Grading question on 1819 Crown

[Paulus]

Partly as a reaction to all the copper / bronze / penny posts on this forum in the last few days I think we need some ESC!

Sadly I might sell this coin, it is my best example of the type that I have left. It has proof-like fields and gorgeous toning when tilted to the light at various angles, most of which I haven't managed to capture on camera.

The grade is surely EF or higher, what are people's thoughts? Can you spot any problems that I haven't? (It looks problem-free to me, it is a standard LIX with stops btw) ... what do people think this might be graded on the US 1-70 Sheldon scale or the CGS 1-100 scale based on the pics below?

[ozjohn]

It's a nice coin but I am just wondering if it has been cleaned at one time as I can see slight scratch marks all in the same direction especially on the reverse of the coin.

[Peckris]

It's a nice coin but I am just wondering if it has been cleaned at one time as I can see slight scratch marks all in the same direction especially on the reverse of the coin.

They might not be scratches, but traces left by rubbing with the wrong kind of cloth?

At any rate, I find it hard to see anything more than very slight rubbing in places, and no actual wear anywhere. I'd say it was virtually 'as struck' and therefore AUNC.

[pokal02]

EF for me (much nicer than all my VF's) - seem to be a few surface knocks particularly on the obverse.

[Peter]

US MS63

CGS 65

UK Aunc

It is blown up to saucer size so I bet it looks great in hand.

[coinkat]

While the coin is well struck and has appeal, the real question as to grade will be the severity of the light hairlines. A coin such as this with PL surfaces tend to amplify hairlines so it really boils down to preference and the subjective nature of grading. On the Sheldon scale, I agree that it is MS. However, based on the image it seems that 62 would be my limit on the high side and an unc details grade would be my low.

As for CGS- good question and 65 seems reasonable

[azda]

I'm with Peck on this one regarding being rubbed/dusted with a cloth. The lines don't seem harsh enough for cleaning IMO, but the light and dark Patches at 3 and 9 oclock on the REV is a strange one. Grade, i'd be happy to say EF maybe a smidge more

[Paulus]

US MS63

CGS 65

UK Aunc

It is blown up to saucer size so I bet it looks great in hand.

That's about where I have it Peter, it's been a keeper for a while due to its tremendous eye appeal 'in-hand'.

I don't think it's been cleaned either, but it does have very faint hairlines and some obverse marks.

One thing that has always struck me is how different a coin can look in the very slightest of different lights. Very often with distance buying you only get 2 pics of a coin to judge its grade/eye appeal/problems by, but the photography is everything. My photography has improved but still has some way to go to get to BRG's standard (the best I have seen on this forum). Some eBay sellers are very fond of choosing lighting effects which show the coin off to its best advantage (for obvious reasons), which can often fail to show some defects (I am not suggesting they have doctored the images in any way, which I would regard as rogue trader practice, if not fraudulent).

Here is the same coin, these pics are taken with the same camera using the same settings and the same (indoor) lighting set up. The only adjustment to the pics is that they have been cropped and resized to about 500 pixels. The only difference between these and the pics in the OP is that the coin has been tilted very very slightly. Any comments?

[Peckris]

I haven't changed my opinion.There's no evident wear, so I'm sticking with AUNC

[Paulus]

Thanks Peck, I was also wondering whether anyone had any comments to make about the difference in the two sets of pics, given the very minor difference in set up - which set of pics would make you more inclined to bid, if this was on your wants list?

[Peckris]

Thanks Peck, I was also wondering whether anyone had any comments to make about the difference in the two sets of pics, given the very minor difference in set up - which set of pics would make you more inclined to bid, if this was on your wants list?

I think probably the first - there's more contrast and therefore relief, and there isn't the flash reflection.

[Paulus]

Thanks Peck, I was also wondering whether anyone had any comments to make about the difference in the two sets of pics, given the very minor difference in set up - which set of pics would make you more inclined to bid, if this was on your wants list?

I think probably the first - there's more contrast and therefore relief, and there isn't the flash reflection.

Thanks Peck, there is no flash involved, what you are seeing is the toned proof-like fields reflecting the light

[Peter]

That coin is a credit to your collecting eye.

It really can't get better and a keeper.

(I still haven't located a few bits of foreign silver for you)

[coinkat]

In looking at both sets of pictures, I am inclined to withdraw my prior thoughts. I would rather see this one in hand before opining further which clearly is not possible.

[brg5658]

Lovely coin and design -- one of my favorites.

Now, as to grade -- that coin would likely not past muster as a "problem-free" coin on this side of the pond. It looks to have been cleaned with many parallel hairlines going up and over the devices (thus they are not simply die polish lines). If submitted to one of the two grading companies here, I can almost assure you it would grade out as UNC - Details (Cleaned). On a bad day, it could go AU - Details.

...now...all of that being said...I think it is a very eye appealing example of the type, and I would not care one iota if it was "blessed" by a plastic factory. The detail is all there and the toning is lovely.

[brg5658]

I'm with Peck on this one regarding being rubbed/dusted with a cloth. The lines don't seem harsh enough for cleaning IMO, but the light and dark Patches at 3 and 9 oclock on the REV is a strange one. Grade, i'd be happy to say EF maybe a smidge more

If rubbing/dusting with a cloth leaves hairlines, then it's cleaning by my definition. Where does one draw the line on your side of the pond? I'm asking this because I really want to know.

I would never rub a coin with any type of cloth as it will always impart hairlines. Peck said "rubbing with the wrong kind of cloth"...I don't know of any "right" kind of cloth.

[Peckris]

I'm with Peck on this one regarding being rubbed/dusted with a cloth. The lines don't seem harsh enough for cleaning IMO, but the light and dark Patches at 3 and 9 oclock on the REV is a strange one. Grade, i'd be happy to say EF maybe a smidge more

If rubbing/dusting with a cloth leaves hairlines, then it's cleaning by my definition. Where does one draw the line on your side of the pond? I'm asking this because I really want to know.

I would never rub a coin with any type of cloth as it will always impart hairlines. Peck said "rubbing with the wrong kind of cloth"...I don't know of any "right" kind of cloth.

Two things here :

1. Rubbing with a cloth can leave faint lines that are only on the 'film' around the coin, i.e. they're not permanent, and could be washed off. That's what I was referring to - if they are permanent striations then I agree with you - CLEANED!

2. The "right" kind of cloth is a microfibre cloth - if it won't scratch the lenses in my spectacles, it won't scratch a metal coin!! Your local optician will have them, or maybe you can Google them?

Edited August 26, 2014 by Peckris

[brg5658]

I'm with Peck on this one regarding being rubbed/dusted with a cloth. The lines don't seem harsh enough for cleaning IMO, but the light and dark Patches at 3 and 9 oclock on the REV is a strange one. Grade, i'd be happy to say EF maybe a smidge more

If rubbing/dusting with a cloth leaves hairlines, then it's cleaning by my definition. Where does one draw the line on your side of the pond? I'm asking this because I really want to know.

I would never rub a coin with any type of cloth as it will always impart hairlines. Peck said "rubbing with the wrong kind of cloth"...I don't know of any "right" kind of cloth.

Two things here :

1. Rubbing with a cloth can leave faint lines that are only on the 'film' around the coin, i.e. they're not permanent, and could be washed off. That's what I was referring to - if they are permanent striations then I agree with you - CLEANED!

2. The "right" kind of cloth is a microfibre cloth - if it won't scratch the lenses in my spectacles, it won't scratch a metal coin!! Your local optician will have them, or maybe you can Google them?

Microfibre cloths most definitely leave permanent scratches on metal. The Mohs hardness of silver is around 2.5. Copper is around 3. Glass has a hardness of around 5 -- and most optical lenses (if polymer based) are coated with anti-scratch preparations. You can do what you'd like, but rubbing with a cloth of any kind on a coin's surface will leave hairlines and will ruin the coin's originality.

[Benny who]

Really sorry for the size of these photobucket would not let them be reduced.

This it the same coin that you have,the large S in pisstrucci under the truncation and the additional m struck over the missing serif on the m of Bitanniarum,The As' also look as if the have had additional line struck across the lower Serifs or a central triangular punch before the letters were formed.the T has also had a revamp.

This would be my thought that these dies are from the 1818 Crowns and have been somewhat reworked,

take for instance the 9 of the date has a flat spot under the bowl where the eight would have been attached also the top of the tail on the nine is very flat,there are other remarks about the date,however these would be inconclusive due to the wear on both coins(that is unless you can see a crack running along the top of the first one and the eight.(i have a picture prefect crack on an 1818 Crown)

It seems also that there was a lot of problems with the reverse the letters seemed smaller on the 1818's with QUI having the most difficulty,

it would be interesting to see if the is any movement on the garter line positioning

My own thought would be that this is one of the 1818/1819 Crown,albeit normal for the Crowns to be 18/19

Very nice coin with good detail,I knew that i had one similar with the large S.

[Sword]

Very nice crowns Benny and Paulus. I think the recut letters make them a lot of interesting. I particularly like the large S on Benny's and the Y (large Y over small Y I assume) on Paulus. I have an 1818 (with right serif of 1 missing) but no recut letters unfortunately. Do these recut letters make much difference to value?

As to the discussion of cloths, I think it is a more likely that foreign particles on the cloth or the coin itself that are guilty of causing hairlines than the cloth itself.

[Peckris]

Very nice crowns Benny and Paulus. I think the recut letters make them a lot of interesting. I particularly like the large S on Benny's and the Y (large Y over small Y I assume) on Paulus. I have an 1818 (with right serif of 1 missing) but no recut letters unfortunately. Do these recut letters make much difference to value?

As to the discussion of cloths, I think it is a more likely that foreign particles on the cloth or the coin itself that are guilty of causing hairlines than the cloth itself.

My thoughts exactly. I've used microfibre cloths for years and haven't seen hairline scratches. Mind you, I only use them sparingly anyway, not as a matter of course.

[Benny who]

Very nice crowns Benny and Paulus. I think the recut letters make them a lot of interesting. I particularly like the large S on Benny's and the Y (large Y over small Y I assume) on Paulus. I have an 1818 (with right serif of 1 missing) but no recut letters unfortunately. Do these recut letters make much difference to value?

As to the discussion of cloths, I think it is a more likely that foreign particles on the cloth or the coin itself that are guilty of causing hairlines than the cloth itself.

I think with the letters recut it can help trace back a coins origin,take for example London Coin has a 1818 with the same serif missing (LOT 2794)

There are no letters recut,however the C of DECUS has been double struck,if your coin has the same,then it was struck in the same batch.If you then come across a Crown with all same points of Reference,however the P of Pence has also been recut,that to me would point to the next stage of the die pairings life.

[Sword]

Thanks Benny. Mine only have the missing serif but the C of DECUS is not double struck.

(For some reason, the "quote" button is no longer working for me. I have just replaced my computer and need to adjust a setting somewhere I guess)

[bronze mad]

Partly as a reaction to all the copper / bronze / penny posts on this forum in the last few days I think we need some ESC!

Sadly I might sell this coin, it is my best example of the type that I have left. It has proof-like fields and gorgeous toning when tilted to the light at various angles, most of which I haven't managed to capture on camera.

The grade is surely EF or higher, what are people's thoughts? Can you spot any problems that I haven't? (It looks problem-free to me, it is a standard LIX with stops btw) ... what do people think this might be graded on the US 1-70 Sheldon scale or the CGS 1-100 scale based on the pics bel

Partly as a reaction to all the copper / bronze / penny posts on this forum in the last few days I think we need some ESC!

Sadly I might sell this coin, it is my best example of the type that I have left. It has proof-like fields and gorgeous toning when tilted to the light at various angles, most of which I haven't managed to capture on camera.

The grade is surely EF or higher, what are people's thoughts? Can you spot any problems that I haven't? (It looks problem-free to me, it is a standard LIX with stops btw) ... what do people think this might be graded on the US 1-70 Sheldon scale or the CGS 1-100 scale based on the pics below?

Great coin A/unc i recon, got some hairlines under magnification probably not visible in the hand! some letters on rev look like they are double struck,

U I M? Y