Your Indulgance Please Another Dilemma.

[ozjohn]

Another coin I have  a  1890 florin, The obverse IMO is gEF/UNC while the reverse is a weak strike.  Again opinions   sought. How do you come up with an overall grade for a coin like this. It has to be said I like this coin a lot and not considering an up grade. Not sure why the line is through the last two sentences.

Edited May 24, 2019 by ozjohn
More info

[Rob]

Can't tell. The resolution isn't good enough when blown up, but there doesn't appear to be much, if any wear to the stippled area between ear and collar, and that is the first to go.

[ozjohn]

Rob,

The higher resolution scan for your consideration. This is close to 400 MB with a limit of 500m MB , If you want better perhaps the 500 MB limit needs to be increased.

Ozjohn

[ozjohn]

PS the original scan was 5,25 MB limited to 0.375 MB for the post. Sorry I got the max upload wrong by several orders of magnitude, However the one I posted is close to the limit of 0.49 MB and the same comment regarding upload limit still applies,

Edited May 24, 2019 by ozjohn
spelling

[Peter]

Blimey....that is ugly.....and I've just had a shave.

[1949threepence]

It's an interesting question - does the strength/weakness of the strike influence the overall grade? 

I always thought it did, but I might not be entirely right. According to a tutorial by Heritage auctions, the strike quality doesn't affect the grade but might affect the numerical hierarchy of the grade.

link to article  

Quote

It is important to note that Uncirculated and similar terms refer only to the fact that the coin has no wear. The presence or absence of bagmarks, toning (discoloration), or a strong strike does not affect a coin's Uncirculated status, although such things can affect the numerical grade of the coin.

Mind, that's only one opinion. 

As for the coin in the photo, I'd go for about EF both sides. But it isn't a brilliant pic to be honest.  

[ozjohn]

Sorry about the picture quality but it was scanned at high resolution.

[Peckris 2]

8 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

It's an interesting question - does the strength/weakness of the strike influence the overall grade? 

I always thought it did, but I might not be entirely right. According to a tutorial by Heritage auctions, the strike quality doesn't affect the grade but might affect the numerical hierarchy of the grade.

I'd say 'no' - the grade refers to wear. However, a good or poor (rather than an average) strike should be part of the description and would affect the value. Another point to bear in mind is whether the coin in question is most usually encountered weakly struck; one example would be the 1895 YH farthing where the catalogue value takes into account that the reverse is generally quite weak, and a good example would carry a premium over that.

[1949threepence]

44 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

I'd say 'no' - the grade refers to wear. However, a good or poor (rather than an average) strike should be part of the description and would affect the value. Another point to bear in mind is whether the coin in question is most usually encountered weakly struck; one example would be the 1895 YH farthing where the catalogue value takes into account that the reverse is generally quite weak, and a good example would carry a premium over that.

I was thinking of those George V pennies, typically between 1911 and 1921, which are often weakly struck, with deficiencies in the breastplate and/or KIng's hair. There's a number of BU examples with those poorly struck areas, but also some of often slightly lesser grade with a great strike. Technically the grade is unaffected, but the eye appeal is in the lesser grade fully struck up versions.    

Edited May 24, 2019 by 1949threepence

[Peckris 2]

18 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I was thinking of those George V pennies, typically between 1911 and 1921, which are often weakly struck, with deficiencies in the breastplate and/or KIng's hair. There's a number of BU examples with those poorly struck areas, but also some of often slightly lesser grade with a great strike. Technically the grade is unaffected, but the eye appeal is in the lesser grade fully struck up versions.    

Yes, that's another example where the weaknesses on the reverse are quite normal. I'd say the BU value in Spink is for a normal strike and you could add a premium for fully struck up examples. They're scarce!

 

[Mr T]

On 5/24/2019 at 10:41 PM, 1949threepence said:

It's an interesting question - does the strength/weakness of the strike influence the overall grade? 

To me it should - early British George V pennies or later Australian Perth Mint bronze can really have poor strike and even though they might be technically uncirculated, if they don't look the part then they're not really uncirculated.

[ozjohn]

Surely the condition the coin leaves the mint defines the grade. It's too easy to just assume a weakly struck coin has been circulated. A lazy approach. Each coin should be appraised on its merits and any defects noted. This is the strength of the Shelden system where MS 60 defines the coin as UNC and higher grades awarded  on lack of bag marks, lustre etc.  Not that the TPGs are consistent in their grading which is their weakness.

Edited May 26, 2019 by ozjohn

[Sword]

I don’t think it matters very much as the grade alone is insufficient description of the coin. So I think GEF, no wear, weak strike means the same thing as UNC, weak strike. It might even be beneficial for a dealer to use the former as it gives an impression of a stricter standard.

As has been pointed out previously, the Spink definition of “fine” is “a coin that exhibits considerable wear on the raised surfaces of the design, either through circulation, or damage perhaps due to faulty striking.” Hence, I assume that some would give a lower grade for a coin that is particularly weak strike. 

Another reason why I don’t think it matters is that most of the grading terms are, misnomers anyway. “Good” means the opposite of what it is reality. “Fine” isn’t fine. “Extremely” as in extremely fine is not extreme. The majority of coins described as “uncirculated” have probably been circulated for however brief periods of time. Even the term “mint state” doesn’t quite work as no one can be certain if the contact marks were in fact caused by circulation or not. TPG have no issues describing toned coins as “mint state” even though coins are of course not toned when there were just minted. 

In short the coin is the same regardless of the grade assigned by an individual. Personally, I think the phrases like “fully lustrous”, “particularly well struck”, “very few bagmarks”, “minor hairlines” etc are more helpful providing they are given in good faith. 

[Peckris 2]

On 26 May 2019 at 3:41 PM, Sword said:

I don’t think it matters very much as the grade alone is insufficient description of the coin. So I think GEF, no wear, weak strike means the same thing as UNC, weak strike. It might even be beneficial for a dealer to use the former as it gives an impression of a stricter standard.

Agreed

As has been pointed out previously, the Spink definition of “fine” is “a coin that exhibits considerable wear on the raised surfaces of the design, either through circulation, or damage perhaps due to faulty striking.” Hence, I assume that some would give a lower grade for a coin that is particularly weak strike. 

You'd have to ask them,but my interpretation is that "faulty" is not the same as "weak".

 

[Sword]

11 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

As has been pointed out previously, the Spink definition of “fine” is “a coin that exhibits considerable wear on the raised surfaces of the design, either through circulation, or damage perhaps due to faulty striking.” Hence, I assume that some would give a lower grade for a coin that is particularly weak strike. 

You'd have to ask them,but my interpretation is that "faulty" is not the same as "weak".

What would be your interpretation then? I can't think of another meaning for "faulty striking" apart from "exceptionally weak strike for the series".

 

[1949threepence]

11 hours ago, Sword said:

What would be your interpretation then? I can't think of another meaning for "faulty striking" apart from "exceptionally weak strike for the series".

 

I suppose it could be die fill or a die clash on an otherwise flawless strike. It would still be a faulty striking, although the die itself would not be worn.

[ozjohn]

Assuming we are still talking about the original subject of this post. Part of the reverse is reasonably well struck which includes the bottom shield, the Scottish shield and the thistle pointed sceptre. Perhaps uneven thickness of the planchet or a misaligned die.

[Mr T]

On 5/26/2019 at 7:48 PM, ozjohn said:

Surely the condition the coin leaves the mint defines the grade. It's too easy to just assume a weakly struck coin has been circulated. A lazy approach. Each coin should be appraised on its merits and any defects noted. This is the strength of the Shelden system where MS 60 defines the coin as UNC and higher grades awarded  on lack of bag marks, lustre etc.  Not that the TPGs are consistent in their grading which is their weakness.

At the end of the day I want a nice coin and I'm not fussed on whether it's wear or circulation.

[Peckris 2]

On 28 May 2019 at 10:14 AM, Sword said:

What would be your interpretation then? I can't think of another meaning for "faulty striking" apart from "exceptionally weak strike for the series".

Yes, I would class 'faulty striking' as for an individual coin. However, weak strikes especially due to worn dies are quite common (some denomination years are known for it, see above) so I personally wouldn't class 'weak' the same as 'faulty' but YMMV.