Grading

[Master Jmd]

Do you grade coins from after 1952 as EF if they have lustre?

[Emperor Oli]

Not necesarrily. It could have tons of bag marks, a big gash down the middle and an odd stain on it but still have lustre so one wouldn't grade it EF in that case.

[Chris Perkins]

This is the same poll ad part 1, what an earth has a 1952 threshold got to do with anything?

[Emperor Oli]

Oh no Chris, you miss the famous 1952 numismatic threshold ( ) This poll is after 1952, the other one was before it. Can you tell us the importance of 1952, Master JMD?

[william]

The start of Queen Elizabeth's reign?

[Emperor Oli]

Yeah but there's nothing important, in terms of coins, to do with that year. I mean if it was the Blondeau transformation during Charles II's reign then I can see why but this date isn't important at all

[william]

PS (this extra post is because the edit button's not working! ): I don't grade post - 1952 coins EF just because they have lustre, for the same reason as Oli, but why does it have to be 1952?

[william]

Yeah but there's nothing important, in terms of coins, to do with that year. I mean if it was the Blondeau transformation during Charles II's reign then I can see why but this date isn't important at all

There is something important to do with coins in that year!! A new monarch on the coinage, but most importantly, the 1952 penny was made, it's unique!!

[Master Jmd]

The start of Queen Elizabeth's reign?

yes...

Yeah but there's nothing important, in terms of coins, to do with that year. I mean if it was the Blondeau transformation during Charles II's reign then I can see why but this date isn't important at all

it is more easy to find nice elizabeth coins then nice george VI coins...

[Emperor Oli]

^^ That's a rubbish reason for the threshold

[Chris Perkins]

The concept of grading has nothing to do with how easy it is to find any particular coin. When you have the actual coin, whatever it is, it can be graded subjectively, and the year it was made is irrelevant.

An EF Bun penny of 1867 with lustre in the lower areas is exactly the same as a 1967 EF penny with lustre in the lower areas, despite the 100 years between, and the ease of find one over the other.

You have a way to go Master JMD, stick around you will learn a lot.

[Sylvester]

^^ That's a rubbish reason for the threshold

if that's the case does 1968 count as another threshold? Or 1971?

Or even 1985? and why not 1998, or 2000?

I think you'll find the thresholds are actually 1663 and 1816.

[Sylvester]

I think you'll find the thresholds are actually 1663 and 1816.

but for different reasons than you state.

[william]

I have, thanks for the forum!

[Chris Perkins]

Yes but even those thresholds of major re-coinages, especally the 1816 are questionable. A VF Early Milled Half Crown should have 'lost' just as much metal as a VF 1817 Half Crown.

Althought the practice of grading the 2 is different, even with hammered coins, a VF EI shilling should have lost the same proportion of metal as an EII Shilling, surely?....it's just the different between weak strike and wear that gets harder the further back you go.

[Sylvester]

Yes but even those thresholds of major re-coinages, especally the 1816 are questionable. A VF Early Milled Half Crown should have 'lost' just as much metal as a VF 1817 Half Crown.

the strike is the thing, you have to take into account the level of technology that was used in making the coins, so if you had a moderately off centre George II shilling it wouldn't be much to write home about, but if it had been a George VI coin it would be.

I just feel grading pre 1816 coins is different to grading post 1816 coins, for one grading the former is easier, because they are in higher relief and the designs have much more, design! If you know what i mean? The hair on them is more complex...

[Chris Perkins]

Yes, post 1816 is much easier than pre because of the technology, but it's basically the same thing. Assuming the coin is struck properly you're still looking for how much wear there is.

It's a very complicated thing and it certainly very different for early milled. Hammered, well hammered is like another language.

[Sylvester]

It's a very complicated thing and it certainly very different for early milled. Hammered, well hammered is like another language.

hammered is another language!

[mint_mark]

One of the most important things I have picked up in my journey from beginner to, umm, enthusiast is this... grading a particular design of coin becomes much easier once you have seem a perfect example. Put another way, you can't judge how much of a design is worn away until you know what was there when it was new.

Of course, it implies that older coins are harder to grade because we are less likely to have seen perfect examples to compare against, and as Chris and Sylvester point out the technology was such that even new coins had considerable variation in quality.

There, something for you all to ponder... obvious really when I read it back

[Sylvester]

Of course, it implies that older coins are harder to grade because we are less likely to have seen perfect examples to compare against, and as Chris and Sylvester point out the technology was such that even new coins had considerable variation in quality.

Have you tried grading a King Stephen penny? (or a Henry I or II one for that matter, all as bad)

Allow me to introduce you to (yet again) to a practically as struck example grading VF or better... (and yes the dealer stated that on the receipt, i for one agree with him on this) For this particular series this is a decent example... But from a milled perspective i bet none of you would ever have graded this as VF!

[mint_mark]

Allow me to introduce you to (yet again) to a practically as struck example grading VF or better... (and yes the dealer stated that on the receipt, i for one agree with him on this) For this particular series this is a decent example... But from a milled perspective i bet none of you would ever have graded this as VF!

You are dead right! I have one hammered penny in my collection (Edward I, common to you ) and the reason I bought it was because it was the only one I ever saw where I could read the writing!! I'm pretty sure it's VF because it's not as good as hoard coins in museums but there's not much wear.

I often look at hammered... would love to buy a groat for example... but when I see what's on offer, with clipped flans, cracks, creases and very weak strikes... I just can't bring myself to spend money on those. Now, I realise a complete centered example on a full flan is asking a lot, but surely that should be the standard against which others are graded.

Are you saying your Stephen is VF becuase it is one of the best that survived or because they were all not much better when they were made (as far as we can tell)?

[Sylvester]

It's VF because alot of them looked pretty much like that when struck as far as we can tell.

Most are off centre, have lots of flat patches, some are near impossible to identify to any particular mint. I think the reason for this was a number of factors, firstly the Civil War, perhaps moneyors though it better to make the coins hard to identify to a mint, afterall having a coin with Stephen on it was a political statement (just like those that minted Matilda coins), some even blundered the legends so that they could avoid committing themselves to either side. That i think is half the reason for the flat patches, or the fact that the reverse dies are practically always off centre and the mint name is the bit that's off the edge!

The other half is that the coinage of the preceeding reign had been deteriorating and i imagine that the monarch and Co were not supplying the tools to make the coins with?

If the moneyors are using inadequate worn tools and blanks then the coinage would deteriorate, would it not?

So pretty much my example is VF because it was like that when struck, there is no real wear on the portrait as such compared to the flat patches, now the portrait seems to be damaged but that actually is from the minting process, what you can actually see on the obverse is ghosting of the cross on the reverse.

Now if it had been struck from defaced dies it would have been worth considerably more.

And i know what you mean about hammered coins and the clipping, creasing, missing pieces, it's annoying! I did once come across a gorgeous round groat in EF with a blue grey tone, and an unrecorded varitety!! ... i bought a half guinea instead

[william]

And i know what you mean about hammered coins and the clipping, creasing, missing pieces, it's annoying! I did once come across a gorgeous round groat in EF with a blue grey tone, and an unrecorded varitety!! ... i bought a half guinea instead

Ef?! Why did you buy that half guinea when you had an EF HAMMERED, ROUND groat on offer?

[Sylvester]

And i know what you mean about hammered coins and the clipping, creasing, missing pieces, it's annoying! I did once come across a gorgeous round groat in EF with a blue grey tone, and an unrecorded varitety!! ... i bought a half guinea instead 

Ef?! Why did you buy that half guinea when you had an EF HAMMERED, ROUND groat on offer?

Alright maybe GVF, sorry but it was alot more expensive than the half guinea, and the lure of James II just got to me, i also turned down a Charles II guinea that day too.

Yes i bought the cheapest coin of the three.

[TomGoodheart]

Mint Mark has the right idea. We can all agree what makes a good EF George IV shilling because we know the degree of detail that they were minted with. (Some chap called Wyon put his initials into the border and those of William Pole, Master of the Mint into the shamrock leaves - that's pretty good for a coin the size of a shilling! (you'll need a decent lens to see it!)) And if you can't lay your hands on one at that grade, Spink's yearly catalogue normally features the best examples they can find.

It is however virtually impossible to find a perfect example of every hammered coin to compare. I have to refer to old sale catalogues (useful because they tend to state grades) and books cataloguing major collections (If someone like Brooker who amassed 1,356 Charles I coins could only find a weak example of something and you find a better one there's a good chance you're on to a winner!) If I lived near a major museum then I could make friends with the curators but that isn't too practical out in the cultural void I inhabit! (OK - we do have a gallery and a few other nice things but no museum with coins..)