ozjohn

Thanks Vicky. I would look at the coin and grade it up and then another time down grade it. I just could not make up my mind. I have an 1816 halfcrown as well but that one gEF/UNC is easy to establish. The Reprographics book helped to put it between VF and EF but the micro grade was hard to be certain. I think in the higher grades micrograding becomes more important. This is what IMO makes the Sheldon grading more useful in this area. Others will disagree but there you go it would be a dull world if everybody thought the same. Regards, Ozjohn

Thanks for the reply. I notice for your example the laurel crown holds up well but wear is evident on the King's face. Whereas the opposite is true for my example.

Thanks, it's always easy to be more forgiving of coins you own.

The question posed was asking the forum's opinion on whether the coin was worn through circulation or as the result of a soft strike. I think it's a soft strike myself as the King's face seems to be free of wear. However a second opinion would be nice. As for upgrading that's something to consider at a later date. As it happens even if I up graded it I would probably keep the coin in question.

This coin is another one I have trouble distinguishing between wear and weak strike. A 1817 bullhead halfcrown. I took a good look at the grading examples in the Rotographic guide to grading coins book and came to the conclusion that my coin is much better that the VF example given in the book.. On the obverse of my coin the top middle laurel leaf has no veins with further weakness in the rim of the ear. An area above the laurel crown's upper middle leaf seems lower than the leaf and as a result not fully struck. However the King's cheeks and the rest of the face seem free of wear. In general cheeks and eyebrows show the first signs of early wear. On the reverse further weakness close to the buckle of the garter and some of the roses on the rim of the garter are weakly struck while others are fully struck. Weakness is also apparent on the Hanover shield. If this is wear I would grade the coin as gVF+/ aEF and for a weak strike I would grade it EF. My dilemma is. Do I upgrade or live with the coin I have as collecting is always a question of prioritizing and I may be better keeping this coin and investing in a coin that I do not have yet? All comments observations etc. are appreciated.

My latest from Colonial Antiques, NZ. An 1862 CGS 65. Sorry about the photo as I did it on my laptop as I'm away from home.

I have an E book called The Identification of British 20th. Century Silver Coin Varieties which discusses all the varieties of the 1928 halfcrown obverses and reverses with photos also including the rocking test described in this thread. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Identification-British-Century-Silver-Varieties/dp/1445753014I Perhaps this may be of use for this discussion.

I can't fault your half equations. The corrosion process for iron is similar to what I suggested for the 50% silver coins except in this case cathodic and anodic sites form on the iron; surface. A process not fully understood but work hardening seems to be implicated. Water contaminated with sulfurous acid, oxygen etc. forms the electrolyte and you have all the conditions for rust. What I described is one of many corrosion mechanisms and may well be responsible to the formation of verdigris on 50% silver coins if the copper is poorly melted with the silver due to the difference in melting temperatures forming the cathodic sites. The electrolyte comes from handling, sneezing and breathing over coin and the normal atmosphere contaminants . I still think a cleaning (one acceptable to coin collectors) and handling the coins with gloves prior slabbing would protect coins from contamination prior to slabbing and should help to minimize corrosion. From my own experience. I have kept a large amount of old 50% coins in a draw for over 20 years and never noticed the formation of verdigris on any of them. No attempt to degrease them has been done.

Contamination is not the prime cause corrosion. For corrosion to take place cathodic and anodic sites must be present on the surface of the coin and the contamination aids the conduction of electricity between the two sites causing a chemical reaction and thus corrosion. In this case the Cu has not melted properly because of its higher melting point and along with Ag forms the other half of the corrosion cell with a potential of 0.28 v between them ( Cu. valency 1, cupric). If the alloy for the coin blanks had been properly prepared the corrosion would not take place despite the presence of contamination on the coin. Of course removing contamination from the coin's surface prior to slabbing would be a good idea and should be given some thought by TPGs. Given this verdigris is as a result of the manufacturing of the coin blanks prior to the minting process not the slabbing. Of course it is still unsightly and damaging to the coin. In conclusion the seed for corrosion was planted in the coin long before it was slabbed.

Perhaps verdigris formation should be seen as part of the minting process of 50% silver coins as it is most probably due to incomplete melting of the component metals as copper melts at a higher temperature than silver. In theory this should not happen if the alloy is properly made. As for bronze coins the metal used is inherently subject to attack.

Quite right. A high grade coin does not always equate to a desirable coin.

After rephotographing the coin I think the actual wear on the obverse is very small apart from the scratches and given the quality of the reverse I think high AU/low MS is probably the correct grade however due the the strike quality the photo of the obverse the coin is not a thing of beauty although it does look a lot better in hand. The right hand photo was taken at a small angle and does not enhance the effigy to any great degree. One thing I did notice is the middle bar in the E of REX which looks like the forked tongue of a snake and quite different to the E in George and DEI.

It seems this coin has generated the same uncertainty on this forum as it has with me with grades from gVF to MS. Thanks for your comments much appreciated. When I looked at the coin the other day under a LED ceiling light the kings effigy appeared almost fully defined hair, beard eyebrow etc which does not agree with the photo. I'll try photographing again at an angle to see if it picks up these details and post the result.

I've had this coin for a while and find it hard to form an opinion on its grading. The picture was taken using a macro lens in ambient light. I have to say the coin in hand looks much better with the king's eyebrow fully defined which is one of the first points of wear. The reverse looks to be of a high grade. Comments please.

If you look at the 1927 crown the Kings's eyebrow can be seen with the hair of the eyebrow showing. Perhaps on the 1928 halfcrown for some it can be seen while on others it cannot. Only a suggestion as I only noticed the hair on the eyebrow after obtaining a 1927 crown where the effigy is larger and I am assuming this was included in the effigy for the other ME issues. The 1928 proof halfcrown held by the Victoria museum is a cracking coin.

This one looks like a fake probably better than most being offered? No mention of copy restrike etc https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bare-Bust-GEORGIUS-IV-Garnished-Shield-HalfCrown-DIEU-ET-MON-DROIT-1829/312578853060?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D56113%26meid%3Dc65e2f9db94745fd91752f9e5724ce48%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D15%26sd%3D312578853060%26itm%3D312578853060&_trksid=p2481888.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3A848977e4-633c-11e9-a5b4-74dbd18024e9|parentrq%3A399c7e3f16a0ab66e3220cc6ffe4a76f|iid%3A1

And the people who spread this stuff.

This is typical of the c**p that goes around. Straight from my sister's Facebook posts. Typical propaganda ploy to belittle your opponents by branding them as stupid

I recently had a visit from my niece who is a doctor in New Zealand and as it happens she supports remaining in the EU where I hold the opposite view. My niece's answer to that was " of course you are old" . I seems to be the way if you disagree instead of an argue on the merits or otherwise insult your opponent a la Trump voters by the liberals . The other one that seems to figure in the Brexit debate is the leavers were too stupid to understand the issues when while the liberal remainders due to their superior intellects voted to stay.

Do you want to include children etc? To vote you must be on the electoral roll otherwise there is no control on people multiple voting, under age and non citizens voting Eliminating these are the things that give credibility to election results. I'm afraid your open voting idea is untenable and the result would have no credibility and would be even more contested.

Brexit Referendum result: 51.9% leave 117410742 votes . 48.1% stay 16141241 votes. Informal 26033 votes. Electorate 46.5 million Turnout 72.2% Garry D, Where do your 50 million voters come from who need a "duty of Care" with a total electorate of only 46.5 million? There was a clear majority of votes to leave as shown above with a turn out of the electorate of 72.2 % which is higher than most general elections. For example for the 2016 UK general election the turnout of the electorate was 68.7% of those eligible to vote. I suppose you now want to argue that not everyone voted at the Brexit referendum. I'm afraid low voter turnout seems to be a feature of UK elections. Perhaps next time the electorate may take more trouble to get off their buts and vote on important issues. Maybe the UK should adopt the Australian system where it is compulsory to turn up at the polling station and have your name checked off the electoral roll otherwise you will cop a $50 fine Most people then vote having had to make the effort to attend the polling station. However you can still exercise your right not to vote if you wish but at least you have to think about it. I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold water. Sorry Chingford I think I am covering the same ground as you. We do have preferential voting in Australia but It is not relevant to referendums as they normally require a Yes/No answer. However in Australia a referendum is mainly for changes to the constitution (A bill of the House of Commons). A majority of votes and States are required for the referendum to be carried. As it happens there have been 44 referendums since federation of which only 8 have carried.

Ok. To recalibrate the AMR coin is say MS 61 (gEF) to AU 58 (EF) if you believe the vendors grade. I still think the NGC graded coin is a tad better than the AMR listed coin and possibly undergraded. Which is unusual for me as I usually whinge about overgraded TPG 'ed coins. The NGC coin is also better value especially if you buy it via the vendor's site. Quoting from https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/sheldon-scale-of-coin-grading-768380 it describes MS 60 as no sign of circulation where the coin is only effected by bag marks etc. The less of this the higher the MS number. Whereas gEF (UK) still talks about wear due to circulation on the coin. I think we are now entering the subjective area of coin grading to what is wear and damage caused by the minting and handling process,

Just found another 1905 Halfcrowm https://www.amrcoins.com/coins-for-sale/MS-0509C/ which is graded at as gEF by the vendor which equates to AU58. A grading I would not disagree with. Personally I think the Cooper Coins offering is the better coin (not by far) and cheaper if you buy it direct from the vendor.

One man's meat etc. IMO From the photo I think the coin has possibly been under graded by NGC. Given some of the examples in the past from TPGs MS 61/2 may be more appropriate.

A photo of Saturday's Australian Newspaper which is circulated through out the Commonwealth. I think it demonstrates that the Brexit issue is closely followed with interest in Australia. In fact I do not think Australia has ever forgiven the UK for joining the EU. It has to be said the ABC our national radio/TV service is towing the BBC anti Brexit rhetoric.