Half Penny "pattern-proof" but graded UNC

[Num-con]

Good evening. I have this 1799 halfpenny graded as "UNC details – cleaned." Leaving aside the debate over whether or not it has actually been cleaned, I noticed that—given the three incuse dots on the truncation of the shoulder—it should have been graded at least as "Proof details." Is it possible that the grader missed the detail of the three incuse dots, or did he deliberately downgrade the coin from Proof to Uncirculated? If I am not mistaken, the coin should be classified as P-1242. If this is indeed an error, what should I do in your opinion? Send it in for regrading or simply crack it out of the holder? Thanks for your opinions.

[Num-con]

[copper123]

Slabbing companies often make many errors from what i have been told, the person paying for the slabbing should make sure the slabbing company knows what they have in their hands the peck number as well , personally I think any slabbing company worth its salt would have a copy of peck and also would refuse to slab a cleaned proof coin as it affects its value a lot , or maybe the slabbing company is just gready😢.

[Num-con]

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, it wasn’t me who sent it in for grading, but in this case I believe there are two errors: one regarding the proof/unc status and the other concerning cleaning. If that were the case (regarding my coin), some of the proof coins I’ve seen graded PF 62/63/64/65 would have to be considered as having been cleaned, but this isn’t always ‘noticed’ by the graders. For this reason, I believe that everyone should rely on their own experience and not blindly place their trust in these companies.

[Rob]

For what it is worth, I think it is a P1242 also. 3 incuse dots limits your obverse options as per Peck's KH17 (P1236) & KH21 (P1242). The reverse isn't that of KH16 due to lack of flaw under Britannia's armpit and the 1 is well clear of the sea, which eliminates P1236. Thus leaving KH21, (which uses the reverse of KH20) as the correct designation. However, it might be worth qualifying that attribution if the pictures were better. I say this because the images are too low resolution to compare directly with my own cleanly struck example. 

1. Do the 3 incuse dots on the truncation align correctly? 2. Is the area underneath the armpit devoid of any flaws? 3. Is there any trace of gunports, however weak they may be? 4. Is the flag on the poop the same size?

Mine has gunports that are barely detectable, but are clearly present. The image gives an impression of a plain hull - which it isn't.

If all those points align on the two coins, then we can safely say it is a P1242 from the same die pair. Given this is a late SOHO strike, it is possible that there might be additional rust spots appearing, but likely only minor ones, as Taylor didn't acquire the dies.

Alternatively and with wishful thinking, a coin with massive die breaks would help settle this once and for all.

 

[Rob]

On 7/30/2026 at 10:15 PM, Num-con said:

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, it wasn’t me who sent it in for grading, but in this case I believe there are two errors: one regarding the proof/unc status and the other concerning cleaning. If that were the case (regarding my coin), some of the proof coins I’ve seen graded PF 62/63/64/65 would have to be considered as having been cleaned, but this isn’t always ‘noticed’ by the graders. For this reason, I believe that everyone should rely on their own experience and not blindly place their trust in these companies.

id'ing and recognising a cleaned coin shouldn't be that difficult. Polished to hell and back again isn't difficult to recognise, but anything not dipped to a brilliant white finish seems to get lumped in with cleaned coins. I have seen a couple of early milled crowns this month to die for at cleaned prices. Sadly I wasn't the first to spot them. Mint state both.

They don't use all the tools at their disposal for id'ing copper either, so again, bargains to be had alongside some odd designations. eg. My 1860 Weyl uniface penny F881 ranked 308th in the pecking order of NGC's 1860 halfpennies P- unlisted. See the thread in the TPG discussions and go figure. You are not alone in your distrust.

[Num-con]

4 hours ago, Rob said:

For what it is worth, I think it is a P1242 also. 3 incuse dots limits your obverse options as per Peck's KH17 (P1236) & KH21 (P1242). The reverse isn't that of KH16 due to lack of flaw under Britannia's armpit and the 1 is well clear of the sea, which eliminates P1236. Thus leaving KH21, (which uses the reverse of KH20) as the correct designation. However, it might be worth qualifying that attribution if the pictures were better. I say this because the images are too low resolution to compare directly with my own cleanly struck example. 

1. Do the 3 incuse dots on the truncation align correctly? 2. Is the area underneath the armpit devoid of any flaws? 3. Is there any trace of gunports, however weak they may be? 4. Is the flag on the poop the same size?

Mine has gunports that are barely detectable, but are clearly present. The image gives an impression of a plain hull - which it isn't.

If all those points align on the two coins, then we can safely say it is a P1242 from the same die pair. Given this is a late SOHO strike, it is possible that there might be additional rust spots appearing, but likely only minor ones, as Taylor didn't acquire the dies.

Alternatively and with wishful thinking, a coin with massive die breaks would help settle this once and for all.

 

Hi Rob, thank you very much for your reply, which, as always, is very detailed. 
I’m attaching a few photos which I hope will help to determine the correct classification. If it’s of any help, there’s a rust spot (or at least I think it is) in exactly the same place where I’ve noticed it on other P-1242s. 

Given that this is a late SOHO, is there a time frame within which it might have been minted, even if it’s just hypothetical?? 

[Num-con]

4 hours ago, Rob said:

id'ing and recognising a cleaned coin shouldn't be that difficult. Polished to hell and back again isn't difficult to recognise, but anything not dipped to a brilliant white finish seems to get lumped in with cleaned coins. I have seen a couple of early milled crowns this month to die for at cleaned prices. Sadly I wasn't the first to spot them. Mint state both.

They don't use all the tools at their disposal for id'ing copper either, so again, bargains to be had alongside some odd designations. eg. My 1860 Weyl uniface penny F881 ranked 308th in the pecking order of NGC's 1860 halfpennies P- unlisted. See the thread in the TPG discussions and go figure. You are not alone in your distrust.

You’re absolutely right. In this case, it turned out to be a bargain because of the incorrect grading. I think there are various levels of cleaning, and unfortunately even light cleaning falls into the same category as more aggressive cleaning methods.
That said, in my opinion it’s a fine specimen with a lovely colour, and I reckon it’ll soon be freed from its plastic cage. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Num-con

[Num-con]

P.s.: I will add other pictures tomorrow