VickySilver

Tom, sorry I missed your post which was evidently in the "net" prior to my response.I agree, your 1916 has a nice reverse; the obverse, even if softly struck has large issues with the aforementioned brow, beard and hair detail that severely limit its value. I tend to think (IMO) that the TPGs may respect or give more weight to the obverse, but this is obviously just a guess. Last point:: the lustre on this piece may be better than obvious from the photo...

IMO, the technical grade for reverse is quite HIGH, definitely uncirculated but with the usual strike. Continuing positive, the toning is somewhat attractive, and the cheek & brow very free of hits. As Dave has pointed out, the mark at neck is a detriment. As they are usually strict, I am surprised this was not "net graded" to a 75, but 60 is a bit mean. The value probably 50% high. I had to work very hard to get a presentable set of G5 2/6s, but with persistence nicer bits can be found.

Only slightly related but Rick Snow ("Eagle Eye") on PCGS US Coins forum has just posted an interesting essay on grade inflation of slabbed bits, using the AU50 1877 Indian Head cent as an example....

Wow, I would also be interested in that with regards to the Caribbean issues of Cayman and Jamaica & also the odd ?Philippine proof?

As Nick seems to imply, don't be too quick to condemn it - and from the sounds of it, I don't think you are - I like to play detective and in this case assume for argument authentic and then disprove it. IMO, this can not be done from this photo as the surfaces a bit hard to make out details like a high def might. 0.500 fine silver can have some downright ugly toning on occasion, especially if storing not optimal. Please try an acetone treatment at least and have another go at pictures if possible. You may still have a steal, but have to reserve judgement. (the 28gm. +/- bit is a good start). Wouldn't bother with the magnet as was stated above.

Bit hard to see surfaces in your photos but would suggest the time-honoured acetone bath....Maybe even ammonia 1:2 solution if that doesn't do anything. I have occ. seen these Wreaths with some odd toning with that "pot-metal" silver composition. From arm's length, other than the odd oxidation, it doesn't look too bad and I can not right away put it in the faker category. edit: "questionable origin" does not impugn the quality of the product, only its source.

And how about the "retro" 25 P collection of garbage now on sale by the Royal Mint? Yikes!

I agree with jacin that the submitter is all-important if they have the money, influence or connection based on their own graded coins coming up for sale. I think PCGS may do likewise on occasion as well; NGC not sure, but see that they don't seem to be able to identify even milled patterns and proofs. And sadly, we have but the pictures to go by that are occasionally misleading. That having been said, I did see a couple of coins of marginal interest if no have-to-haves...

I see that as planchet issues in areas not struck up, the flatness and the apparent scratches not IMO post mint damage. Mark free fields, relatively. I can see a bit of discolouration to the device high points but think that may be from cabinet contact/oxidation as opposed to mechanical. If you take B's head, for example, it is entirely smooth if discoloured without evidence of mark. The marks lower on the device are not substantially different to those on the obverse, and not wear.

To play devil's advocate: an MS coin is defined as being just as it was when it was ejected from the dies, with perhaps bag or bin contact being allowed but dropping the absolute number. On this basis I don't have an issue with the OP coin which if graded technically only might even merit a HIGHER grade; obviously some deduction was taken even from this scheme. I see only worn and rusted die strike with some of the "damage" being in the planchet itself. So, as has been alluded to, how should a grade be derived? Technical versus/and aesthetics????

Funny how I gave up on that too some while ago. Glenn Onishi there can sometimes help out.

For some reason I like the off metal strikes like the 10p struck on a 2p planchet & such...

Dave, I think that may be a bit of an optical illusion in that the edge or "rim" portion that is clipped makes it appear to reverse clip curvature.

Not a lot of value I would think. I got a bunch of these in diff. denoms and some with multi-clips that I got in a lot. Bleh...

Too much crystal meth about methinks to call in "metho"....LOL. Think I might shy away from paper towels and the like with all the sulphurous compounds used in processing the paper. I still recommend the clean white towel with good nap (i.e. not old and scratchy).

Wow, 900 for that '25. Not this collector! There are much nicer 1912s about as I've said & the grade is perhaps "fair for wear" even with the dearth of aesthetics...

I do it to nearly all my coins, just make sure it is pure. Also, I tamp rather than rub with Q-tip or high nap white cotton towel. Interestingly, a totally different solvent is ammonia but this is a lot trickier - this has helped me on copper nickel better than the acetone - not used it on copper bits at all. I kind of laugh when someone lets a coin sit in acetone and evaporate the solvent - just relayers the crap back on it!

Unslabbed, though a slightly scarcer date, this coin would languish in a dealer's tray. Much nicer available strike wise and wear/damage, but even these don't draw a lot of interest. Perhaps CGS are trying to drum up a near non-existent market.

I know of a 1920 pattern half penny, ex-Nicholson, in nickel as well as the 1923 nickel 3d that were all struck to a currency/matte (but NOT proof) standard. The Model Obverses of the 1920s and 1937 also range from currency appearance to light matte mostly, a few more definite.

I agree with Rob that the consignor is all important when it comes to grade, even and despite the protestations of blind grading. One really interesting example is when it comes to matte proof grading, both the "Standard year" 1902 and the much rarer mattes of years like 1926, 1927, 1937, 1951 and 1953. The '02s were nearly all rubbed by mint workers with some sort of cloth evidently and show hairlines to smaller or greater extent. How much is deducted for these varies tremendously by PCGS and NGC in my opinion. I have also seen in the later much scarcer bits some ridiculous grading, both high and low. Another example is with 19th C proof gold and silver where the buyer needs to really look at the coins - I have seen lowly 62s clearly better than 64s (see for example, 1853 proof florins and half crowns, or even the 1862 & 1864 proof half crowns). Caveat emptor!

Quite, key word "general". I can think of at least one expert who agrees with my thoughts on this issue - unfortunately to remain unnamed at this juncture. I think it quite right that people buy coins based on slab or history and not de facto the coins themselves.

In my opinion it is somewhat dangerous to rule out the existence of a particular piece(s) based on characteristics of the opposite side of coin. IMO, not strictly logical. We have pieces confirmed with obv 11 and then other pieces evidently not tampered with that are obv. 12 that seemingly show "no H". I just do not see how we can be certain that obv. 12 dies may not have been used in a few instances. I do however agree that an increased level of alertness should be the case in the event of an obv 12 specimen.

Looks plugged to me as well. The OP coin looks to be rather high relief with well struck devices, but not my series.

Especially 5 guinea pieces! Nada for me there; it seems I remember many of these pieces almost as old friends...

The ordinary 2015 Britannia lost a bit of the reverse appeal with the "pebbly/rough" background IMO. I liked the last Proof 2014 Britannia complete with Pipa Middleton (sp?) rendition of Britannia.