Red Riley Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I don't have your grading book Derek, but if the Y P and I in the garter are missing I call them fair, barely visible gives it a Fine as I grade. The obverse of this particular coin is certainly better than Fine, the reverse...?I am maybe harsh on grading this reverse type halfcrown as I have sold quite a few Poor/Fair 1905's over the years that now are Fine/GF in everybody elses grading scales!I did do a bit of research on this, the concensus I got being that most people considered the garter to be part of the design rather than the legend. Since this bit wears so readily, if it was treated as part of the legend, there would be no coins (or at least the reverse of them) in Fine or Fair at all, the grading effectively dropping from VF straight through to Poor. Quote
Red Riley Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Turned on a lathe by the look of it and probably within the past week!Plain as a pikestaff. Quote
argentumandcoins Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I don't have your grading book Derek, but if the Y P and I in the garter are missing I call them fair, barely visible gives it a Fine as I grade. The obverse of this particular coin is certainly better than Fine, the reverse...?I am maybe harsh on grading this reverse type halfcrown as I have sold quite a few Poor/Fair 1905's over the years that now are Fine/GF in everybody elses grading scales!I did do a bit of research on this, the concensus I got being that most people considered the garter to be part of the design rather than the legend. Since this bit wears so readily, if it was treated as part of the legend, there would be no coins (or at least the reverse of them) in Fine or Fair at all, the grading effectively dropping from VF straight through to Poor.I'm old school when it comes to grading Derek. It costs me money but I never get complaints or coins sent back due to overgrading. Even my grading seems very lax when you look at some of the graders from the old days at Spinks and their likes though! I can safely say that if Jim Brown at DNW saw this 1908 HC he would not give it more than Fine, if indeed it made it that high. Quote
Red Riley Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) I'm old school when it comes to grading Derek. It costs me money but I never get complaints or coins sent back due to overgrading. Even my grading seems very lax when you look at some of the graders from the old days at Spinks and their likes though! I can safely say that if Jim Brown at DNW saw this 1908 HC he would not give it more than Fine, if indeed it made it that high.It is undenible that grading has changed but there would be pause for thought if a particular design was always coming up with strange bi-grades such as GVF/F (I'm not saying that applies to this particular coin) and I suspect that there has been a trend to even these things out a little. Some anomolies however still exist and it is commonplace for most George V coins to have a higher grade on the reverse than the obverse, principally because the obverse has so little detail that what there is quickly erodes leaving a largely smooth head whilst retaining a very bold legend. The 1902 crown seems to work in the opposite way to the halfcrown - if you lay it on a table obverse down, the whole thing pivots on the side of the king's head but turn it over, and it sits perfectly flat. The result is a worn head and an apparently unworn reverse. Who said grading was simple! Edited February 10, 2011 by Red Riley Quote
1949threepence Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Is it me or does this one look machined.Error?ROFL!I'm struggling to see what's means to be so interesting about such a coin as that!and me...... Quote
1949threepence Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Another case of outrageous overgrading? Looks no better than good fine to me.1908 HalfcrownI'd rate it an average of VF (obverse not quite there, reverse a bit better)I'd say just about VF as well. Note the rubbing to the letters on the reverse near 3 and 9 o' clock Quote
Peckris Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I don't have your grading book Derek, but if the Y P and I in the garter are missing I call them fair, barely visible gives it a Fine as I grade. The obverse of this particular coin is certainly better than Fine, the reverse...?I am maybe harsh on grading this reverse type halfcrown as I have sold quite a few Poor/Fair 1905's over the years that now are Fine/GF in everybody elses grading scales!I did do a bit of research on this, the concensus I got being that most people considered the garter to be part of the design rather than the legend. Since this bit wears so readily, if it was treated as part of the legend, there would be no coins (or at least the reverse of them) in Fine or Fair at all, the grading effectively dropping from VF straight through to Poor.I'm old school when it comes to grading Derek. It costs me money but I never get complaints or coins sent back due to overgrading. Even my grading seems very lax when you look at some of the graders from the old days at Spinks and their likes though! I can safely say that if Jim Brown at DNW saw this 1908 HC he would not give it more than Fine, if indeed it made it that high.I remember a Coin Monthly piece of advice (late 60s) given out to this very question of garter reverse halfcrowns. The questioner wanted to know if he could grade such items as 'Fine' if some garter letters were worn away. The answer given was that lower standards applied than to the main legend, but if more than a few letters were 'faint' it might be hard to award 'Fine'.How times have changed. Derek's book certainly shows the way, though we might all argue the 'fine points' to some extent. But judging by those pictures, I'd find it hard to justify not giving it an average 'VF' (though a long way from EF!). There's too much hair detail present - always an early casualty on Edw VII, and the reverse is pretty good apart from the high spots. I think grading standards have come down rather, but in one case I'm all in favour. 'Old school' EF said "wear so faint it is not detectable to the naked eye". Well, that argues that if it can not be seen without the aid of a strong glass, there shouldn't be a massive discrepancy between the prices for EF and UNC. But as we know, that differential can be MASSIVE - and it's no coincidence that it's opened up at the same time as EF has become much more 'noticeable' than strictly UNC. Who'd pay a massive difference in price for a virtually invisible difference in condition? I know I wouldn't, for one. Quote
TomGoodheart Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Well to my untrained eye this looks like a replica though I could be wrong. Anyone with strong views want to tell me if I'm wrong (or the seller he's got a dud 'coin' for sale)?STUNNING CHARLES II FARTHING 1674 Quote
Peckris Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Well to my untrained eye this looks like a replica though I could be wrong. Anyone with strong views want to tell me if I'm wrong (or the seller he's got a dud 'coin' for sale)?STUNNING CHARLES II FARTHING 1674You're right to feel uneasy. It just doesn't 'feel' kosher at all. The colour on the obverse is iffy - looks like (perhaps) lead given a coppery coating. The date is suspiciously blurry (normally one of the clearest parts of those issues). And in places it has a cast look about it. I'm not sure I'd want to risk big bucks on it. Quote
1949threepence Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I don't have your grading book Derek, but if the Y P and I in the garter are missing I call them fair, barely visible gives it a Fine as I grade. The obverse of this particular coin is certainly better than Fine, the reverse...?I am maybe harsh on grading this reverse type halfcrown as I have sold quite a few Poor/Fair 1905's over the years that now are Fine/GF in everybody elses grading scales!I did do a bit of research on this, the concensus I got being that most people considered the garter to be part of the design rather than the legend. Since this bit wears so readily, if it was treated as part of the legend, there would be no coins (or at least the reverse of them) in Fine or Fair at all, the grading effectively dropping from VF straight through to Poor.I'm old school when it comes to grading Derek. It costs me money but I never get complaints or coins sent back due to overgrading. Even my grading seems very lax when you look at some of the graders from the old days at Spinks and their likes though! I can safely say that if Jim Brown at DNW saw this 1908 HC he would not give it more than Fine, if indeed it made it that high.I remember a Coin Monthly piece of advice (late 60s) given out to this very question of garter reverse halfcrowns. The questioner wanted to know if he could grade such items as 'Fine' if some garter letters were worn away. The answer given was that lower standards applied than to the main legend, but if more than a few letters were 'faint' it might be hard to award 'Fine'.How times have changed. Derek's book certainly shows the way, though we might all argue the 'fine points' to some extent. But judging by those pictures, I'd find it hard to justify not giving it an average 'VF' (though a long way from EF!). There's too much hair detail present - always an early casualty on Edw VII, and the reverse is pretty good apart from the high spots. I think grading standards have come down rather, but in one case I'm all in favour. 'Old school' EF said "wear so faint it is not detectable to the naked eye". Well, that argues that if it can not be seen without the aid of a strong glass, there shouldn't be a massive discrepancy between the prices for EF and UNC. But as we know, that differential can be MASSIVE - and it's no coincidence that it's opened up at the same time as EF has become much more 'noticeable' than strictly UNC. Who'd pay a massive difference in price for a virtually invisible difference in condition? I know I wouldn't, for one.Very interesting ~ maybe the garter halfcrown non legend reverse lettering, is even more vulnerable to early wear, than the pre 1881 bun penny convex shield. In which case, if you applied the aforesaid Jim Brown's exacting grading standards, such coins could rarely or never be mid grade. They'd pretty much go from EF straight down to fine or lower. Ah, I see this point has already been made. Just read it. Quote
Red Riley Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Well to my untrained eye this looks like a replica though I could be wrong. Anyone with strong views want to tell me if I'm wrong (or the seller he's got a dud 'coin' for sale)?STUNNING CHARLES II FARTHING 1674I don't know... the colour of the obverse is similar to a well-worn specimen that I have (http://pennycrowncoins.co.uk/shopping/pgm-more_information.php?id=103&=SID) whilst the reverse colour is either in need of Photoshopping or has already been 'shopped. Purely on the strength of the photograph I'm going for genuine. Quote
Colin G. Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Well to my untrained eye this looks like a replica though I could be wrong. Anyone with strong views want to tell me if I'm wrong (or the seller he's got a dud 'coin' for sale)?STUNNING CHARLES II FARTHING 1674I don't know... the colour of the obverse is similar to a well-worn specimen that I have (http://pennycrowncoins.co.uk/shopping/pgm-more_information.php?id=103&=SID) whilst the reverse colour is either in need of Photoshopping or has already been 'shopped. Purely on the strength of the photograph I'm going for genuine.I agree, I think it is genuine, but the image has been altered making it look a bit dodgy Quote
TomGoodheart Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 "The photos do not do this coin any justice in our opinion."Odd. I have the same problem. Partly because if a coin looked as good as I wish it looked in the photos I wouldn't be selling it in the first place! Quote
Peckris Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 Sometimes it can work the other way. I just took delivery of a high side of VF 1934 halfcrown for £12, which I thought was a fair price. He advertised it as Choice Uncirculated but anyone could see that it wasn't, so maybe a lot of potential bidders thought "come off it, choice UNC?" and backed out. It certainly kicked my straight VF into touch, and it's not an easy year beyond VF, so I was happy with £12.Maybe people are getting wise to the regular and horrendous overgraders and ignoring them, leaving the field open for those of us who just look at the pictures and don't read the blurb.Somewhere I still have a Coin Monthly from around 1970 where a dealer is advertising a BU 1932 and 1934 for £125 the pair. That's probably near £1000 in today's money. Quote
ski Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 enjoy............http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1889-Queen-Victoria-Silver-Double-Florin-/290533589950?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item43a526c3be Quote
ski Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Somewhere I still have a Coin Monthly from around 1970 where a dealer is advertising a BU 1932 and 1934 for £125 the pair. That's probably near £1000 in today's money.whats his name.....ive £125 waiting Quote
Beebman Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 Ever so slightly out-of-focus... 1858 penny Quote
argentumandcoins Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 Ever so slightly out-of-focus... 1858 pennyI like the "in good condition for age"From that we can assume that his graet granny was born in 1858 and she looks awful now Quote
Accumulator Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 I like the "in good condition for age"From that we can assume that his graet granny was born in 1858 and she looks awful now I think he meant "it's polished up a treat for it's age" Quote
Peckris Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 enjoy............http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1889-Queen-Victoria-Silver-Double-Florin-/290533589950?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item43a526c3beOh shucks. "Bidding.." (i.e. none) "..has ended for this item." There went my opportunity Somewhere I still have a Coin Monthly from around 1970 where a dealer is advertising a BU 1932 and 1934 for £125 the pair. That's probably near £1000 in today's money.whats his name.....ive £125 waiting Blimey - even at today's prices £125 for those two wouldn't exactly be a steal! Quote
Accumulator Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 1847 penny"Needs a clean" apparently! Quote
Colin G. Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 1847 penny"Needs a clean" apparently!And its a farthing!! Quote
Accumulator Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 1847 penny"Needs a clean" apparently!And its a farthing!! :) Quote
Colin G. Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Can anyone else see anything http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120682046117&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp5197.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D120682046117%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1 Quote
Accumulator Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Can anyone else see anything http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120682046117&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2F%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dp5197.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D120682046117%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1If you take "hammered" to mean his state of mind on returning from the pub, then it makes perfect sense.I've closed the window now, but did he say "jester seeks village idiot"? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.