coinkat

There was an EF40 graded by PCGS that was featured in a Stacks-Bowers auction about 3-4 years ago- I believe it sold in the $6,000 range. I was able to see the coin before the auction- In hindsight it was not a great numismatic moment for me by choosing to pass

Rob- In all fairness, in the 2012 Spink the 1697 Crown was listed at 17,500 pounds in EF. Even at 47,500 pounds in EF that is just not reflective of its rarity. If it were a US coin, it would easily be $300,000-$350,000, if not more which is significantly more than Spink's current valuation which has escalated 30,000 in roughly four years. There is little interest in promoting British rarities and this is one of the better examples that comes to mind. And yes, there are others in all denominations.

The series of Crowns from the reign of William III may contain one of the most underrated Crowns- The 1697-

Unfortunately, I have not have enough experience with George I Crowns to rank them with a high degree of confidence. I do agree with your thoughts- especially as to the 1726 being the hardest. I suppose if we wanted to make this even more of a challenge, we could rank by condition rarity. That is where the real fun and disagreements will likely surface.

My mistake- It is one terrific coin I have a 1673 Farthing graded MS62 by NGC- I think I submitted it over 15 years ago.

I am not attempting promoting TPG, just sharing images of my coins that I thought would be of interest here. Collectors have different objectives and it is up to the individual collector to determine what role TPG may have, if any, in their collection. Rob, we can agree that grading has a subjective component. And that likely will not change in the foreseeable future. Grading remains a process that is used to best describe the state of preservation of a coin- And really should be subject to efforts to improve the process. Such efforts should seriously consider the variation in the strike of a coin, the dates within a specific series instead of applying a one size fits all approach. While subjectivity will never be eliminated, it seems that we can make the process reflective of the times. Nice Farthing- And I would like to see the reverse before offering a definitive opinion. However, in looking at the high points and the fields, I would likely call it MS.

Thanks for your comments Rob. The only MS coins were the 1902 Crown, 1893 Crown and 1698 1/2 Crown- all those graded 64. Before posting the grades, I thought it might help to have some thoughts as to the look of these coins, the good the bad and just plain old thoughts as to how these measure up to what a collector anticipates for a certain grade. To answer your questions, I suspect your observations likely are why both the 1902 and 1893 did not grade 65. The 1698 1/2 crown has a terrific look-not sure the image really captures the coin. Part of the problem with early milled coins is expectations. These coins are a product of the times. Collectors and graders sometime just miss the obvious in terms of the strike and quality which includes haymarking among other challenges of the time. A 64 grade for that coin is fine... the look is better in hand. Part of what i wanted to share is that obtaining a 65 grade with certain British coins is very difficult. The 1734 Crown graded 58- It is clearly is not mint state, but how often does one see a George II young head crown that has an original look? I should add that I have a Mint State example of this date that was graded by NGC. And there is a significant difference. My point here is merely to show the challenge of finding a well struck example of this high relief coin. And the 1758 Shilling was posted mainly because there was a nice image to share. It is a common coin but still worth sharing.

In an effort to share images of British coins purchased raw, I posted a 1698 Half Crown, a 1758 Shilling, an 1893 Crown and a 1734 Crown in separate posts. A 1902 Crown was added to the 1902 discussion that was already ongoing. These were graded and photographed by PCGS. I hope the participants here take the opportunity to see them. These images sort of illustrate that it is not easy to obtain a 65 grade for a Victorian Crown and especially the Edward VII Crown. The 1734 Crown shows the high relief and how problematic obtaining a well struck example. It is a challenge to examine these at the high points- especially the hair and eye Good luck in your collecting endeavors

http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/20740897_large.jpg

http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/11713213_large.jpg

http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/26218398_large.jpg

Sorry about the technical challenges...

http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/05728398_large.jpg

http://images.pcgs.com/SecurePlus/26218399_large.jpg

Both of these are quite attractive-

In terms of 1/2 Crowns, the 1915 appears to be the most available with an above average strike of the WWI era. The one pictured above is basically as good as it gets in terms of the strike. I rarely see well struck portraits of George V on 1/2 crowns of this time. I looks for these but I have set the bar relatively low

nice crown Garrett

Welcome and thanks for posting the image- It certainly gives us something to examine and think about. From the image, I simply am unable to say with absolute certainty. The coin is obviously worn-likely a high end VG10 by US Standards. If it is a counterfeit, I think the likelihood is that it is a contemporary counterfeit from back in the day- It just does not have the look of a modern fake. Some counterfeit coins can be deceptive in terms of the quality.

The top coin looks terrific- easily 64 by US standards if not 65. For this date and the way TPG looks at these, seeing in hand is really needed. I can see 65- If I understand this correctly, CGS graded this an 80. The Matte Proofs are an equal challenge- I see this one as a 66-looks as if it was just removed from the case. And CGS graded this a 91. Both coins are fantastic- Thanks for sharing pictures

Your criticism of US TPG is justified in terms of overlooking British varieties- In all fairness, some varieties have a way of remaining a well guarded secret. Unless one knows what to look for, it can escape the attention of those that one would anticipate to recognize it. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way it is...

I have not searched for the low 2... is there a premium for that variety? Also, did CGS recognize the B.P. over another B? My experience with this date from across the pond is that one can find nice matte proofs and commercial strikes if one searches and is patient. However, both NGC and PCGS are very strict and rarely seem to grade them as a 65 or 66. 64 in both of types is as good as I have done buying raw and submitting. I suspect your CGS 91 is an amazing coin- congrats

Nice coins... an attractive 1864 is one coin I rarely see... I don't recall seeing such a clear 1862/1 either. Congrats

I doubt there would be much controversy as the 1751 being the rarest or the the 1746 LIMA being the most available- I suspect others may place the 1750 or 1732 higher in terms of rarity than I have- What is even a greater challenge is estimating the quantity minted. Most of what I have read suggests that that George II Crowns were not even seen often back in the day. The mintage figures for these dates could range dramatically. Unfortunately, it seems all we will ever have for these series is estimates for the mintages and surviving population.

Welcome- looking forward to your commentary

I went to look for the forum that I posted my ranking of George II Crowns and could not find it. I am not even sure it still is around. So I will post share my current thoughts: From the rarest to the most common and I will group the young head and old heads together- 1751, 1735, 1734, 1736, 1750, 1732, 1739, 1741, 1743 leading to what I have experienced as the most available in terms of surviving population the 1746 LIMA. I suspect some may argue that I have placed the 1732 too far back and that may be right. However, that was the first year of the series and it seems more than we think managed to survive.