Consensus on contact marks 1844 Victoria Crown

[Coinery]

For those who have spent more time than I looking at these coins, what’s your thoughts on the level of contact marks for the grade?

I realise these are chunky old coins that are seldom seen with good surfaces...However, are these ‘mechanical’ marks too much for you?

 

[copper123]

Looks like EF/GEF to me very nice for a type coin

[Sword]

Young Head crowns below EF grade tend to have rather high numbers of contact marks. I think this is very nice for its grade. About nEF I would say.

[Coinery]

1 hour ago, copper123 said:

Looks like EF/GEF to me very nice for a type coin

 

50 minutes ago, Sword said:

Young Head crowns below EF grade tend to have rather high numbers of contact marks. I think this is very nice for its grade. About nEF I would say.

Many thanks, gents...appreciate your input.

[ozjohn]

Very nice. Large coins such as crowns collect surface marks  due to their extra weight. Your coin is better than most of the 1/2 crowns graded Ef/g EF. Also the leaves on the reverse are much better minted than most halfcrowns of a similar grade.

[Coinery]

4 hours ago, ozjohn said:

Very nice. Large coins such as crowns collect surface marks  due to their extra weight. Your coin is better than most of the 1/2 crowns graded Ef/g EF. Also the leaves on the reverse are much better minted than most halfcrowns of a similar grade.

Thanks for the insights, John, much appreciated...especially to hear that it outperforms some of the HCs in similar grade, that’s really interesting.

[copper123]

It will certainly attract a premium price anyway , thats what most people are interested in

[Sword]

I don't find Victoria Young Head easy to grade. There is also such a big difference in price for crowns once you get close to EF grade. Nice GVF might be about £400, nice nEF could be £700 and nice EF could be a three figure sum and an UNC example would cost several thousands. The example in the OP is certainly nice in that it hasn't got many contact marks. 

I have been waiting for a nice example of a young head halfcrown as it would cost too much to get the more impressive crown. 

[Coinery]

2 hours ago, Sword said:

The example in the OP is certainly nice in that it hasn't got many contact marks. 

It’s really interesting to hear you say this because I initially thought it could be too marked to be a great coin. Strange how your perception changes in the light of others’ opinions...I can’t see it at all now...maybe it’s all the ‘other’ crowns I’ve looked at in the previous 24hrs that’s done it, I really don’t know?

Re the prices you suggest I think that’s true from all I’ve been seeing...I wonder if we’ll soon be seeing these and indeed all collectibles crashing in the aftermath of the long-term recovery from Covid-19? I’m sure that question has been put to the forum endlessly this past year?

[Sword]

I doubt the prices of coins would come down. Although some people have unfortunately lost their jobs, others are sitting on more money as a result of not able to spend during lock down. Besides interest rate is now so low making saving less attractive. 

[Peckris 2]

On 2/9/2021 at 8:48 PM, Coinery said:

For those who have spent more time than I looking at these coins, what’s your thoughts on the level of contact marks for the grade?

I realise these are chunky old coins that are seldom seen with good surfaces...However, are these ‘mechanical’ marks too much for you?

Not for me - it's a very nice example.

[Coinery]

2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Not for me - it's a very nice example.

Thanks for the input, ‘Peck.’

The feel for grade overall appears to be around NEF...I wonder if it just shakes shy of that? I could of course be blinded by the light of some of the examples that have rocketed in auction the last couple of years, I’m not sure? What’s your thoughts?

[pokal02]

I'd say it's one of those that many sellers would go NEF and many prospective buyers GVF (as far as I can tell without seeing it in hand).  There's a little bit of wear, although not much, in the hair and at the top of the reverse.  I'd agree that the contact marks are fairly insignificant & not enough to downgrade it. 

[VickySilver]

And me as well. If this was priced as GVF, I would be a buyer for sure even though I don't generally go for the Younghead crowns & have made do with a cleaned AU 1847 only - which I would trade in a heartbeat. These are frequently not struck as well as we might like; I have elsewhere commented on the issue with incomplete strike and the problems of such large flans. 

The marks across the cheek and neck take it down IMO to the EF status but remind me of those found on Morgan dollars that were stored in bags with a thousand companions for many years and suffered such. The actual wear is not so bad, and of course magnified by the enlarged format.

[Coinery]

@pokal02 & @VickySilver much appreciated!

VS when you say takes it down to EF, I’m guessing that’s a typo for GEF?

[VickySilver]

Yes, sorry about that...

[Peckris 2]

I'd go with NEF

[Coinery]

2 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I'd go with NEF

Many thanks 🙏 

[Sword]

As Eric has pointed out, the weakness of strike does complicate grading of Young Head. For me, eye appeal for this series is as important as grading. Just out of interest, I have been to the DNW website and look at some examples. Then again no auction house's grading is always right or consistent. 

The example below was graded as GEF, sold for £1350 in 2013 and so would be much much more expensive today. A very impressive specimen.

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by Sword

[Sword]

The next example is described as " few surface marks, otherwise extremely fine or better", sold for £1200 in Sept 2017.

[Sword]

This specimen was described as "cut on cheek and other light surface marks, otherwise nearly extremely fine". Sold in 2020 for £360 which went cheap I think. Lower estimate was £500.

 

 

Finally, this specimen was described as "some surface marks, otherwise good very fine, reverse better". Sold for £300 in 2017.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Sword

[Coinery]

21 minutes ago, Sword said:

This specimen was described as "cut on cheek and other light surface marks, otherwise nearly extremely fine". Sold in 2020 for £360 which went cheap I think. Lower estimate was £500.

 

 

Finally, this specimen was described as "some surface marks, otherwise good very fine, reverse better". Sold for £300 in 2017.

Many thanks for this!

I too carried out a similar exercise with the LC past sales’ list and, as you point out, the differences are spectacularly small for a phenomenal increase in final value.

The way these coins wear and are struck is many, with the example I shared having a much better fringe and front hair band than many GEF examples, confusing the variables of strike, wear, and die condition, much more than usual.

I think you’re right re eye-appeal in these middling to better grades, it’s the best guide in the end.

[Sword]

48 minutes ago, Coinery said:

The way these coins wear and are struck is many, with the example I shared having a much better fringe and front hair band than many GEF examples, confusing the variables of strike, wear, and die condition, much more than usual.

I think you’re right re eye-appeal in these middling to better grades, it’s the best guide in the end.

That's why I really like your example. Well struck fringe and hair band make a big difference to eye appeal. Nice toning and clean fields. The deeper marks (one base of neck and hair) are out of the way and not distracting. The strike is a little weak on the top of the crown on the reverse but this is relatively insignificant. For me, its a definite keeper as it would cost a fortune to upgrade to something significantly better.

[VickySilver]

Quite, and this is the type of coin that is best appreciated by NOT being slabbed although the value might be hurt at sale. Glad to see Sword is evidently of similar opinion with regards to such.

[copper123]

IMO all coins benefit from not being slabbed .

There are plenty more out there that think the same as well