arthurcrown

I did wonder if old dies might of been re-used, i.e date changes or plain angles engraved with roses etc. In the case of a double struck number in the date, as mine and Michaels, would that mean the 5 was already there in the old die, possibly 1735 ?

Seems strange that as it's from a different reverse die it still has the same double struck 5. Would something like this occur if the die got damaged and needed re-engraving ?

Was examining my new arrival of shillings and noticed what looks like an overdate of the 5 on this 1745 (roses in angles). There's an 1745/3 listed in Spink but I'm not sure if it's maybe this or a double struck 5 Any opinions pls

I suppose that's the only way they could adjust the weight as milled coinage had been introduced to prevent common clipping. As you said though, a shame as it looks like damage.

Thanks. That's a shame, were hoping it was something rare that might pay for Xmas !!

Just been grading some of my collection with the help of my new and very helpful book. Thanks to the other members on here who recommended it to me. I've come across this strange possible overdate of the 4 on this fourpence. It's definitely not a double struck 4, any ideas what it may be ?

I read the provincial mints of this period were notorious for producing badly struck pieces, the reverse of my coin is an example of this by the looks of it. Weak crowns and french arms which I'm not sure if has also been scrapped ? I've seen other provincial WIII sixpences with exactly the same issue.

Jobs a good'un !!

Right, I'll put into practice what I've picked up tonight and please put me right if i'm wrong. I recently picked up this Chester mint sixpence from a dealer and didn't ask his opinion on grade. Good milled edge. Clear legends and portrait but quite a bit of wear so not great detail. Weak strike on reverse at French arms. I'm going with GF on both sides ??

Ordered !! Thanks for the advice

I've noticed it covers coins from 1797 onward. Is there one that covers early milled aswell or is this a bit of a black art !?

That's cleared things up a bit thanks. I was previously under the impression any damage affected it's grade across the board, slabbed or raw. I've seen coins listed as EF/AUNC with severe edge knocks, corrosion spots etc and questioned the grading. I'm guessing I should look more closely at just the wear when assessing. Personally I'd prefer a problem free coin of a slightly lower grade with no damage to a coin of a higher one with issues. Unless it's for investment purposes I'm going to be looking at it for pleasure. Think I need to do a bit more swotting up on the subject ! I notice there's a book titled 'Grading British Coins' advertised on this website that may be worth a look.

So I'm guessing at the end of the day grading is down to the individuals preference as to what is taken into account. Bit of a grey area then with early milled, as you mentioned for some reason a lot of the other coins I've seen similar to mine have a weaker reverse but slightly less wear around the edges on the obverse. Makes it a bit tricky when trying to ascertain value when looking at guide prices and there's such a big difference between grades.

When grading coins is it the obverse which takes priority, i.e if the reverse is stronger is this taken into consideration or is the lower obverse grade given ? My Charles II Halfcrown is a good example of this which I'm unsure about. The reverse is strong with good detail ( VF ?) while the obverse has more wear plus a couple of nicks on the portrait (GF ?)

Exactly. That's why I chose to send them to a well known reputable dealer in the first place. Biggest isn't always best apparently......at least that's what the missus told me