Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
Sword

Contact Marks on Observe and Reverse

Recommended Posts

I think many would agree that with high grade British milled coinage, the observe can often show more wear than the reverse. I assume this is due to fewer "high points" on the observe and so these points experience more pressure when rubbed. E.g. the cheek of George V, the laurel leaves etc. Derek also pointed out in his book that the area of the beard just below the ear on Edward VII crowns wears more rapidly as it is the highest point and sits proud of the rim.

However, I also think that the observe often suffers more contact marks then the reverse. I wonder if you agree with this. If so what do you think are the reasons. The reverse design is a lot more "busy" than the observe and minors marks are less noticeable as a result. But I still think that in the majority of cases, there are just more contact and bag marks on the reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many would agree that with high grade British milled coinage, the observe can often show more wear than the reverse. I assume this is due to fewer "high points" on the observe and so these points experience more pressure when rubbed. E.g. the cheek of George V, the laurel leaves etc. Derek also pointed out in his book that the area of the beard just below the ear on Edward VII crowns wears more rapidly as it is the highest point and sits proud of the rim.

However, I also think that the observe often suffers more contact marks then the reverse. I wonder if you agree with this. If so what do you think are the reasons. The reverse design is a lot more "busy" than the observe and minors marks are less noticeable as a result. But I still think that in the majority of cases, there are just more contact and bag marks on the reverse.

Interesting, do you have a theory as to why this might be the case? I can't think of any reason why one side of a normally circulated coin might experience more contact or bag marks than the other!

Edited by Paulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more a case of human psychology - we are biologically conditioned to react to faces, and therefore would notice wear or abrasions to an obverse more readily than a reverse. I don't think there's any more to it than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many would agree that with high grade British milled coinage, the observe can often show more wear than the reverse. I assume this is due to fewer "high points" on the observe and so these points experience more pressure when rubbed. E.g. the cheek of George V, the laurel leaves etc. Derek also pointed out in his book that the area of the beard just below the ear on Edward VII crowns wears more rapidly as it is the highest point and sits proud of the rim.

However, I also think that the observe often suffers more contact marks then the reverse. I wonder if you agree with this. If so what do you think are the reasons. The reverse design is a lot more "busy" than the observe and minors marks are less noticeable as a result. But I still think that in the majority of cases, there are just more contact and bag marks on the reverse.

Interesting, do you have a theory as to why this might be the case? I can't think of any reason why one side of a normally circulated coin might experience more contact or nag marks than the other!

I don't have any theory at the moment! I will be interested to know if others will agree with the observation that there are often more marks on the observe. (I mistakenly said reverse at the end of my last post. I make a lot of mistakes when I am hungury and still waiting for dinner ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many would agree that with high grade British milled coinage, the observe can often show more wear than the reverse. I assume this is due to fewer "high points" on the observe and so these points experience more pressure when rubbed. E.g. the cheek of George V, the laurel leaves etc. Derek also pointed out in his book that the area of the beard just below the ear on Edward VII crowns wears more rapidly as it is the highest point and sits proud of the rim.

However, I also think that the observe often suffers more contact marks then the reverse. I wonder if you agree with this. If so what do you think are the reasons. The reverse design is a lot more "busy" than the observe and minors marks are less noticeable as a result. But I still think that in the majority of cases, there are just more contact and bag marks on the reverse.

Not really. I haven't noticed any material difference between obverse and reverse when it comes to wear. Both sides seem to suffer equally on average. You do sometimes encounter a situation, on individual coins, in which the obverse is considerably superior to the reverse and vice versa.

Obverses and reverses both tend to have their high points.

So no, I don't agree with your theory.

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick bit of research on the London coins website. I searched the pharse "contact marks on the obverse" in the "realised prices" and it came up with three pages of results. I then tried "contact marks on the reverse" and it only came up with one page. OK, this is only a very crude attempt and might not mean much. But the difference is significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not noticed any differences to the rates of wear to both sides, but I do agree with respect to bagmarks. The obverse does usually have more bagmarks than the reverse. At least that does seem to be true on the post-Victoria era coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick bit of research on the London coins website. I searched the pharse "contact marks on the obverse" in the "realised prices" and it came up with three pages of results. I then tried "contact marks on the reverse" and it only came up with one page. OK, this is only a very crude attempt and might not mean much. But the difference is significant.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks.

Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick bit of research on the London coins website. I searched the pharse "contact marks on the obverse" in the "realised prices" and it came up with three pages of results. I then tried "contact marks on the reverse" and it only came up with one page. OK, this is only a very crude attempt and might not mean much. But the difference is significant.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks.

Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense.

I do agree that contact marks are more obvious in clear fields. This a very long shot, but could it be possible that because the obverse is generally flatter (having more field etc), a clash of two coins can produce two (or a least a bigger) contact mark(s) because one coin can skid on the surface of another. The reverse has more design and so might result in less skidding? Also for the same contact, the mark would be larger if it occur on the field rather than the design as the design protect the surrounding field from damage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick bit of research on the London coins website. I searched the pharse "contact marks on the obverse" in the "realised prices" and it came up with three pages of results. I then tried "contact marks on the reverse" and it only came up with one page. OK, this is only a very crude attempt and might not mean much. But the difference is significant.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks.

Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense.

I do agree that contact marks are more obvious in clear fields. This a very long shot, but could it be possible that because the obverse is generally flatter (having more field etc), a clash of two coins can produce two (or a least a bigger) contact mark(s) because one coin can skid on the surface of another. The reverse has more design and so might result in less skidding? Also for the same contact, the mark would be larger if it occur on the field rather than the design as the design protect the surrounding field from damage?

There is one fact that's indisputable : 99% of obverses have a similar design, i.e. a head surrounded by a circular legend, with clear fields between. Reverses are enormously varied, from the complex and fussy (Eliz II florins and sixpences, George V halfcrowns, Vic JH shillings, etc), through a mid range where there is at least some clear field (Britannia, Vic JH and Geo V florins, lion on crown), to the simple and uncluttered with a lot of field (farthings from 1937, thrift brass 3d, silver 3d to 1936, wreath 6d, etc).

I stand by my earlier claim that we would be less inclined to collect a coin where there was obvious damage to a portrait, than a similar disfigurement to a reverse. I'm not sure why this is, but it could be just human psychology, as I said before (though you made no comment).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite agree, Peckris. Many's the coin I've rejected because a mark is on Victoria's face. If it had been on her clothing or veil, or anywhere on the reverse, I may not have even noticed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, "focal aesthetics" maybe is the term?

I too am in the same boat, as even minimal marks to the face seem to carry so much more weight and a corollary that the same physical dimensions of scuff, brush or mark on either the reverse or lesser area seems to carry so much more import. I remember seeing one of the rarest of all Victorian currency bits, the 1893 Jubilee Head 6d now slabbed as MS64, that was virtually perfect with mirror-like PL fields that had but a single tiny and otherwise seemingly insignificant blemish on Vick's cheek and thinking what a terrible shame that was - the mark itself and the fact that it was accentuated but such an otherwise pristine coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more a case of human psychology - we are biologically conditioned to react to faces, and therefore would notice wear or abrasions to an obverse more readily than a reverse. I don't think there's any more to it than that?

I totally agree with this. The aesthetics of a scratch across the cheek or nose of an effigy can kill a coin's appeal. If the same scratch were in the field it wouldn't impact as adversely. Recently I took delivery of a potentially very nice example of a QEII coin that was pretty much ruined by a small scratch that extended the line of the Queen's mouth giving her a sort of Chelsea smile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the TPGs treat marks on the areas of focal aesthetics any differently to similar marks away from such areas? Am I right in thinking that they count marks up in the higher MS6x grades? Does a mark on the face count for more than a mark elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the TPGs treat marks on the areas of focal aesthetics any differently to similar marks away from such areas? Am I right in thinking that they count marks up in the higher MS6x grades? Does a mark on the face count for more than a mark elsewhere?

I'd personally be surprised if they were quite that systematic although it might be worth asking NGC that question. I was quite surprised last week when I emailed NGC with a question and got a response back THE NEXT DAY that, moreover, actually answered my question. I know slabbers come in for a bit of stick but I was quite shocked by their efficiency and good manners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that they do, and have seen some coins reflecting this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick bit of research on the London coins website. I searched the pharse "contact marks on the obverse" in the "realised prices" and it came up with three pages of results. I then tried "contact marks on the reverse" and it only came up with one page. OK, this is only a very crude attempt and might not mean much. But the difference is significant.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks.

Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense.

I do agree that contact marks are more obvious in clear fields. This a very long shot, but could it be possible that because the obverse is generally flatter (having more field etc), a clash of two coins can produce two (or a least a bigger) contact mark(s) because one coin can skid on the surface of another. The reverse has more design and so might result in less skidding? Also for the same contact, the mark would be larger if it occur on the field rather than the design as the design protect the surrounding field from damage?

There is one fact that's indisputable : 99% of obverses have a similar design, i.e. a head surrounded by a circular legend, with clear fields between. Reverses are enormously varied, from the complex and fussy (Eliz II florins and sixpences, George V halfcrowns, Vic JH shillings, etc), through a mid range where there is at least some clear field (Britannia, Vic JH and Geo V florins, lion on crown), to the simple and uncluttered with a lot of field (farthings from 1937, thrift brass 3d, silver 3d to 1936, wreath 6d, etc).

I stand by my earlier claim that we would be less inclined to collect a coin where there was obvious damage to a portrait, than a similar disfigurement to a reverse. I'm not sure why this is, but it could be just human psychology, as I said before (though you made no comment).

y

I do agree with you Peck that a mark on the portrait is a lot more significant that one in the field. Sorry that I forgot to reply earlier. It is a matter of human psychology in the sense that we care a lot more about how our face look than say our hands. (If we were to have a place a scar on our body, then no one will choose to put it on his face!)I was just wondering whether are other factors at play in addition to this especially for the larger coins with fussy reverse designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the TPGs treat marks on the areas of focal aesthetics any differently to similar marks away from such areas? Am I right in thinking that they count marks up in the higher MS6x grades? Does a mark on the face count for more than a mark elsewhere?

Like Vicky, I also believe that TPGs do take into account on the position of the marks. The PCGS website give the following defintition for MS65 "Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike". By "focal" areas, I assume they mean the face or an important part of the design on the reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the TPGs treat marks on the areas of focal aesthetics any differently to similar marks away from such areas? Am I right in thinking that they count marks up in the higher MS6x grades? Does a mark on the face count for more than a mark elsewhere?

Like Vicky, I also believe that TPGs do take into account on the position of the marks. The PCGS website give the following defintition for MS65 "Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike". By "focal" areas, I assume they mean the face or an important part of the design on the reverse.

Yes, I do agree with you there. A mark on the nose, eyes or mouth is going to have much higher adverse significance, than the same one on the neck, or in the field, for example. Even a slight ding, can alter features quite noticeably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the TPGs treat marks on the areas of focal aesthetics any differently to similar marks away from such areas? Am I right in thinking that they count marks up in the higher MS6x grades? Does a mark on the face count for more than a mark elsewhere?

Like Vicky, I also believe that TPGs do take into account on the position of the marks. The PCGS website give the following defintition for MS65 "Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike". By "focal" areas, I assume they mean the face or an important part of the design on the reverse.

I think they must do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the TPGs treat marks on the areas of focal aesthetics any differently to similar marks away from such areas? Am I right in thinking that they count marks up in the higher MS6x grades? Does a mark on the face count for more than a mark elsewhere?

Like Vicky, I also believe that TPGs do take into account on the position of the marks. The PCGS website give the following defintition for MS65 "Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike". By "focal" areas, I assume they mean the face or an important part of the design on the reverse.

I think they must do.

But surely they should not. The position of a contact mark can affect desirability and hence value but should not affect the grade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the TPGs treat marks on the areas of focal aesthetics any differently to similar marks away from such areas? Am I right in thinking that they count marks up in the higher MS6x grades? Does a mark on the face count for more than a mark elsewhere?

Like Vicky, I also believe that TPGs do take into account on the position of the marks. The PCGS website give the following defintition for MS65 "Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike". By "focal" areas, I assume they mean the face or an important part of the design on the reverse.

I think they must do.

But surely they should not. The position of a contact mark can affect desirability and hence value but should not affect the grade.

We're talking slabs here, the grade's got to be effected otherwise collectors are going to have to actually start looking at the coin in the slab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this article (search for convex), some of the dies used for striking some Australian sixpences were concave or convex which biased which side of the coins suffered more wear.

It says that it happened for coins struck in London so maybe it didn't just happen on Australian sixpences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this article (search for convex), some of the dies used for striking some Australian sixpences were concave or convex which biased which side of the coins suffered more wear.

It says that it happened for coins struck in London so maybe it didn't just happen on Australian sixpences.

Well, wouldn't that explain it well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this article (search for convex), some of the dies used for striking some Australian sixpences were concave or convex which biased which side of the coins suffered more wear.

It says that it happened for coins struck in London so maybe it didn't just happen on Australian sixpences.

I've encountered the occasional coin like that, and it always seems to be the reverse which is very slightly convexed outwards. Barely noticeable but it's there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×