Graded Holder Jargon

[azda]

Won a coin in which the graded holder (NGC, should i be afraid?) states EF details. WTF is EF details? Does that mean GVF or VF? Anyone know exactly what it means?

[Coinery]

I think VF details, as we are frequently seeing with NGC is perhaps a new way of saying a hammered coin is mostly bloody good, but with a lot of flat spots, etc which, in reality, is a difficult coin to grade, as strike weakness in hammered is such a common thing! It's definitely a crowd-pleasing statement, from the paying slabber's perspective, which is why they're doing it I'm sure!

BUT EF details...???? That's a p*ss-take too far IMO! NGC are losing credibility...if they ever had it!

What is it, hammered, early-milled? Please don't tell me it's more recent than hammered! Shocking!

[azda]

James II Shilling

[Nick]

Won a coin in which the graded holder (NGC, should i be afraid?) states EF details. WTF is EF details? Does that mean GVF or VF? Anyone know exactly what it means?

It means that it is a coin that would have been graded around the EF mark, had it not been rejected for whatever reason (cleaning, environmental damage, surface hairlines etc).

Edited November 15, 2012 by Nick

[azda]

Won a coin in which the graded holder (NGC, should i be afraid?) states EF details. WTF is EF details? Does that mean GVF or VF? Anyone know exactly what it means?

It means that it is a coin that would have been graded around the EF mark, had it not been rejected for whatever reason (cleaning, environmental damage, surface hairlines etc).

Ok, it has a scratch on the REV, but personally with the scratch i'd say GVF. Maybe better to give a correct grade than DETAILS.....It's a 1687/6 and i think G/A in MAG Shilling

[Coinery]

Won a coin in which the graded holder (NGC, should i be afraid?) states EF details. WTF is EF details? Does that mean GVF or VF? Anyone know exactly what it means?

It means that it is a coin that would have been graded around the EF mark, had it not been rejected for whatever reason (cleaning, environmental damage, surface hairlines etc).

Ok, it has a scratch on the REV, but personally with the scratch i'd say GVF. Maybe better to give a correct grade than DETAILS.....It's a 1687/6 and i think G/A in MAG Shilling

As a feather in the cap of CNG...I let them have about 20 coins around 2 year's ago...I'm still reeling from the 1in 4 they returned unslabbed!

Made me cautious from an altogether angle I can tell you. With CNG you have to think 'will they slab this,' or will I have to spread the failed slabbing cost across those that were, which is what I had to do! Quite a wake-up!

[Generic Lad]

The main problem with details grades (especially if bought sight unseen!) is that the same descriptor can mean entirely different things.

"Improperly Cleaned" can mean anything from you can barely see the coin due to the hairlines or that there are slight marks that indicate that the coin had been cleaned at some point in the past. Naturally there's a world of difference between the two coins and of course the grade of "Improperly Cleaned" means there must possibly be "Properly Cleaned" leaving it up to the grader at NGC to determine it.

I really don't understand why TPGers are so popular over here in the US since they seem to do more harm than good.

[ski]

i have a 1893 florin which is AU details and an 1889 d/florin AU details even with a 30 times glass its difficult to see the scratches, lovely coins in the hand.

Chris had a double florin proof on his site...the ngc number indicated it was an "arabic 1", chris's photos showed it was a "roman 1". i wrote to chris and he confirmed the coin was a "roman 1" and that ngc had made a glaring error.

[Peckris]

A grade should mean what it says (i.e. "for wear") but with any imperfections, damage, cleaning, weak strike, scratches, etc, to be pointed out clearly. Sadly that old-fashioned value is dying out.

[azda]

A grade should mean what it says (i.e. "for wear") but with any imperfections, damage, cleaning, weak strike, scratches, etc, to be pointed out clearly. Sadly that old-fashioned value is dying out.

I'd be fine if the coin was 25 year old, but it's a 300 year old plus coin, so surely they should get things right?

[Peckris]

A grade should mean what it says (i.e. "for wear") but with any imperfections, damage, cleaning, weak strike, scratches, etc, to be pointed out clearly. Sadly that old-fashioned value is dying out.

I'd be fine if the coin was 25 year old, but it's a 300 year old plus coin, so surely they should get things right?

Oh, "very fine" surely Dave?

Seriously, I don't think the age should affect the accuracy of the grading. The amount of circulation the coin has had is relevant whether the the coin is 3000 years old or was minted this year?

[azda]

Thank god the spam has been cleared.....Anyway, here's the EF details graded coin. I'm going with GVF............Anyone else

Edited November 16, 2012 by azda

[Paulus]

Thank god the spam has been cleared.....Anyway, here's the EF details graded coin. I'm going with GVF............Anyone else

I would agree with GVF for the Obverse, can we see the Reverse, how are the dates?

[Peter]

Nice coin Dave (obverse)I hope the reverse isn't a rat

[azda]

Nice coin Dave (obverse)I hope the reverse isn't a rat

It has a scratch on the REV Peter, accentuated by the plate size picture (i'll post shortly) its 1687/6 and i think G/A in MAG, although not described as such, so G/A in MAG?

Edited November 16, 2012 by azda

[Coinery]

Nice coin Dave (obverse)I hope the reverse isn't a rat

It has a scratch on the REV Peter, accentuated by the plate size picture (i'll post shortly) its 1687/6 and i think G/A in MAG, although not described as such, so G/A in MAG?

Looks like G/A to me, Dave, good spot!

[Peter]

Very nice Dave.A decent strike with extras.

Crack it out of the slab?

Edited November 16, 2012 by Peter

[azda]

Very nice Dave.A decent strike with extras.

Crack it out of the slab?

Hmmmm, slab cracking this one i'm not sure about as i bought it for the bay and in it's holder it may attract more potential buyers, so will probably leave it as is

[Peckris]

Very nice Dave.A decent strike with extras.

Crack it out of the slab?

Hmmmm, slab cracking this one i'm not sure about as i bought it for the bay and in it's holder it may attract more potential buyers, so will probably leave it as is

Very wise. As for the coin, it has nice detailing (EF!), but I wouldn't care for that scratch, and the obverse has quite a few flecks. Good luck with it though.

[ski]

ive noticed on ebay recently, more cgs slabbs that are sold as

"slabbed but returned as ungraded due to cleaning"

have cgs upped their game.....or just a coincidence.

[Sword]

ive noticed on ebay recently, more cgs slabbs that are sold as

"slabbed but returned as ungraded due to cleaning"

have cgs upped their game.....or just a coincidence.

cgs used to slab any coin (even polished) without grading for £5. However, I think they have stopped doing that as this service has been removed from their current price list.

[numismatist]

very pleasing coin for James II , i like it !!

[ski]

just read this in the cgs catalogue for their Dec auction

NB CGS are now providing a service where 'problem' coins can now be encapsulated, these identifiable by a yellow attribution ticket but without a numeric grade, useful for attribution and authentication.

ski

[azda]

just read this in the cgs catalogue for their Dec auction

NB CGS are now providing a service where 'problem' coins can now be encapsulated, these identifiable by a yellow attribution ticket but without a numeric grade, useful for attribution and authentication.

ski

For helping authentication this Sounds good

Edited November 20, 2012 by azda

[TomGoodheart]

Meh... As everyone knows, milled coins aren't my forte. That would be eating mince pies, but setting that aside, I personally can't see anything EF about your shilling Dave. For that I would expect the garter to be crisper and the letters sharper. I did once have a Charley II shilling where you could read the garter motto. I know some coins are softly struck (William III's seem particularly prone to this). But I would grade as gVF.