1908 HC - opinions as to grade welcomed

[Paulus 1,942]

What do the assembled intelligentsia think of this one? All and any comments welcome!

Edited January 2, 2013 by Paulus

[azda 973]

Hmmm OBV and REV don't quite match. REV bright and shiny, OBV dull, strang. Nice REV though

Unless its My aye phone of course When are you going to parade the 1903?

Edited January 2, 2013 by azda

[Paulus 1,942]

Hmmm OBV and REV don't quite match. REV bright and shiny, OBV dull, strang. Nice REV though

Unless its My aye phone of course When are you going to parade the 1903?

The 1903 and 1905 went west ages ago, can't afford to be a date collector! I wondered what you thought of the grade?

[Peckris 579]

Hmmm OBV and REV don't quite match. REV bright and shiny, OBV dull, strang. Nice REV though

Unless its My aye phone of course When are you going to parade the 1903?

The 1903 and 1905 went west ages ago, can't afford to be a date collector! I wondered what you thought of the grade?

Difficult. The reverse looks like it's unworn but definitely polished. The obverse looks less polished but has some rubbing so I'd say EF or GEF at best. So... GEF/UNC cleaned ?

[Paulus 1,942]

Hmmm OBV and REV don't quite match. REV bright and shiny, OBV dull, strang. Nice REV though

Unless its My aye phone of course When are you going to parade the 1903?

The 1903 and 1905 went west ages ago, can't afford to be a date collector! I wondered what you thought of the grade?

Difficult. The reverse looks like it's unworn but definitely polished. The obverse looks less polished but has some rubbing so I'd say EF or GEF at best. So... GEF/UNC cleaned ?

I still have so much to learn, I think I can spot cleaned and dipped (sometimes!) but not necessarily polished! I need more tell-tale signs to go by if anyone has them? EF/GEF, was my grading ...

[VickySilver 775]

Dipped incompletely with retoning partially. I would go EF. Not sure if polished though, it looks fingered post dip (i.e. skin oil of some sort - I have heard some have used skin oils from outer nose). Should have left it unadulterated and would have gone GEF in that case probably.

[TomGoodheart 373]

Meh. I don't like it. The photo makes it look like a replica. Of course, it might be perfectly ok, but the photo does it no favours. Makes the lettering look .. less crisp than I'd hope. And what's happening on the rev around the H and A .. scratch? Flan flaw? Casting error? Having said that it's hardly my area, but if it was Charles I I'd assume it had been polished .. or was dodgy.

NEF, reverse a bit better, but I'd want to know how much and whether it's from a reputable dealer before I parted with any money ...

Edited January 3, 2013 by TomGoodheart

[Peckris 579]

Hmmm OBV and REV don't quite match. REV bright and shiny, OBV dull, strang. Nice REV though

Unless its My aye phone of course When are you going to parade the 1903?

The 1903 and 1905 went west ages ago, can't afford to be a date collector! I wondered what you thought of the grade?

Difficult. The reverse looks like it's unworn but definitely polished. The obverse looks less polished but has some rubbing so I'd say EF or GEF at best. So... GEF/UNC cleaned ?

I still have so much to learn, I think I can spot cleaned and dipped (sometimes!) but not necessarily polished! I need more tell-tale signs to go by if anyone has them? EF/GEF, was my grading ...

Yes, your grade is probably more realistic, though it's hard to spot any wear on the reverse.

Quick guide to the difference between polishing and dipping :

POLISHING - makes the coin artificially shiny, and reflective. (Do not confuse with lots of 19thC UNC early strikes where the FIELDS are highly reflective, but the DESIGN - while not frosted - isn't.)

DIPPING - removes tarnish and other toning, but actually has the opposite effect to polishing - it makes the coin an overall dull appearance, i.e. as if no lustre is present (the chemical reaction probably removes lustre, in fact). Very brief dipping - such as Dave did on that ugly-toned 1913 halfcrown - can improve the look of a coin, but it has to be a few seconds only. A long dip makes it dull dull dull.

Do also bear in mind that people use the term "dipping' in two different ways. Some mean any chemical that cleans, which includes stuff that can make a coin look polished. Others (as I do) mean "silver dip" which is a specific type of chemical compound, that always imparts the dullness I spoke of, if done to excess.

[Paulus 1,942]

Hmmm OBV and REV don't quite match. REV bright and shiny, OBV dull, strang. Nice REV though

Unless its My aye phone of course When are you going to parade the 1903?

The 1903 and 1905 went west ages ago, can't afford to be a date collector! I wondered what you thought of the grade?

Difficult. The reverse looks like it's unworn but definitely polished. The obverse looks less polished but has some rubbing so I'd say EF or GEF at best. So... GEF/UNC cleaned ?

I still have so much to learn, I think I can spot cleaned and dipped (sometimes!) but not necessarily polished! I need more tell-tale signs to go by if anyone has them? EF/GEF, was my grading ...

Yes, your grade is probably more realistic, though it's hard to spot any wear on the reverse.

Quick guide to the difference between polishing and dipping :

POLISHING - makes the coin artificially shiny, and reflective. (Do not confuse with lots of 19thC UNC early strikes where the FIELDS are highly reflective, but the DESIGN - while not frosted - isn't.)

DIPPING - removes tarnish and other toning, but actually has the opposite effect to polishing - it makes the coin an overall dull appearance, i.e. as if no lustre is present (the chemical reaction probably removes lustre, in fact). Very brief dipping - such as Dave did on that ugly-toned 1913 halfcrown - can improve the look of a coin, but it has to be a few seconds only. A long dip makes it dull dull dull.

Do also bear in mind that people use the term "dipping' in two different ways. Some mean any chemical that cleans, which includes stuff that can make a coin look polished. Others (as I do) mean "silver dip" which is a specific type of chemical compound, that always imparts the dullness I spoke of, if done to excess.

That's brilliant Peck thanks! How about CLEANING? I always look for faint 'brush-strokes' but I don't know what else to look for?

[Peckris 579]

Hmmm OBV and REV don't quite match. REV bright and shiny, OBV dull, strang. Nice REV though

Unless its My aye phone of course When are you going to parade the 1903?

The 1903 and 1905 went west ages ago, can't afford to be a date collector! I wondered what you thought of the grade?

Difficult. The reverse looks like it's unworn but definitely polished. The obverse looks less polished but has some rubbing so I'd say EF or GEF at best. So... GEF/UNC cleaned ?

I still have so much to learn, I think I can spot cleaned and dipped (sometimes!) but not necessarily polished! I need more tell-tale signs to go by if anyone has them? EF/GEF, was my grading ...

Yes, your grade is probably more realistic, though it's hard to spot any wear on the reverse.

Quick guide to the difference between polishing and dipping :

POLISHING - makes the coin artificially shiny, and reflective. (Do not confuse with lots of 19thC UNC early strikes where the FIELDS are highly reflective, but the DESIGN - while not frosted - isn't.)

DIPPING - removes tarnish and other toning, but actually has the opposite effect to polishing - it makes the coin an overall dull appearance, i.e. as if no lustre is present (the chemical reaction probably removes lustre, in fact). Very brief dipping - such as Dave did on that ugly-toned 1913 halfcrown - can improve the look of a coin, but it has to be a few seconds only. A long dip makes it dull dull dull.

Do also bear in mind that people use the term "dipping' in two different ways. Some mean any chemical that cleans, which includes stuff that can make a coin look polished. Others (as I do) mean "silver dip" which is a specific type of chemical compound, that always imparts the dullness I spoke of, if done to excess.

That's brilliant Peck thanks! How about CLEANING? I always look for faint 'brush-strokes' but I don't know what else to look for?

CLEANING is a generic term. Polishing and dipping are two very common types of cleaning, but also BUFFING (the gentle application of a Brillo pad ), RUBBING (over-enthusiastic use of a cloth), or the use of any surface-altering chemical would count as cleaning. Even soaking in olive oil to remove verdigris, or a quick dip in surgical spirit to remove grease or 'filming', would count as cleaning, but in those cases, would not have a detrimental effect.

[Nick 325]

What do the assembled intelligentsia think of this one? All and any comments welcome!

Do you have any other photos of this coin? It may just be the angle of the light that makes it look lightly polished.

[azda 973]

What do the assembled intelligentsia think of this one? All and any comments welcome!

Do you have any other photos of this coin? It may just be the angle of the light that makes it look lightly polished.

Lightly polished Nick? Mirror springs to mind lol

[Nick 325]

What do the assembled intelligentsia think of this one? All and any comments welcome!

Do you have any other photos of this coin? It may just be the angle of the light that makes it look lightly polished.

Lightly polished Nick? Mirror springs to mind lol

[Peter 615]

Buy a few coins from the premier dealers.You have a few on the forum.

I have a few outer EU dealers

[azda 973]

I've come to the conclusion that Paulus must be the most unluckiest collector i've known

[Paulus 1,942]

I've come to the conclusion that Paulus must be the most unluckiest collector i've known

I've just come to the end of my first year of 'more serious' collecting (4 years in all) and I actually think I have been quite lucky! But perhaps I am in a minority of 1!

The previous pic was taken in very bright sunshine, perhaps exaggerating the mirrored appearance from a previous clean and casting shadows around the lettering etc.

This one may be a better likeness:

I get all my coins costing over around £50 from dealers Peter, this one is from Bucks Coins

Edited January 11, 2013 by Paulus

[Peckris 579]

I've come to the conclusion that Paulus must be the most unluckiest collector i've known

I've just come to the end of my first year of 'more serious' collecting (4 years in all) and I actually think I have been quite lucky! But perhaps I am in a minority of 1!

The previous pic was taken in very bright sunshine, perhaps exaggerating the mirrored appearance from a previous clean and casting shadows around the lettering etc.

This one may be a better likeness:

I get all my coins costing over around £50 from dealers Peter, this one is from Bucks Coins

I think the 'blue cast' to your photos doesn't help, Paulus - polished coins acquire a kind of blue sheen as well as the mirroring. However, I still think it does look cleaned, but couldn't give a proper assessment without the coin being in hand. But as you say "previous clean" anyway, then no harm done if there was a reduction in price.

[Nick 325]

I've come to the conclusion that Paulus must be the most unluckiest collector i've known

I've just come to the end of my first year of 'more serious' collecting (4 years in all) and I actually think I have been quite lucky! But perhaps I am in a minority of 1!

The previous pic was taken in very bright sunshine, perhaps exaggerating the mirrored appearance from a previous clean and casting shadows around the lettering etc.

This one may be a better likeness:

I get all my coins costing over around £50 from dealers Peter, this one is from Bucks Coins

I think the 'blue cast' to your photos doesn't help, Paulus - polished coins acquire a kind of blue sheen as well as the mirroring. However, I still think it does look cleaned, but couldn't give a proper assessment without the coin being in hand. But as you say "previous clean" anyway, then no harm done if there was a reduction in price.

Paulus, I think that the main issue is the photo. The light appears to be coming from too shallow an angle. In theory, the light source should be as close to perpendicular to the surface of the coin as you can manage (allowing for the camera itself getting in the way). Another issue is the white balance, which is what gives a color cast to the photo (usually blue, yellow or green) dependent upon the type of lighting used.

It may be worth experimenting with some of your camera's settings.

Here is a photo of the best 1908 halfcrown that I have seen.

[Coinery 926]

I've come to the conclusion that Paulus must be the most unluckiest collector i've known

I've just come to the end of my first year of 'more serious' collecting (4 years in all) and I actually think I have been quite lucky! But perhaps I am in a minority of 1!

The previous pic was taken in very bright sunshine, perhaps exaggerating the mirrored appearance from a previous clean and casting shadows around the lettering etc.

This one may be a better likeness:

I get all my coins costing over around £50 from dealers Peter, this one is from Bucks Coins

I think the 'blue cast' to your photos doesn't help, Paulus - polished coins acquire a kind of blue sheen as well as the mirroring. However, I still think it does look cleaned, but couldn't give a proper assessment without the coin being in hand. But as you say "previous clean" anyway, then no harm done if there was a reduction in price.

Paulus, I think that the main issue is the photo. The light appears to be coming from too shallow an angle. In theory, the light source should be as close to perpendicular to the surface of the coin as you can manage (allowing for the camera itself getting in the way). Another issue is the white balance, which is what gives a color cast to the photo (usually blue, yellow or green) dependent upon the type of lighting used.

It may be worth experimenting with some of your camera's settings.

Here is a photo of the best 1908 halfcrown that I have seen.

I don't know if it will help, but ALL of my photos are taken under artificial lighting (my only option presently). I bought a couple of £4 flexi-lamps from Ikea, and put 'daylight' bulbs into them, these you can get cheaply from just about every craft shop out there! I set one above and from the right, and the other I hold free-hand for whatever gives the nicest view (I do have a tripod, though, so have a hand spare for the camera...you might be 'setting' both lamps instead, if you don't have a stand!)! Good luck!

[Nick 325]

I've come to the conclusion that Paulus must be the most unluckiest collector i've known

I've just come to the end of my first year of 'more serious' collecting (4 years in all) and I actually think I have been quite lucky! But perhaps I am in a minority of 1!

The previous pic was taken in very bright sunshine, perhaps exaggerating the mirrored appearance from a previous clean and casting shadows around the lettering etc.

This one may be a better likeness:

I get all my coins costing over around £50 from dealers Peter, this one is from Bucks Coins

I think the 'blue cast' to your photos doesn't help, Paulus - polished coins acquire a kind of blue sheen as well as the mirroring. However, I still think it does look cleaned, but couldn't give a proper assessment without the coin being in hand. But as you say "previous clean" anyway, then no harm done if there was a reduction in price.

Paulus, I think that the main issue is the photo. The light appears to be coming from too shallow an angle. In theory, the light source should be as close to perpendicular to the surface of the coin as you can manage (allowing for the camera itself getting in the way). Another issue is the white balance, which is what gives a color cast to the photo (usually blue, yellow or green) dependent upon the type of lighting used.

It may be worth experimenting with some of your camera's settings.

Here is a photo of the best 1908 halfcrown that I have seen.

I don't know if it will help, but ALL of my photos are taken under artificial lighting (my only option presently). I bought a couple of £4 flexi-lamps from Ikea, and put 'daylight' bulbs into them, these you can get cheaply from just about every craft shop out there! I set one above and from the right, and the other I hold free-hand for whatever gives the nicest view (I do have a tripod, though, so have a hand spare for the camera...you might be 'setting' both lamps instead, if you don't have a stand!)! Good luck!

I use a single 'daylight' compact-fluorescent bulb right next to the camera lens and calibrate the camera to the light source using a blank sheet of white paper (your camera may or may not have this capability).

[Paulus 1,942]

I've come to the conclusion that Paulus must be the most unluckiest collector i've known

I've just come to the end of my first year of 'more serious' collecting (4 years in all) and I actually think I have been quite lucky! But perhaps I am in a minority of 1!

The previous pic was taken in very bright sunshine, perhaps exaggerating the mirrored appearance from a previous clean and casting shadows around the lettering etc.

This one may be a better likeness:

I get all my coins costing over around £50 from dealers Peter, this one is from Bucks Coins

I think the 'blue cast' to your photos doesn't help, Paulus - polished coins acquire a kind of blue sheen as well as the mirroring. However, I still think it does look cleaned, but couldn't give a proper assessment without the coin being in hand. But as you say "previous clean" anyway, then no harm done if there was a reduction in price.

Paulus, I think that the main issue is the photo. The light appears to be coming from too shallow an angle. In theory, the light source should be as close to perpendicular to the surface of the coin as you can manage (allowing for the camera itself getting in the way). Another issue is the white balance, which is what gives a color cast to the photo (usually blue, yellow or green) dependent upon the type of lighting used.

It may be worth experimenting with some of your camera's settings.

Here is a photo of the best 1908 halfcrown that I have seen.

I don't know if it will help, but ALL of my photos are taken under artificial lighting (my only option presently). I bought a couple of £4 flexi-lamps from Ikea, and put 'daylight' bulbs into them, these you can get cheaply from just about every craft shop out there! I set one above and from the right, and the other I hold free-hand for whatever gives the nicest view (I do have a tripod, though, so have a hand spare for the camera...you might be 'setting' both lamps instead, if you don't have a stand!)! Good luck!

I use a single 'daylight' compact-fluorescent bulb right next to the camera lens and calibrate the camera to the light source using a blank sheet of white paper (your camera may or may not have this capability).

Thanks gents, can I ask what cameras you have?

[Nick 325]

Thanks gents, can I ask what cameras you have?

I have a Nikon D90 with a 105mm macro lens. Using the metadata from Coinery's posted pictures; it looks as if he has a Canon EOS 1100D.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Nick

[Peckris 579]

Thanks gents, can I ask what cameras you have?

I have a Nikon D90 with a 105mm macro lens. Using the metadata from Coinery's posted pictures; it looks as if he has a Canon EOS 1100D.

You don't need an expensive camera (e.g. a DSLR) - all you need is one with a 'macro' facility so you can get close, and use the maximum resolution. A decent compact or superzoom will be good enough. It's not the size of the sensor that matters with coins, it's being able to light it properly and get close enough.

[Coinery 926]

Thanks gents, can I ask what cameras you have?

I have a Nikon D90 with a 105mm macro lens. Using the metadata from Coinery's posted pictures; it looks as if he has a Canon EOS 1100D.

Hah, you're good, Nick! And a 100mm macro! I kind of agree with Peck re any macro camera will do, but I wouldn't swap my set-up!

Edited January 14, 2013 by Coinery

[Nick 325]

Thanks gents, can I ask what cameras you have?

I have a Nikon D90 with a 105mm macro lens. Using the metadata from Coinery's posted pictures; it looks as if he has a Canon EOS 1100D.

Hah, you're good, Nick! And a 100mm macro! I kind of agree with Peck re any macro camera will do, but I wouldn't swap my set-up!

Nor I mine, although I have to say that I think that the Canon autofocus system (for static subjects) is a little better than that on the Nikon.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Nick