ozjohn

Interesting observations regarding the UK and US criteria for coin grading. Also it has to be realized that the US TPG dominate the TPG market and as a result call the shots. I was trolling through MS Halfcrowns and Florins and was surprised by the prices being asked for some of these coins which was above $US 300 for some of the common dates of the George V series . I do not know if these coins achieve these prices but the expectation is there that a slabbed coin will command a much higher price even when you account for the cost of the TPG. An added thought I have noticed US TPG seem fairly tolerant of edge knocks and similar damage to the design and fields of a coin. Personally I think I would be reluctant to attribute a high grade to a coin with damage such as the one shown graded by NGC AU 58 with a gouge mark by the A in HALFCROWN.

PWA 1967, I think we have crossed swords in the past. Can't say I care too much for your continuing contribution to this forum either. Ozjohn

Hi Paddy, Love your response. You have renewed my confidence in this forum. Thanks again. Regards, Ozjohn

I rest my case no one is prepared to question the judgement of the TPGs. As soon as this question is raised everyone shuts up. What's wrong with you don't you have a view? What are you scared of? Sorry IMO you are a bunch of wimps. I think this may be my last post on this forum..

I am assuming we are talking about TPGs for example CGS v PGCS. The first uses their own 0 to 100 scale while PGCS uses the Shelden a 0 to 70 scale which automatically injects confusion into the system although conversion charts like the one included in this thread exist. The only reason I can think of why CGS used this scale is to demonstrate some difference between CGS and the US TPGs. However I do not think this approach helps the CGS product and they would have been better advised to adopt the 0 - 70 Shelden scale,I can remember viewing that NGS video explaining their methodology for grading coins but have never seen anything as detailed as that that from CGS on their grading process which may account for their inconsistency of their grading. However the US TPGs seem to produce as many questions regarding their grading as CGS. As it happens CGS is owned by London Coins where there is also a conflict of interest between both grading and selling your product which has been pointed out on these forums many times. Common to all TPGs they purport to authenticate coins without presenting any evidence as to their expertise in this area. Let us think for one moment what collectors and investors require from TPGs from both sides of the Atlantic consistency in grading which seems to be lacking at present which is probably the greatest failing of all TPGs. ie if the same coin was submitted to a number of TPGs it should receive the same grade from all of them. If it does not you are effectively creating different markets depending on the TPG you use. I also get the distinct feeling that disputing of TPGs grades is not exactly welcomed on these forums. As we say in Australia don't stir the possum.

As far as I am concerned the aim of professional grading should be consistency. From what I remember from the NGC grading video that someone posted on this site the an uncirculated coin was graded as MS 60 . A higher grade could then be attributed for the amount of bag marks etc., strike quality and lustre and the subject coin would move up the MS grades depending on how it scored on these criteria. This particular example shows what looks like wear in various places and several knocks especially on the obverse and as a result its grade should be reduced to below MS. You could argue that the source I am quoting is NGC and this coin was graded by PGCS well I go back to my first statement CONSISTENCY is the key where a NGC grading or PGCS grading should be the same ie if I had a NGC coin graded at MS 61 and then it submitted to PGCS or any other TPG then I would expect the same result. If something else results then the whole point of employing a TPG is lost .

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Top-Grade-PCGS-MS-65-BU-1928-Great-Britain-Silver-1-Florin-Unc-Very-Rare/222812830841?hash=item33e0adfc79:g:EZwAAOSw~rpZQk2N I'm not sure how this coin gained a MS 65 obverse wear on top of the ear, eye brow and mo with several dingles on the effigy and fields. Reverse wear to bottom rims of English and Scottish shields including the mace between them. Maybe this can be put down to a light strike but wasn't the ME and new design supposed to stop this? In any case IMO a poorly struck coin shouldn't achieve MS65 grading..Then there's the price starting price of $US 430 ! IMO this coin should be graded at around AU 58 and priced under $US 50.I think all TPGs have a long way to go in achieving the consistent results that collectors and investors require.

There's something about this listing that doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps a fakehttps://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Reverse-Legend-In-Gothic-Script-1870-Queen-Victoria-Florin-2-Shilling/332537882394?hash=item4d6ccd671a:g:9FEAAOSwXOVacJCs

A cracking obverse however. I guess we are lucky that sufficient coins have survived the years so we can admire them. The subject coin is not my best example but a coin I have had for many years. I think I was intrigued when I brought it as it seemed to be of a high grade but on closer examination seemed to show some wear. This was before I learnt of all the problems the RM was having with these coins. I doubt if it cost more than $10 at the time.

I have rephotographed the 1916 coin with my new Sony camera fitted with a macro lens taken 1/40s at f /5.5 which gives a better image than the original scan also a photo showing the milling. The light source was 2 el cheapo LED clip on flexible reading lamps which may not be the best for this kind of work

Found this one on Ebay https://www.ebay.com/itm/Great-Britain-George-V-Silver-1915-1-2-Crown-PCGS-MS63-WWI-Issue-Toned-KM-818-1/302606398962?epid=102093249&hash=item4674bf35f2:g:r2UAAOSwHUhaHfuP It does not look the same as the one I posted however the obverse strike is pretty poor even so it obtained a MS 63 grading.

Yes but the milling is pristine and in my experience the milling receives a lot of wear during circulation. Also the obverse field has none of the usual scratches bumps etc. In fact in hand the fields of coin appears to have much of their original lustre. Maybe it was damaged some time in its life? Who knows but it does serve to illustrate the difficulty in grading poorly minted coins.

Yes the weakness of the strike on the reverse is obvious on the second scan but harder to decide if it could be wear on the obverse of this coin which brings us back to the difficulty in grading this series of coins. Sometimes the milling can provide some clues. However with NGC slabs the milling is completely hidden although it would have been visible to the original grader. The scan of the 1916 halfcrown shows what looks like wear on the obverse especially on the top of the king's ear although the reverse is pretty good strike. Examination of the milled edge shows it to be in pristine condition ( not scanned as it is hard to do on a flat bed scanner). From that I would conclude this coin is in pretty close to UNC condition with a poorly struck obverse. I know the TPG try to gage the strike when appraising a coin but IMO this one would struggle to receive a VF grading if it was determined that the obverse condition was due to wear rather than a poor strike.

The first scan is a NGC slabbed halfcrown graded MS 62 while the lsecond scan is an ungraded 1917 halfcrown. My view is that the iungraded coin is the better coin perhaps MS 63/64 when compared with the slabbed coin. Any thoughts would be appreciated

I have already reported this item https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/One-florin-1870-Great-Britain-England-UK-United-Kingdom-1-gothic-silver-coin/273003745559?hash=item3f904a9117:g:zEoAAOSwBjdaSA-i to no avail. Perhaps a few more reports may move Ebay to remove this item.

A couple of years ago I was in Fremantle WA and visited a coin shop called Sterling & Currency where I was shown some British coin dies featuring KG VI. I am not sure if they were made in Australia or imported from the UK. From memory I think they were crown dies and assuming they were used here in Australia they would have been used for the 1937/38 crown coins. While I was there I purchased a stunning UNC 1904 halfcrown.

I What ever! mentioned in your initial post.

True but the reply gave the impression that halfcrowns were not used in Australia which is not correct.

There's still plenty of us Cranky old bastards who are not politically correct.

Halfcrowns were issued in Australia up to 1910 and perhaps later to use up coins remaining in the mint vaults and were in circulation until the early 1930s. Probably due to people coming from the UK to Australia. Both countries shared the same currency until 1932 when the pound used in Australia was devalued to 15/- sterling. Australia continued to use sterling silver until 1946 when it was debased to 50% silver. UK 50% silver coins that were brought to Australia after 1919 until 1932 were redeemed by the BOE for the full 92.5% silver rate. As an aside UK bronze coins were in circulation until the late 1960s and were still recognizable design date etc. relatively intact. If the coin found buried at Geelong was dated 1898 it would have been less than 30 years of age when lost and should still be in pretty good condition unless it corroded while buried.

What was the denomination of this coin?

One piece of vital information required here assuming a TPG is involved. Who was the TPG?

Bitcoin. Basically a Ponzi scheme. This one is wrapped up with high tech mumbo jumbo They always look good until the s### hits the fan and somebody wants their cash. Even the so called founder is scared to show his face who knows what his real motives are. One thing I am convinced of is they are not there to benefit the "man in the street". So far nothing convinces me that their intentions are honorable. Remember CDRs of the GFC the financial product of the century. If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is. Better to stick to real coins in these forums perhaps.

Picked this one up today. OK for 1910M a bullion sovereign.

I've had this coin for over 20 years and although it shows some severe edge damage at 9 O' clock on the reverse and is lightly struck you get attached to things you have had for a long time. Regarding the edge damage I'm wondering if this was inflicted when the coin was minted or at a later stage. Any thoughts are welcome. I didn't pay much for the coin probably $AU 20 - $AU 30 with the portrait looking much better in the hand than the scan suggests. Thanks