ozjohn

I brought one mainly to obtain a mint George and Dragon design coin of a reasonable size and cost to help with grading other coins of that design. Also the price wasn't too bad and the coin's ok for a modern coin.

I was looking for a post in the predecimal forum that showed some coins, (German I think), that had been photographed under different light conditions. The thing that was striking was for the same coin two different results could be obtained. firstly a coin with a patina and no hairline scratching and secondly the same coin with little patina and many hairline scratches. I'm afraid I could not find the post but if anyone can remember the post it may contribute to this debate and also install the notion of buyer beware.

Thanks for the info. However including the pictures in this thread would be useful

Going back to the origin of the topic a photo taken by the buyer would be helpful to judge the extent of the issue.

I wouldn't trust CGS with anything. See posting CGS 1912 Florin UIN 0032905

A good question. For the most part metho is clear in Australia. However I do have a bottle or mauve colored metho which I applied to a paper serviette. To start with there was a slight mauve color which disappeared as the spirit evaporated. The paper is now clean. So I guess it isn't a problem perhaps the dye evaporates along with the spirit.

Metho is ethanol plus a small amount of methanol plus sometimes purple dye. Surgical sprit is similar without dye. While acetone is an aromatic ketone and is the smell on your breath when drinking alcohol. All are solvents that remove grease etc, and probably not a lot between them when cleaning coins.

Again the "bag marks" seem worse on the photos supplied by the seller whereas the CGS photo seems to be less marked with the mark on the neck just behind the adam's apple apparent in both photos indicating they are the same coin. I can see no reason for a grader to enhance the coin if they are grading the coin for a customer unless they have want to sell it on via their own retail outlet. Again in this case the seller's photos are more revealing than the grading company. As far as the strike is concerned 1920s KGV coins used a shallow cut effigy of the king whereas the 1912 effigy of KGV was the deeper cut version that carried more detail.

I think metho sounds better!

Metho is good for degreasing coins and removing surface contaminates such as salt from fingers. Again it does no harm to the coin as far as I can see. Also helps to prevent verdigris from forming on bronze coins. Pour metho into saucer dip coin and pat dry with paper tissue. Do not wipe as abrasion may cause scratching.

Yes but are CGS acting as a coin grading service or a sales service for their retail outlet?

Hi Nick, You are right. It has to be said that the coin for sale is a very nice coin but it also demonstrates that the concept of FDC does not exist other than for proof coins that have been put away from the day they were issued. Normal issue coins in EF UNC condition suffer from many problems starting from the day they were minted.

I saw this coin on Ebay item # 131412577044 which is a CGS certified 1912 florin. The seller provided photos taken by himself and the CGS provided photos UIN 0032905. When I looked at the photos I noticed that a scratch on the upper head part of the King's head shown on the seller's photo as just about absent from the CGS photo with only a smudge showing. Maybe it is just a trick of lighting between the two photos but I thought damage such as this should show up the same in both pictures. Other small edge knocks indicate that it is the same coin in both photos. This does little the enhance CGS as they are both graders and dealers in coins.

82, 75 & 80. The wreath crown was 80+ on the obverse but the high parts of the thistles and the center of the roses were a little weak. I think this was a striking issue rather than wear as the obverse was so good. In all they are all cracking good coins.

Take your point. I can remember at school a decimal pound. !0/- is .500, 2/- is .100. 1/- ,050 etc. 1/4 of a penny was 1/960 which is close to 1/1000 and depending on how many fathings you would round up or down to get the correct value.. Also the USA has a quarter which is 25 cents and when the UK first decimalized they had a 1/2 penny coin where the halfcrown was 12.5 pence.which would not have made the halfcrown redundant cumbersome perhaps but not completely out of the system. The thing that killed it was the 1,2, 5 sequence beloved by the decimal supporters which has lead to the decline of arithmetic in our schools, To survive in an imperial world your arithmetic skills had to be much more than they are today.

I found this letter to the editor written in 1913 shortly after the introduction of Australia's own coins in 1910, The letter was written to The Argus newspaper of Melbourne. What is interesting is that the coins we collect today had real significance the people of the day unlike the worthless pieces of metal that load our pockets today as they were used in their daily lives as a medium of exchange rather than something that makes up the odd part of the price of an item. The bankers were also lamenting the loss of the halfcrown which was useful in making up the payroll in the most efficient manner. Imperial halfcrowns circulated in Australia until the early 1930s as UK coins were legal tender at that time. When the imperial coinage was debased in 1920 post 1919 imperial coins were collected by the banks and returned to the Reserve Bank who in turn claimed compensation from the UK as they were only .500 fine as against .925 of the Australian coins. In 1932 Australia devalued the pound to about 15/- sterling which means imperial coins were worth more in the UK than in Australia even though many were ,500 fine silver. I assume this fact was not lost on the people at the time and the coins probably migrated back to the UK.

Downloaded Dave Groom's book and most instructive it is. Keep up the good work perhaps one for the 19th C ?

Nice coins posted on this topic. I've always thought the reverse of Edward florins have the most pleasing florin reverse although the gothic design may give it a run for its money also some Edward florins can be weakly struck on Britannia's breasts. Here id my 1908 that I obtained recently in Melbourne.

Hi Peckrus, Sorry about the link. I just copied it from Micheal's site and probably made a mistake. Thanks for the info. The coin came from NGS as an MS 62 which despite the remarks about this 3rd party grader is close to the mark given the poor mint strike for most 1920 coins. I think NGS may have got it right for the wrong reasons. Regards, John

PS I should have added the bottom of the garter for Rev A has a ridge on it where as the garter in question for Rev B does not.

Post 1 cont.

I was looking through Michael Coins catalog where he listed two types of 1920 halfcrown reverses Rev A and Rev B. The attached photo shows the reverse of a 1920 halfcrown I have and I emailed a scan to Michael for his opinion. When Michael replied he confirmed that he thought it was the Rev B variety. Michael also made another comment about the coin to the fact that Rev B coins were of the deeper cut larger head on the obverse which is the case for the one illustrated on Michael's catalog. The coin I had was a shallow cut larger head type on the obverse. Has any one any knowledge of this variety. Details for this variety can be found on www.michael-coins.co.uk/hc1920 %20rev%20A+B.htm in general it refers to the bottom part of the coin on the garter that goes past the 19 in the date. I will post an image of the Rev A coin on another post as the file exceeds 500k. Thanks, John

Every time I see these replica coins on Ebay I report the items perhaps all members of this forum should do the same, I don't know if it does any good but perhaps a large amount of reports on these items may do some good. In general these items are counterfeits and can be used to defraud and I always thought it was illegal to counterfeit coins of the realm but I don't know if this applies to demonetized coins. In the US I believe it is legal to sell reproduction coins but they must be marked as such. I know this would not stop a truly dishonest person but could help to keep some of this material off Ebay.

This thread is really combining two issues namely photographing coins to show them in their best light and the vagaries of the minting process with some people trying to minimize the former as well as later damage by the use of photo shop, lighting etc.. Perhaps this is where the CGS out of a hundred can come in useful whereas the F, VF etc. gradings are too wide to expose small differences such as hair line marks even if you use gradings such as VF+, GVF etc. are used. The other thing to think about is the grade of a coin is mainly an estimate of the amount of wear a coin has sustained since leaving the mint. For example most florins and halfcrowns minted between 1911 and 1920 are poorly minted coins with the upper shield on the florin almost missing and the ear of the king on both coins flattened. After 1920 with a change of alloy and recut effigy of the king a fresh crop of problems appeared with the king's head almost devoid of detail and the lion's faces on the reverse of the halfcrown flattened. However the upper shield on the reverse of the florin improved after 1920. In summary for photography all you can do is depend on the honesty of the dealer but I have to say instances of too much image processing can be apparent especially with the unsharpen mask are easily detectable by looking at the image. Also the use of a flash rather than external light seems to enhance surface problems. As far as the grading perhaps there should be two grades for a coin like with diamonds with one for clarity and one for inclusions. Read for coins one for grading ie Shelden etc. and two for surface condition. I suppose terms like FDC try to do this but in some ways the grading and the surface condition can be two separate issues.

The above comment refers to the initial post of course.