ozjohn

Verdigris? I think need to study your chemistry my friend. Verdigris sffects Cu not Ag!

A PCGS MS 64 1917 halfcrown listed on Ebay for comparison. https://www.ebay.com/itm/GR-BRITAIN-George-V-1917-AR-Halfcrown-PCGS-MS64-SCBC-4011-ESC-758/173275070299?hash=item2857ffbf5b:g:vHgAAOSwqMRa1gVK Sword IMO I think your example is much better than the PCGS example listed on Ebay and I would be very happy to own a coin like the one you have .The PCGS TPG has put the "wear" on the ear, side of head and top of shield in the Ebay listing down to a weak strike.

This looks like a replica being passed as genuine. Any ideas? A fraudulent listing ? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Queen-Victoria-Half-Crown-1-2-1900-Good-Condition/362302356594?hash=item545ae73c72:g:-vkAAOSwLLZa31sV

Very nice coin Sword and interesting comments regarding strike quality of coins. I examined the NGC MS 62 coin again with a eye glass and it appears the obverse area on the side of the King's head above the beard is weakly struck as is the corresponding area on the reverse where the top RHS of the shield is located. It is obvious that minting issues are not initially considered by NGC during their grading of process although it probably effects their final assessment of awarding MS 61 etc. as I think they grade first the rough grade F,VF,XF or MS ie Fine 25% of design remaining, Very Fine 50% etc. to Mint State 100% of the design present then they micro grade based on strike quality, lustfre etc. What a difficult series to grade as wear and strike quality are very difficult to tell apart. One criteria that I use is to examine the milling for wear as that for the most part is unaffected by the minting also many George V coins seem to have a thin ridge around the edge of the milling which is the highest point of the coin and will wear first. Coins that have the milling and the ridge I describe intact but seem to be worn are probably weakly struck and not worn. On the coin of concern the milling is hidden by the slab.

Two 1917 halfcrowns I have. The top one is a NGC MS 62 while the other is an ungraded coin I brought from Michael Coins before it closed when I was in London a few years ago. I think the ungraded example is a better coin than the NGC graded one and welcome any comments as I am trying to improve my grading skills. The top coin is the NGC MS 62 graded coin while the bottom coin is the ungraded coin brought from Michael Coins. Thanking you in advance for any replies

Thanks VickySilver. I noticed an error in my post. It should read MS 62 not MS 52.

I also had the same issue with a NGC slabbed 1922 MS 52 halfcrown.. I removed it from the slab and cleaned it with the Al. foil bicarb. of soda method and the results presented below. I know silver dip has been recommended but I think the foil method may be less destructive to the coin as it converts the silver sulfide directly back to metallic silver while emitting sulfurated hydrogen gas while silver dip is an acid that will etch the coin to remove the tarnish including some of the surface of the coin.I have previously posted these pictures but they seemed to relate to this discussion.

To clean or not to clean. That is the question? All I can say is any piece of silver left to its own devices for over a hundred years will tarnish. Put another way any silver coin with some age on it that is bright has probably been cleaned. You can try a silver dip or bi carb of soda and Al foil with hot water but I fear the spots my take longer to remove and in doing so may remove the tone you wish to keep.

Perhaps the UK and Australia should abandon the UNC, EF etc. and it's attendant undefined micro grades abt. near and adopt the Shelden scale which offers a far more systematic method of grading coins. 0 - 100 scale adopted by CGS offers a similar advantage however given that the Shelden scale has been in place for a long time it should be adopted in favor.

Not sure how this extra post occurred. Probably better if this one was removed. OZJOHN

Nice coin Paulus. I haven't noticed the thicker rim you mention although I have both varieties of this coin. It was the matte finish of the obverse that caught my attention. May still be a good buy for someone looking for an upgrade.

The photo of the obverse of this listing is not very good. However the photo of the reverse is much clearer and the coin has the appearance of a matte proof. If it is it could be a good buy. Any thoughts? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1902-silver-Edward-V11-half-crown-in-UNC-condition-NGC-MS61/112852523353?hash=item1a4688d959:g:LqMAAOSwIH1ankVe

The photo of the obverse of this listing is not very good. However the photo of the reverse is much clearer and the coin has the appearance of a matte proof. If it is it could be a good buy Any thoughts? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1902-silver-Edward-V11-half-crown-in-UNC-condition-NGC-MS61/112852523353?hash=item1a4688d959:g:LqMAAOSwIH1ankVe

EBay's rules (not that they always inforce them) state that reproduction coins should be marked as such ie stamped on the coin. Describing the coin as a reproduction is not sufficient as it allows a 3rd party to pass it as genuine.

IMO fake coin a very bad one at that. However it is being offered as genuine not as a replica which amounts to attempted fraud not just offering replica coins not marked as such.. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Four-Crowned-Cruciform-George-V-1927-1932-Silver-One-Florin/332576084591?hash=item4d6f14526f:m:mjXuwM1S3W4Faab219HUXCQ

The 1892 crown is a fake and being offered as genuine not even as a copy. This IMO is deception bordering on fraud.

I reported both of these coins. Another I reported it's not even a good fake if there is such a thing.https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VICTORIAN-SILVER-CROWN-1892/323114460538?hash=item4b3b1f657a:g:PGoAAOSwLWZamv79

That's my point. Complain on an organised scale to maximise the effect.

At the moment items are reported randomly as I do. What I am suggesting is a concentrated effort from this forum to ebay. So instead of a complaint from just me or perhaps a couple of complaints elsewhere they receive many complaints for each unmarked replica item that is listed. perhaps it will work or perhaps not but at least it is worth trying and it takes little effort on the part of the individual to report an item. Method. Click on Report Item in the listing. Select Report Category. Select Prohibited & Restricted items, Select Reason for report, Select Stamps currency and coins. Select Detailed reason. Select Replica coins, replica paper money and replica stamps. You will then get an information popup: The item in this listing is a replica coin, replica paper money or replica stamp that has not been clearly marked as a reproduction, replica or copy. Then press Submit, Note this popup clearly states that Ebay's policy is reproductions should be identified on the item NOT the listing of this fact. I do feel that Ebay is more likely to take action to remove these items if they receive multiple complaints for each listing of this type.

Perhaps it should be the policy of members of this forum to report these items en mass. Ebay policy (which they often ignore) states that replica / repro/ copies should be marked as such. This may help to spread of these items to dishonest people who relist them as genuine. It would certainly put more pressure on Ebay to inforce their own rules.

This link may be of interest as it describes coin grading from a US perspective .http://www.coingrading.com/intro1.html

A close up scan of the "gouge" that may help. There is certainly some similarity between the marks on the 1957 half crown and the 1912 halfcrown however the marks under the Queen's eye and the next mark to the left have the appearance of flaws in the flan as the metal appears to be lifting despite the regularity of the marks, What I would call bag marks on this coin can be seen all over the coin as small scratches and dents.

This one seems a bit large to qualify as a bagmark which IMO should be restricted to minor marks resulting from contact between coins as you describe. As for strike thru. If you look at the coin in hand the "gouge" is brighter than the surrounding field indicating more recent damage. This probably has a bearing on the bagmark theory as well.

If it was hit by another coin during the minting process I feel sorry for that coin .

Not the coin of the week but you might as well see the obverse for completeness.