ozjohn

A serious discussion would be a good thing.

I would have thought someone would have a view on this.

Looking an the quality of the first series of George V silver the product from the Royal Mint is of very poor quality especially the florins with pronounced ghosting on the reverse, poorly defined lions in the upper shield on the reverse and poor detail on the effigy on the obverse some examples being so poorly struck that they would be graded as fine for an UNC coin if you did not know better. Looking at the Australian florins minted at the same time and same mint up to 1916 with the exception of some being struck at the Heaton mint these coins are of the highest quality and show no sign of being poorly struck. It has been said that the poor quality of British silver coins was due to WW1 diverting skilled labor into other industries but this is not apparent in the Australian issues in fact the quality did not really improve until the modified effigy appeared in 1926 while the low relief effigy of 1920 did little to improve the situation. However by 1924 the reverse of the florin seem to fully struck in the upper shield although the striking of the obverse was still weak. Maybe some of the issues with the coins after 1919 may be due to the alloy composition being changed but this does not explain the constant poor quality over this whole period. I guess this still begs the question as to why the output of the Royal Mint was so poor when they managed to produce high quality coins for Australia. Any ideas?

Thanks your coin ain't bad either. I think azda is right about the reverse designs for these and the 1825 - 1829 halfcrowns.

Nice. I posted a similar coin dated 1820 on page 3 of this thread.

Maybe I have missed something but when I try to download new content I receive a message telling me that no new content is available which is wrong as there are new messages when I look in the various forums. Perhaps this facility is no longer available. Can anyone shed some light on the matter?

A nice example of a 0.500 toned KGV 1933 florin.

Your opinion and no more as is mine. The only difference is I tried to compare with a known reference something missing in your opinion.

Opinion sought opinion given with reasons stated.

With reference to the supplied photo and The Standard Guide to Grading British coins I would judge this coin as EF to AU. However there are significant knocks on the obverse of this coin that detract from the eye appeal. As the coin has possibly seen a little very light circulation the chances of it being a genuine example of this coin is more likely. I guess it comes down to price.

Another toned example I have.

GENUINE UNC? MS 60 - 65, FDC UNC. There are many versions of GENUINE UNC. If you have long enough pockets go for slabbed coins but even then opinions are different.

With reference to Rotographic Grading British Coins and the fairly poor phot I would grade your sovereign as better than VF but just shy of EF say abt. EF. In all a very nice coin.

Very Nice.

Can't say I've seen any counter stamped civil siege pieces either. As far as I can see they are counter stamped bits of silver produced from silver not originally intended for coinage.

Azda, at the risk of digressing from this thread further I suggest you take a look at Australian holey dollar prices and gradings it is all in the counter mark the original coin is of no consequence. If you think about it someone has butchered a coin by removing its center or making a dent in it using a metal stamp. Normally these coins would be only bullion value after such action but in this case the marking is official thus making the coin rare. This again is true for civil war siege pieces of silver where it is the counter mark that makes these pieces different from any other piece of silver. In all cases beware of fakes.

azda the point was the coin was graded on the basis of the original Mexican coin not its counter stamp as it should have been. However my observation is dragging the subject of this thread away from its original intent something that happens a lot in these forums. The UK and Sheldon scales are probably better discussed as a separate thread.

Sorry XF which probably equates to VF.

With reference to the slabbed countermarked dollar which is graded VF. As you may be aware similar coins were issued in Australia with the center punched out which was called the dump worth 15 pence 1/- 6 and the rest of the coin called a holey dollar worth 5/-. From what I understand when grading these items it is the condition of the counterstamp which is graded not the original coin's condition. Perhaps another example of 3rd parties grading coins they do not fully understand.

1820 Halfcrown I think I paid about $AU 110 for it in the late 1980s

Nick. Jet propelled halfcrowns?

Looking through today's Ebay listings I came across this item CGS UIN 30853 Ebay Item# 111612758697 which is a 1930 halfcrown graded CGS 80. Looking at the obverse picture in both CGS and Ebay I could see the coin has 3 dig marks in a line on the side of the head between the King's eyebrow and the top of his ear. These are not bag marks as they are too regular and deep. How does a coin as damaged as this get a grading of 80 therefore increasing its potential price to a collector. The more I see of CGS the less confidence I have in their ability to grade coins correctly. A few days a go I was asking if a gothic crown was genuine and one correspondent suggested CGS to check its authenticity. In all honesty I think they would be the last people I would consult.

19th & 20 C silver is my area of collection and I would interesting if this article touches on the poor strike quality of George V silver and tips on grading them especially the 1911 to 1926 florins whose strike quality seems measurably inferior to that of the halfcrowns struck in this period..

Thanks look forward to reading this article.

Thanks I have looked on coincommunity.com it seems the salient points are the alignment of the et in the side inscription and the Vic in the legend and the quality of the side inscription as suggested by Nick. The differences seem to be illustrated very well. There are also pictures showing a good coin and a fake showing small differences in the strike but I think the edge inscription seems the most telling as it is probably the hardest to reproduce.