Book on Grading Hammered Coins?

[Coinery]

Hi,

I stumbled across a few forum discussions from this site whilst browsing on google for books on grading hammered coins (interestingly, I couldn't pull them up from this forum using book + grading + hammered + coins).

Did anything ever come of it, it sounded like a great idea?

[azda]

Hi,

I stumbled across a few forum discussions from this site whilst browsing on google for books on grading hammered coins (interestingly, I couldn't pull them up from this forum using book + grading + hammered + coins).

Did anything ever come of it, it sounded like a great idea?

Hi, it was more of a discussion on the grading of hammered coins

[Red Riley]

Hi,

I stumbled across a few forum discussions from this site whilst browsing on google for books on grading hammered coins (interestingly, I couldn't pull them up from this forum using book + grading + hammered + coins).

Did anything ever come of it, it sounded like a great idea?

Hi, it was more of a discussion on the grading of hammered coins

It did get to the point of seriously thinking about it but it really would be a lot of work and isn't really my area. Just as a suggestion, why don't those of us who have hammered coins in our stock/collections post images of them and get them graded by the experts (if they are willing - you know who you are!). The results can then be stored in a separate area of the forum for future reference. I have to say that grading hammered coins is an area where I, and I suspect many others, struggle.

[azda]

I 2nd that re hammered grading, pain in the rear end

[Rob]

The problem with grading hammered is that there is usually a requirement to qualify the grade at some point because of the uneven strike. Double striking is common and depth of strike all come into play. It is a field where XXX for issue has some bearing on the grade. Although it is nice to go strictly on wear when giving a grade, the vagaries of human inconsistency lead to a lot of subjective input. A similar depth of strike to both sides occurs on occasions, but more often than not one side will be stronger. This manifests itself quite well with Elizabeth I shillings where the portrait is frequently weak whereas the lions' faces are clear. The larger the coin, the more likely it is that you find areas of weakness interspersed with what appears to be fully struck detail. It is even possible to have a coin as struck with virtually no detail, meaning that grading doesn't lend itself to a volume such as Red's milled book.

It would be possible to provide a few visual guidelines at the risk of it being limited to a handful of contributors, but the images would soon show the inconsistencies you have to deal with. Far better that people do the research to recognise what is normal for the issue in their chosen speciality and that means lots of images captured off the web together with a fair sprinkling of auction catalogues for the better quality items. For low grade references, eBay as usual will provide all the detail you could ever need.

[scott]

and dont forget with edward I etc, you had very thin, sometimes lower quality silver, which leads to bits coming off, or one design affecting the other side (like ghosting )

[Rob]

and dont forget with edward I etc, you had very thin, sometimes lower quality silver, which leads to bits coming off, or one design affecting the other side (like ghosting )

On the whole, low quality silver isn't an issue until the Henry VIII debasement, though clearly any emergency issue has been produced under less than ideal circumstances. The problem of bits falling off is usually due to the digging tool rather than silver quality or thickness. Ghosting doesn't affect the grade because it is clearly seen for what it is. Obviously, the thinner the flan, the more prone it is to ghosting, but if all the unaffected areas are clear, then you can assign a grade with confidence.

Ok, here's an example with a bit of everything. Grade this. It has flat bits, well struck up bits, striking splits, very slight double striking and isn't round.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Rob

[Rob]

The difficulty in getting people to agree on grades is exemplified by this coin. In various sales down the years it has been assigned completely different grades as follows

Montagu 516, very fine

Hamilton-Smith 95, an unusually good specimen

Lockett 2460, mint state

Willis 298, very fine

Lloyd Bennett, good very fine or better.

For my part, I'd give it nearly EF because the amount of friction is minimal. It has flat bits, but the traces of friction to the high points which have removed the toning show little actual wear (or as Peter mentioned in a different thread - as struck can be almost flat!). A comparison with the two other decent examples of this type (Morr. 1645 F-7) shows the inconsistencies you have to deal with even with coins struck from the same die pair. In the case of these two, different parts are struck up better or worse. And all that is compounded whereby the reverse die is too big for a half crown! Most hammered coins are curate's eggs.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Rob

[TomGoodheart]

Personally I use the guide in Spink's Coins of England at the start of the English hammered series (page 87 in my 2006 edition). It illustrates a coin in EF, VF and F.

Because as others have said, whereas a milled coin can be compared with others to see how much wear it has, hammered coins are more or less attractive depending on more than just wear. Fullness and roundness of the flan. Central or off-centre strike. Thin patches leading to weakness in the strike.

They just aren't that easy to just grade, I'm afraid!

[Peter]

Personally I use the guide in Spink's Coins of England at the start of the English hammered series (page 87 in my 2006 edition). It illustrates a coin in EF, VF and F.

Because as others have said, whereas a milled coin can be compared with others to see how much wear it has, hammered coins are more or less attractive depending on more than just wear. Fullness and roundness of the flan. Central or off-centre strike. Thin patches leading to weakness in the strike.

They just aren't that easy to just grade, I'm afraid!

You either like it or you don't...if you like it the chances are others will too.

Rob's example of different grades is a "fine" (excuse the pun) example where people obviously like it.

Looking at the 1st Edward 1 longcross 1d's...basically they were awful.It took me an age to get a reasonable Bury strike that I could live with.Would it be fair or VF for issue?

[scott]

another decent coin in terms of detail, you can see how clear the detail is at the 10 and 11 o clock position (i have no idea what that is there though) and you can clearly see ghosting.

and god knows what happened to this

[Geordie582]

If you are talking of grading all types of hammered coins you will fall at the fence with Henry II Tealby issues. The truth is you have to take all hammered by the known appearance of the particular issue. VF Tealby's can be practically unreadable