Coinery

Many happy returns old bean!

Yet another TPGC cock-up!

And PF on the slab?????

Nice rims!

Me too! My classic example, and I'm sorry it's a link to my site, but it's the easiest way, is this Halfgroat of Elizabeth! It has weak centres (as with most of them) but a truly lovely coin, colour, everything, in fact...not a coin I'd be selling, except I have an example with the bust you see as my avatar! Eye-appeal is everything! http://george-coins.co.uk/ProductImages.aspx?ProductId=3129578

Has anyone ever noticed that a lovely field in daylight, can look like it's been treated to a wire-wool clean under artificial light? Also, when we look at coins under magnification, at what point do we stop? If we viewed a coin by an electron microscope it would look like the moon, full of craters! So, on a slightly more serious note, should we say, when describing a coin, 'stunning coin, amazing fields, when viewed in daylight. However, it looks rubbish under artificial light!' Just out of interest, what does your coin look like in-hand, in daylight?

In which case, Morpheus, you have done exceedingly well, as I would never have guessed that English wasn't your first language, rather that you were an Englishman with a few literary hitches! Well done, do stay onboard!

A must-have if it's within budget I'd say! Good luck, would love to see your images if you go for it!

I'd love to know more about this seller and his dust, as I find it totally inconceivable that such a practice can fool or improve a high-res image of a coin?And, more to the point, if you and another person have been able to observe it, it must be perceivable, and something I'd love to see for myself! Do you have any examples or images you could post?

Damian, this is a really good post, and definitely something I've pondered myself! I have noticed that certain coins in good daylight look like the original seller's photograph you posted but, equally, put them under artificial lights (any bulb in your house) at night and they look hairlined! So, which is the genuine coin surface as, to reiterate, I can't see the hairlines in the day, but can see them as if they were motorways viewed from a holiday flight at night? All of Buck's coins have this ethereal glow about them in the images...I really don't know at what point a coin carries the baggage of being cleaned, at which point hairlines interrupt normal vision and become offensive? Really good post, as I say!

There are a few nice EFs up for grabs http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Coin-Victorian-Penny-Young-Head-EF-1855-/381048592159 Most of the grading seems to be by consensus rather than by any analysis of the coin's wear which is why the EFs end up as UNCs and the VFs as EFs. But I can't grade for toffee so... I propose a new two-tier grading system. I was just reading some of his feedback though and I feel sorry for him actually, assuming his responses are honest as it would appear that other sellers are trying to discredit him on false grounds. To be fair, I've bought a number of coins from Lucido, and it's always been straightforward. I just found this particular coin amusing, as he's not generally as bad as this?I'm going to check out his feedback, as I don't recall looking before.

No, buy it Paulus. Why is this in here rather than the my wife has bled me dry thread? Oi, you! No only joking keep that thread for the nice stuff that crops up. I think bringing wives into it is a bit unfair, despite furs being mentioned. It's the Dr. Jekyll thread. This one is the Edward Hyde. Furs aren't just for girls, you know!

No, buy it Paulus. Why is this in here rather than the my wife has bled me dry thread? Oi, you!

Lucido has finally lost it! Victoria Penny in EF 291307099653

All the best, chaps!

I've sold 3 over £200 in the last 18 months, 1 on eBay! I genuinely think that's what they're fetching nowadays? The Spink catalogue supports those figures which, I'm guessing, to be a reasonable reflection, given its own specific listing within the guide?

I'm even struggling to find 2014 coins, heavier than the 10p, without bag marks!

Birthday greetings, indeed! ?

I'd say you were pretty much spot on, and a good collectable example at that!

I think it's all relevant, the principles are mostly the same, once you've sorted out what constitutes a weak/soft strike!There is an observable gap between grades (when avoiding the 'other' stuff), which is noticeable for each monarch. You just need to grab a monarch and firstly look at what is considered to be an unc (or equivalent for the period), and work back from there, spotting key areas for wear, and maybe knocking up your own version of Derek's book for Charles 2nd coins, as an example? No reason why not!

To avoid falling into the trap of the TPGCs you have to avoid seeing the bust as a weighting tool in deciding a grade, I think? Far better to have a grade straight down the line, then say weak bust, poor reverse strike, edge knocked, digs to cheek, etc. because, without extensive algorithms, which would need every industry and collector to uniformly abide by, we'd be all over the place, which we are already, even with a simple formula.With regards to one grade for a two-grade coin, I think it would be a meeting between the two, with a statement along the lines of VF 'overall' or whatever! That's how I see it anyway.

Well, no, not really! What I'm trying to say is a grade, both obverse AND reverse, are definitive grades. However, when it comes to giving a coin a number, as TPGC's do, other factors come into play, such as digs, edge bruises, corrosion, etc. (which they mark a coin down for number-wise) and this is where it gets confusing, because you can look up this magic number on the given TPGC's website and come out with a grade, such as EF? So, this is the essence of the divide (quite separate from the idea of whether you like your coins raw or entombed, or whether they are protected or not), because traditionalists will say a coins circulation wear is what determines the grade, not that aunt Doris used it to knock for a gin at the bar, or little Tommy rolled it down a hill for fun when he was 6. These are all things that affect eye appeal, rather than grade, IMHO! TPGC's have somehow managed to confuse the issue of a coin's wear by including damage and tonal qualities, etc. Hope that makes sense?

Hi AC, The grade is a stand alone thing, the obverse is the grade it is, as is the reverse, none takes precedence over the other. The bit you're mixing up I think is eye-appeal and, of course, the added factor for eye appeal (or equivalents of) of the grading companies! There are those that might say a particular grade overall, which might be, in your case, a nip off the rev, and an addition in grade to the ob? Generally, especially with early milled, a design can wear more quickly on one side than the other, and it's then that the great debate begins about whether, hypothetically speaking, if you have, say, for example, a spike in a design a CM high, which protects the rest of the design, at the expense of the other side...would the worn spike, with everything else intact be an AU grade, whilst the other side is graded a lowly VF? Therein lies the divide between graders!