Guess The Grade Revisted

[Paulus 1,942]

Too generous? Too harsh? Comments?

[Peter 615]

The 1893 florin is UNC maybe a weak strike I have a PCGS MS 65 of this.Bought from CC.

A quality coin

The middle coin is spot on.

Notice eye wear.

The 1901 would not appeal

Edited May 23, 2015 by Peter

[Paulus 1,942]

In my opinion the 1893 florin is graded correctly, the 1743 crown is VF+, problem free with great eye appeal and wonderful 'in-hand', the 1901 is a tad generous as I also have this 1893 CGS 78 of the same type, comparisons below for comments:

[Peter 615]

[Peter 615]

The above is my MS 65 Florin

I just collect examples

Although I fancy the date set for 1893

[Peter 615]

BTW it was graded by PCGS and bought from CC

I do love it.

I've bought a few slabbed farthings from CC who now rest out of plastic and in my FARTHING cabinet (thanks Neil)

[Paulus 1,942]

In my opinion the 1893 florin is graded correctly, the 1743 crown is VF+, problem free with great eye appeal and wonderful 'in-hand', the 1901 is a tad generous as I also have this 1893 CGS 78 of the same type, comparisons below for comments:

I am surprised that there have been no comments on this so far, are people not finding a significant difference in the grades of these 2 coins that have been graded identically by CGS? One of the main concerns around TPGs is their consistency and objectivity ...

[hazelman 44]

Must say with the exception of the edge nick at 6, i really love the 1893 coin

[PWA 1967 1,841]

I think that a lot of the time the photos dont do the coins justice paulus.

Also the pictures vary from batch to batch that i have sent and wish i had mine photographed properly before i sent them.

Whenever i now buy one already slabbed i look at the blown up picture and if its looks nice always better in hand.