there are many factors to take into account. Not the least of which is that small coins are less collected and popular than large coins, precisely because their detail is much harder to make out without using a glass. However, if you used the same glass where it wasn't needed - e.g. on crowns or pennies - you would soon see a plethora of apparent horror stories, which when you see the coin at normal size would NOT be apparent.

But, you still need that glass to see if there is wear on Edward's hair and beard : as you do also on his larger coins, him being one of the harder monarchs to see hair wear on. And the principle is also true that grading should be consistent across denominations; a fairer comparison in terms of picture would be one that 'blows up' that sixpence to the size of a real life halfcrown.

The other factor to take into account is that detail on small fine parts of the design (e.g. lion faces) is almost non-existent on UNC examples of a small coin, where on a large coin you would use those very parts to judge the first signs of wear. So size does matter when you look at the grade of a small coin, as the die itself contains less detail than the same design on larger denominations.

If the coin was sent to CGS Peck, do you believe it would come back as UNC? Personally i don't think it would, but as i've said, it's a nice coin and for coinerys comment that its "tarnished" well, i'd rather buy this coin than a big shiny one without "tarnish" at least i'd know it had'nt been cleaned ;)

This is a truly fascinating discussion, thanks to everyone for their comments so far!

Dave, while slightly disappointed about the 1915 HC (as I paid UNC money for it), I posted it on here precisely because I wanted the kind of honest opinions you have given. If we can't obtain high res pictures of a coin before we buy, it's always going to be a bit of a lottery! Caveat emptor as usual.

As for the 6d, I paid EF money for that one, and to me it is closer to aUNC, so I was and still am delighted with it - not because I have made a paper profit but because it is such a gorjus coin and a joy to own.

Two things occur to me:

  • Is there a resource anyone knows of where you can see high res photos of various grades to compare your prize possessions against? If for example the dies on small coins like this didn't produce anything better than my example then there wouldn't be anything better out there I guess (rim knocks and bag marks aside!)
  • When selling I like to be completely open and honest, the last thing I want is a disgruntled buyer ... but would it really make sense to supply very high res photos that magnify tiny imperfections that would not otherwise be detected? After all, as some have observed, you wouldn't expect to examine 400mm pictures of a crown (or would you?), and if you did all sorts of things might show up!

I don't think I will ever be interested in proof coins, they don't seem real to me, but the very best examples of a lightly circulated or near uncirculated proper coin, then hell yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the coin was sent to CGS Peck, do you believe it would come back as UNC? Personally i don't think it would, but as i've said, it's a nice coin and for coinerys comment that its "tarnished" well, i'd rather buy this coin than a big shiny one without "tarnish" at least i'd know it had'nt been cleaned ;)

I would not agree with the "tarnished" verdict - it's toning in its very best guise. As for CGS, I believe they grade over-strictly by modern standards but not by 60s standards. (Essay coming up ... :)

In the 60s, the difference between EF and UNC grades was quite small and the much lower differential in prices reflected that. The written description of EF was "very slight rubbing or wear barely visible to the naked eye". Now it's moved South as a grade, closer to the American grade (though not there .. yet). Probably due to collectos wanting the very finest and willing to pay for it - and therefore by comparison those weren't "the very finest" had to be seen to be not. And so EF standards have relaxed somewhat.

I can't see any wear on that coin, though there is a very slight rubbing off of the toned lustre on the obverse (as Rob noticed). However, it's a superior example of that series and I believe would fetch top whack in any auction. AUNC? UNC? As it's not obvious, I don't think it matters. It's a dilly.

I agree about the greed. But grading will always be subject to the foibles of human beings and long may it be so! If you judge each coin yourself on how it looks and how you feel about it, then decide what it's worth to you, far better than a machine-like approach to things IMO.

I would rather not HAVE to use a machine to grade Peck, I would hate to have a coin damaged by one in the process, but if that is the only alternative to human foibles and greed that will give a more honest consistent grading, then i guess it is an option to consider. I still hate those slabs, I removed a 1964 and 65 kennedy half dollar from them a while back, they look and feel much nicer (for american coins anyway :lol: ).

I think that's where the 3rd party graders do score - despite their 'orrible slabs, they are far more consistent on grading than anyone else. Conservative - yes, but also consistent. And BTW they are staffed by human beings not machines!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the coin was sent to CGS Peck, do you believe it would come back as UNC? Personally i don't think it would, but as i've said, it's a nice coin and for coinerys comment that its "tarnished" well, i'd rather buy this coin than a big shiny one without "tarnish" at least i'd know it had'nt been cleaned ;)

I would not agree with the "tarnished" verdict - it's toning in its very best guise. As for CGS, I believe they grade over-strictly by modern standards but not by 60s standards. (Essay coming up ... :)

In the 60s, the difference between EF and UNC grades was quite small and the much lower differential in prices reflected that. The written description of EF was "very slight rubbing or wear barely visible to the naked eye". Now it's moved South as a grade, closer to the American grade (though not there .. yet). Probably due to collectos wanting the very finest and willing to pay for it - and therefore by comparison those weren't "the very finest" had to be seen to be not. And so EF standards have relaxed somewhat.

I can't see any wear on that coin, though there is a very slight rubbing off of the toned lustre on the obverse (as Rob noticed). However, it's a superior example of that series and I believe would fetch top whack in any auction. AUNC? UNC? As it's not obvious, I don't think it matters. It's a dilly.

I agree about the greed. But grading will always be subject to the foibles of human beings and long may it be so! If you judge each coin yourself on how it looks and how you feel about it, then decide what it's worth to you, far better than a machine-like approach to things IMO.

I would rather not HAVE to use a machine to grade Peck, I would hate to have a coin damaged by one in the process, but if that is the only alternative to human foibles and greed that will give a more honest consistent grading, then i guess it is an option to consider. I still hate those slabs, I removed a 1964 and 65 kennedy half dollar from them a while back, they look and feel much nicer (for american coins anyway :lol: ).

I think that's where the 3rd party graders do score - despite their 'orrible slabs, they are far more consistent on grading than anyone else. Conservative - yes, but also consistent. And BTW they are staffed by human beings not machines!

I didn't say it was tarnished Peck, i was quoting coinerys verdict of the toning in which he stated "the tarnish" i for one like the toning. As for 60s grading, well we're now in 2012 some 52 years on and things move with the tides Peck which i assume would be grading. Paul, if you bought the coin in EF money then i'm sure the dealer has observed what a few others here did not, which was the rim nicks obviously. Peck, your quote abbout smaller coins should have dispensation because they are "small coins" is utter ballony, where would that stop? I have a 3d smaller than a sixpence or i have a 2d smaller than a 3d etc etc etc.

A coin is a coin no matter what size and grading standards should apply to all denominations. Paul, your coin is nice, should you decide to sell it on i for one if i were to view it would appreciate large pictures, not everyone is as honest, but if you sell through ebay then just describe it as high grade with a nice gold tone, it should fly in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sixpence here is a nice coin, i just hope Paul doesn't think i've been to harsh, but again as with the topic starter picture (1915 HC) he bought that in UNC from a dealer and it has been noted that it's not UNC, so basically Paul has bought a coin THINKING it was UNC and paid UNC money, now going down the grade towards EF in Spink 2012 it's still only 35 quid, so now Pal has to wait a few years before it even hits what Spink suggest this coin is in EF what he paid for in alleged UNC

spinks is only a guide in terms of price , eye appeal is as important as grade to a buyer.....if Paul is happy with the coin at the price he payed.......then thats a good buy for Paul and looking at the pics, a nice addition to a collection.

we may all pay a little over the guide price for a piece for different reasons, to finish a run, to upgrade or simply because of eye appeal.

the bottom line for me is.......is Paul a collector or investor/. if collector....hes got himself a damn near unc tanner with a great look to it.

:)

I am a collector Ski, through and through, I get enormous pleasure from acquiring and looking at my coins ... the only occasions (so far) when I sell any coins is when I have duplicates or (as is the case now) I change my focus (essentially from date runs to types), when I need to sell a few to fund the purchase of some rarer missing types, such as:

  • Northumberland shilling
  • Crown/half crown/shilling with elephant /elephant and castle
  • Anne Vigo
  • Anne Edinburgh
  • Cromwell
  • William III different mints
  • Various Charles I (? - do I really want to go down this road ??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was tarnished Peck, i was quoting coinerys verdict of the toning in which he stated "the tarnish" i for one like the toning. As for 60s grading, well we're now in 2012 some 52 years on and things move with the tides Peck which i assume would be grading. Paul, if you bought the coin in EF money then i'm sure the dealer has observed what a few others here did not, which was the rim nicks obviously. Peck, your quote abbout smaller coins should have dispensation because they are "small coins" is utter ballony, where would that stop? I have a 3d smaller than a sixpence or i have a 2d smaller than a 3d etc etc etc.

A coin is a coin no matter what size and grading standards should apply to all denominations. Paul, your coin is nice, should you decide to sell it on i for one if i were to view it would appreciate large pictures, not everyone is as honest, but if you sell through ebay then just describe it as high grade with a nice gold tone, it should fly in my opinion.

I didn't say you said that - your trouble is you don't read posts properly Dave, you just fly off with your first (even if incorrect) reaction.

That's exactly the point I was making. Sigh. If you'd only read what people say..

Where did I say "dispensation"? READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY FOR GODS SAKE. I was talking about DIE DETAILS on a smaller coin being less detailed than on a larger coin WHICH IS A FACT. Read Derek's book. I was also talking about the difficulty of rating a small coin realistically when the picture is 10 times life size, and a picture of a halfcrown (say)would be only around 4 times. How can that be a proper comparison?

I'm off out. A bit of fresh air will do me good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a collector Ski, through and through, I get enormous pleasure from acquiring and looking at my coins

the justification for paying a little more than a guide, at times anyhow.

we all love a bargain :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was tarnished Peck, i was quoting coinerys verdict of the toning in which he stated "the tarnish" i for one like the toning. As for 60s grading, well we're now in 2012 some 52 years on and things move with the tides Peck which i assume would be grading. Paul, if you bought the coin in EF money then i'm sure the dealer has observed what a few others here did not, which was the rim nicks obviously. Peck, your quote abbout smaller coins should have dispensation because they are "small coins" is utter ballony, where would that stop? I have a 3d smaller than a sixpence or i have a 2d smaller than a 3d etc etc etc.

A coin is a coin no matter what size and grading standards should apply to all denominations. Paul, your coin is nice, should you decide to sell it on i for one if i were to view it would appreciate large pictures, not everyone is as honest, but if you sell through ebay then just describe it as high grade with a nice gold tone, it should fly in my opinion.

I didn't say you said that - your trouble is you don't read posts properly Dave, you just fly off with your first (even if incorrect) reaction.

That's exactly the point I was making. Sigh. If you'd only read what people say..

Where did I say "dispensation"? READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY FOR GODS SAKE. I was talking about DIE DETAILS on a smaller coin being less detailed than on a larger coin WHICH IS A FACT. Read Derek's book. I was also talking about the difficulty of rating a small coin realistically when the picture is 10 times life size, and a picture of a halfcrown (say)would be only around 4 times. How can that be a proper comparison?

I'm off out. A bit of fresh air will do me good

And so how do you think TPGs grade a coin? By just looking in hand Peck? No, microscopes etc with MAGNIFICATION my old china, hence a bigger picture will show off anything, hence TPGs or (CGS) at least are strict.

Can you pick me up a vallium while you're out :unsure:

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, despite all the speculation, I'd still pay AU for the coin, and there is £60 waiting any time you want it. So, in terms of whether you've paid through the teeth or not, you could measure the wisdom of your purchase by what you can get for it. A top coin, I like it a great deal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was tarnished Peck, i was quoting coinerys verdict of the toning in which he stated "the tarnish" i for one like the toning. As for 60s grading, well we're now in 2012 some 52 years on and things move with the tides Peck which i assume would be grading. Paul, if you bought the coin in EF money then i'm sure the dealer has observed what a few others here did not, which was the rim nicks obviously. Peck, your quote abbout smaller coins should have dispensation because they are "small coins" is utter ballony, where would that stop? I have a 3d smaller than a sixpence or i have a 2d smaller than a 3d etc etc etc.

A coin is a coin no matter what size and grading standards should apply to all denominations. Paul, your coin is nice, should you decide to sell it on i for one if i were to view it would appreciate large pictures, not everyone is as honest, but if you sell through ebay then just describe it as high grade with a nice gold tone, it should fly in my opinion.

I didn't say you said that - your trouble is you don't read posts properly Dave, you just fly off with your first (even if incorrect) reaction.

That's exactly the point I was making. Sigh. If you'd only read what people say..

Where did I say "dispensation"? READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY FOR GODS SAKE. I was talking about DIE DETAILS on a smaller coin being less detailed than on a larger coin WHICH IS A FACT. Read Derek's book. I was also talking about the difficulty of rating a small coin realistically when the picture is 10 times life size, and a picture of a halfcrown (say)would be only around 4 times. How can that be a proper comparison?

I'm off out. A bit of fresh air will do me good

And so how do you think TPGs grade a coin? By just looking in hand Peck? No, microscopes etc with MAGNIFICATION my old china, hence a bigger picture will show off anything, hence TPGs or (CGS) at least are strict. - SOMETIMES, THOUGH STILL FREQUENTLY WRONG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×