Halfpenny ID check

[Zo Arms]

Hi all. Thank you for the many opinions.

Definitely not a 13#. I can identify that at a glance, but interesting to see everyone's identifiers. Another pointer, is that the second I of Victoria has been rotated slightly clockwise, so appears more upright.

I didn't post the reverse because I didn't want it to influence the obverse identification. I was thinking F322A but opinions so far make me think I'm wrong. 

Agreed. The coin in hand, when received, will tell all.

[Bernie]

2 hours ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

I reexamined the images and still think it is an obverse 11. To my eyes the spacing of the F:D: (letters and colon) match closer to obverse 11 than 12.

Possibly slightly reminiscent of obverse 13 which I eliminated due to the lack of uneven berries.

I also don't see the spacing as similar to obverse 13#, which, as I stated in the original post has the uprights of the R's in BRITT and REG pointing to a tooth. The coin in question has those 2 features pointing to spaces.

Again however, images can be deceiving, although unintentionally, and the best assessment is done coin in hand.

You are probably correct about the colon dots (my halfpennies are a lot smaller than the one pictured😂)

[Zo Arms]

The coin in my last post arrived last week. As did this one.

This is, I believe, the one I was hoping for. 322A. 13 + J. R17. 

Opinions please.

[Zo Arms]

And the previous coin on top of the 322A for comparison. The colon dots after the G are noticeably wider, which I think confirm the obverse 13.

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

That looks like an F-322a.

Uneven berries...

See attached image

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Can't upload more just yet

I have one raw in my album (that is the specimen that I have posted) and another entombed by ANACS as AU50.

I will eventually post the reverse of the raw specimen and also obverse and reverse of the ANACS example.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

ANACS specimen

Edited December 9, 2021 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Duplicate post

Edited December 9, 2021 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[Peckris 2]

2 hours ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

How that can be described as AU in any sense of the word, is quite beyond me. (Not criticising the coin itself, you understand...) 

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

4 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

How that can be described as AU in any sense of the word, is quite beyond me. (Not criticising the coin itself, you understand...) 

Just commenting and/or observing and nothing else. This can be applied to any similar instance as well.

Firstly, this was a US TPG grading a non-US coin. Secondly, most of the criticising comes from collectors who specialize in their own countries coinage and have become accustomed to their native countries grading standards and terminology. Neither is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT nor ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.

Aside from nuanced grading being somewhat subjective, it also signifies the importance of buying the coin and not the slab (or the number on said slab). Too many buyers (investors) purchase the number and NOT the coin. Collectors mostly will purchase the coin and not the number.

This was given the LOWEST of the four AU grades. Those being AU-50, AU-53, AU-55, and AU-58.

Additionally, although ANACS is highly rated and considered to be amongst the top three TPG's, it not as well regarded as PCGS or NGC.

For what it's worth, I prefer my raw specimen to the stabbed example for eye appeal. Again though, this is strictly subjective to my thoughts. Truly, after all is said and done, "Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder".

[Peckris 2]

11 hours ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

 Secondly, most of the criticising comes from collectors who specialize in their own countries coinage and have become accustomed to their native countries grading standards and terminology. Neither is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT nor ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.

It's not that, at least not from my point of view. It was merely a comment on the degradation of the English language. I have no quibbles with it being graded 50 (which is shy of VF, I think?). It's just that no-one who has any respect for language could POSSIBLY say it was About Uncirculated!!!

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

It's not that, at least not from my point of view. It was merely a comment on the degradation of the English language. I have no quibbles with it being graded 50 (which is shy of VF, I think?). It's just that no-one who has any respect for language could POSSIBLY say it was About Uncirculated!!!

Understood.

I suppose it much would depend upon the degree of latitude allowed by the term 'about'.

A Scenario:

One could, under extreme conditions, be permitted to say a coin is about Uncirculated.  The coin was removed directly from a mint set and accidentally dropped in the street. It was run over by a multitude of vehicles  and flattened by a bulldozer. The coin NEVER circulated.

Is the coin in question UNCIRCULATED with Post Mint Damage? Or is it ALMOST UNCIRCULATED inasmuch as it never truly circulated and indeed does display indications of not being in the condition it was in when it left the mint?

I suppose that a TPG would probably simply entomb it as 'GENUINE with DAMAGE' and thereby be within its rights to collect its fee.

I am somewhat reminded of the stamp collector that insisted upon his acquisitions being never hinged. He would then mount them in his collection WITH hinges and label them as 'UNHINGED BEFORE HINGING'.

Apropos of misuse of the English language is the (mis)use and overuse of the term 'UNIQUE'.

UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES

UNIQUE EVENT

etc.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Bronze & Copper Collector

[Peckris 2]

34 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

Understood.

I suppose it much would depend upon the degree of latitude allowed by the term 'about'.

Agreed. The UK and US have two different grading systems that overlap to some extent. Both use the terms VF and EF for example, though the American equivalents are approximately half a grade lower than the UK equivalent. That's just the way it is. I'd be fine with a US grade of AU being EF by UK standards - it would be logical and perfectly acceptable provided people knew the two systems weren't identical. But to use AU for a condition of 50...!  

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

3 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Agreed. The UK and US have two different grading systems that overlap to some extent. Both use the terms VF and EF for example, though the American equivalents are approximately half a grade lower than the UK equivalent. That's just the way it is. I'd be fine with a US grade of AU being EF by UK standards - it would be logical and perfectly acceptable provided people knew the two systems weren't identical. But to use AU for a condition of 50...!  

Essentially it is a matter of speaking 2 different languages with identical words with similar yet different meanings. You must know how to translate from one to the other.

Not much different from the English language used on either side of the pond.

 

And let us not get into the degradation of the language itself.

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

 

A Brief History (and Explanation) of the Coin Grading Scale

 

When you were going to school and received a grade of 70, that was barely passing.  But when a coin receives a grade of 70 from PCGS, NGC, etc. that means it is absolutely perfect. How come?

We have Dr. William Herbert Sheldon, Jr. (1898 - 1977) to blame for that. In 1948, Dr. Sheldon published “Early American Cents” which contained a novel numerical equivalency system for grades, upon which one could supposedly determine the monetary worth of the coins.

In developing his system, Dr. Sheldon was attempting to find multipliers of a base value for each grade, with a coin in “Poor” condition assigned a base value of “1.” Thus a coin in Fair condition was assigned a multiplying value of 2, and was therefore thought to be worth twice the value of a coin in Poor condition. Similarly, Sheldon decided that a Fine coin was worth 12 times the value of a Poor example, and so on up to a perfect Mint State specimen, which Sheldon decided was worth 70 times the value of the same coin in Poor quality. So, actually, the Sheldon numbers were not meant to define the quality of coins—but rather to indicate the dollar-value in various grades. 

Using the original Sheldon system, if a particular year and variety of a Large Cent had a retail value of $50 in Poor quality, it should be worth $600 in Fine or $3,500 in perfect MS-70.

 

 

Above from Coin World: A Brief History (and Explanation) of the Coin Grading Scale

 

also interesting:

Sheldon coin grading scale - Wikipedia

[Peckris 2]

1 hour ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

In developing his system, Dr. Sheldon was attempting to find multipliers of a base value for each grade, with a coin in “Poor” condition assigned a base value of “1.” Thus a coin in Fair condition was assigned a multiplying value of 2, and was therefore thought to be worth twice the value of a coin in Poor condition. Similarly, Sheldon decided that a Fine coin was worth 12 times the value of a Poor example, and so on up to a perfect Mint State specimen, which Sheldon decided was worth 70 times the value of the same coin in Poor quality. So, actually, the Sheldon numbers were not meant to define the quality of coins—but rather to indicate the dollar-value in various grades. 

Interesting that he started from the bottom and worked up. It would have been a similar system but with different numbers, if instead of starting with Poor = 1, he'd started with Mint State = 100 (for the finest FDC example - an 'ordinary' Unc coin might have merited 90) and then so on down, reaching Poor = 2 for example, or 1.5 even. Which I believe is what the LCGS system instituted over here, at least for a while?

[1949threepence]

Useful link to grading comparisons - link

You have to scroll down a fair bit to get to the most useful one - "Comparing Grades: UK vs. CGS vs. Sheldon"

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by 1949threepence

[Diaconis]

2 hours ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

the Sheldon numbers were not meant to define the quality of coins—but rather to indicate the dollar-value in various grades. 

Maybe Sheldon’s motivation to create the system was pecuniary but the system is meant (intended) to define the quality of the coins”.

 

[Mr T]

I ended up getting a response from Iain Dracott - C1 is C# and J1 is J#, and 1880 has the following die pairings: 15+O, 15+O#, 15# +O, 15#+O#

[Mr T]

Although I think he means 1881 as 1880 is P and P*.

[Peckris 2]

22 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Useful link to grading comparisons - link

You have to scroll down a fair bit to get to the most useful one - "Comparing Grades: UK vs. CGS vs. Sheldon"

Presumably any coin that is Poor (by the UK grading) doesn't get a number, i.e. 1 is a not very good Fair but better than Poor?

[1949threepence]

7 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Presumably any coin that is Poor (by the UK grading) doesn't get a number, i.e. 1 is a not very good Fair but better than Poor?

It certainly looks that way, yes. 

Not 100% clear, but that's the logical assumption.