coin grade

[sound]

Arthur,

Do get the book. I have it in digital format on my phone and tablet.

Your comment about accepting a lower grade with eye appeal is spot on from a collecting point of view.

The advice in this thread has been so well explained. Once you get it you will move forward in leaps and bounds.

You might want to look at at some Auction houses such as London Coins & DNW. Look at the archives and future auction photos and see how they grade. As your understanding increases don't be frightened to disagree. You will quickly appreciate that grading is an opinion. Try to be consistent and be prepared to change your mind.

Mark

[arthurcrown]

I've noticed it covers coins from 1797 onward. Is there one that covers early milled aswell or is this a bit of a black art !?

[Coinery]

That's cleared things up a bit thanks. I was previously under the impression any damage affected it's grade across the board, slabbed [iT DOES WITH SLABS]or raw. I've seen coins listed as EF/AUNC with severe edge knocks, corrosion spots etc and questioned the grading [YES, BUT THEY'RE NOT COINS OF EF/UNC VALUE, AS IN PRICE GUIDES...THE CATALOGUE PRICE, WITH ALL OTHER ISSUES ASIDE, ARE QUOTING FOR NON -PROBLEM EXAMPLES OF A GRADE, NOT THE ANNE CRoWN THAT TOMMY BOUNCED DOWN THE ROAD]. I'm guessing I should look more closely at just the wear when assessing.

Personally I'd prefer a problem free coin of a slightly lower grade with no damage to a coin of a higher one with issues [EVERY TIME]. Unless it's for investment purposes I'm going to be looking at it for pleasure [iNVESTMENT GRADE COINS ARE MOSTLY THE SAME COINS AS PLEASURE COINS].

Think I need to do a bit more swotting up on the subject ! I notice there's a book titled 'Grading British Coins' advertised on this website that may be worth a look. [EXCELLENT BOOK]

[arthurcrown]

Ordered !! Thanks for the advice

[Coinery]

I've noticed it covers coins from 1797 onward. Is there one that covers early milled aswell or is this a bit of a black art !?

I think it's all relevant, the principles are mostly the same, once you've sorted out what constitutes a weak/soft strike!

There is an observable gap between grades (when avoiding the 'other' stuff), which is noticeable for each monarch. You just need to grab a monarch and firstly look at what is considered to be an unc (or equivalent for the period), and work back from there, spotting key areas for wear, and maybe knocking up your own version of Derek's book for Charles 2nd coins, as an example? No reason why not!

[arthurcrown]

Right, I'll put into practice what I've picked up tonight and please put me right if i'm wrong.

I recently picked up this Chester mint sixpence from a dealer and didn't ask his opinion on grade.

Good milled edge. Clear legends and portrait but quite a bit of wear so not great detail. Weak strike on reverse at French arms.

I'm going with GF on both sides ??

[Paulus]

Sounds about right to me!

[Coinery]

I'd say you were pretty much spot on, and a good collectable example at that!

[arthurcrown]

Jobs a good'un !!

[Peckris]

Yes, I'd say F+ was right - but do be aware the reverse has 'issues'.

[arthurcrown]

I read the provincial mints of this period were notorious for producing badly struck pieces, the reverse of my coin is an example of this by the looks of it. Weak crowns and french arms which I'm not sure if has also been scrapped ? I've seen other provincial WIII sixpences with exactly the same issue.

[Rob]

A universal feature of early milled is that the reverses tend to wear evenly and without obvious loss of detail. The bust has a lot of relief and the height of that varies across the flan, giving the viewer a rough indication of wear based on say the degree of wear to the hair curls. There is usually no such 'in-your-face' feature on the reverse unless you have a plumes or roses and plumes variety. The interlocked Cs have straight sides, but do not broaden appreciably with wear. The various central motifs are typically not large enough to make an impression and neither are the heraldic devices. Plumes on angles silver is relatively scarce, but gives the best indicator of wear. This is why early reverses always look so good compared to the obverse on a worn example.

[Rob]

I read the provincial mints of this period were notorious for producing badly struck pieces, the reverse of my coin is an example of this by the looks of it. Weak crowns and french arms which I'm not sure if has also been scrapped ? I've seen other provincial WIII sixpences with exactly the same issue.

I presume you mean scraped rather than scrapped. Adjustment marks were a common feature on the silver coinage of James II through to Anne, though quality control on either side of this period seems to have been better. Basically, all they did was to file off a small amount of silver to reduce the weight to the correct value (or possibly to eke out the silver ).

[Paulus]

Rob's absolutely right of course, it's unfortunate that for me (and others I'm sure) such adjustment marks detract from the eye appeal ... I don't imagine they were too bothered about it at the time!

[arthurcrown]

I suppose that's the only way they could adjust the weight as milled coinage had been introduced to prevent common clipping.

As you said though, a shame as it looks like damage.

[Paulus]

I suppose that's the only way they could adjust the weight as milled coinage had been introduced to prevent common clipping.

As you said though, a shame as it looks like damage.

I believe that's the only reason they did it, yes, a shame