Graded coins

[SeverinDigsSovereigns]

11 minutes ago, Leonmarsh said:

And this is the problem 

People see two AU58 one slightly cheaper than other yet the coins are miles apart 

I have seen 1818 in mid MS and there's wasnt alot of any difference with that Au58

I have also had a coin I thought woul get MS 62came back AU58 snapped it out resubmitted and came back an MS63 

Makes the pop reports a bit of a joke to as the same coin has an AU58 and and MS63 

The population report is a joke anyway. Cracking coins out and resubmitting is common practice and, if I were the grader, I'd be laughing as I get the fees twice or more.

[GoldDiggerDave]

11 minutes ago, Sovhead said:

I’ve mentioned this before I’ve an 1860 sov graded MS61 “Uvedale collection” it’s clearly dirty and has not a copper spot but a very faint copper patch on the shield, if they were addressed would it grade higher?

Copper spots or areas of toning can effect grading  also eye appeal does have an effect.   Theres no one answer fits all, the whole subject of grading coins is highly subjective.   I have shown a very nice 1818 half sovereign to "experts"  and I had wildly different opinions ranging over 3 full grades between them.  

 

 

 

 

[Sovhead]

Does anyone have any info on Spink 3852D?

O over C 1860

pics ?

Edited November 11, 2023 by Sovhead
Typo

[SlowFrog]

2 hours ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

@Sovhead    Details are usually down to "cleaning"  sometimes its easy to see sometimes I'm at a loss when a coin gets details.   The very high points are a tell tale sign and very regular scratches caused by  someone rubbing the coin clean, this can be seen between the letter in the legend, and low areas of the coin. 

This one confuses me because I'm thinking most coins have been cleaned at some point? As in, rubbed with something to remove excess dirt. Even keeping a coin in a pocket could give the same impression. I'm sure there's really obvious exceptions but at what point in a coin's history is the cleaning deemed to not matter anymore? Can I just keep a bunch of my older coins out on top of the wardrobe for a couple of years and flip them every Christmas before sending off for grading?

It's very possible I'm just an ignoramus but whole 'cleaned' thing is the most contentious part for me.

[Leonmarsh]

1 minute ago, SlowFrog said:

This one confuses me because I'm thinking most coins have been cleaned at some point? As in, rubbed with something to remove excess dirt. Even keeping a coin in a pocket could give the same impression. I'm sure there's really obvious exceptions but at what point in a coin's history is the cleaning deemed to not matter anymore? Can I just keep a bunch of my older coins out on top of the wardrobe for a couple of years and flip them every Christmas before sending off for grading?

It's very possible I'm just an ignoramus but whole 'cleaned' thing is the most contentious part for me.

Cleaned is similar to polishing brass 

It removes the underlying patina and lustre of the original finish hence why uncleaned coins are prized if they eye appeal, cleaning bums a coin

[Leonmarsh]

The other thing that gets on my wick is gold coins that are "toned", they don't tone they have been historically cleaned and the chemical used has altered the surface 

[SeverinDigsSovereigns]

1 hour ago, Leonmarsh said:

The other thing that gets on my wick is gold coins that are "toned", they don't tone they have been historically cleaned and the chemical used has altered the surface 

Gold coins that are not .999 do tone over time. It's not gold that reacts with stuff in air but other metals like silver and copper. Silver loves sulphur and forms blue/black bits on the surface, and copper reacts with oxygen to form dark red spots. If stored in moist places the copper spots could turn green. Red bits appear along the legends because the raised letters trap someone's hand oil some centuries ago, and the oil hastens toning (therefore fingerprint toning on many silver pieces). Many sovereigns appear lighter in colour once you properly clean them. By properly cleaning I mean whatever NGC conservation or David does, most likely a soda bath. 

But whilst I enjoy attractive toning on old silver coins, I certainly dislike toning on gold ones. Gold is supposed to be shiny, and even the Roman coins that are more than a millenium old appear shinier than some .900 coins made two centuries ago. 

1 hour ago, SlowFrog said:

This one confuses me because I'm thinking most coins have been cleaned at some point? As in, rubbed with something to remove excess dirt. Even keeping a coin in a pocket could give the same impression. I'm sure there's really obvious exceptions but at what point in a coin's history is the cleaning deemed to not matter anymore? Can I just keep a bunch of my older coins out on top of the wardrobe for a couple of years and flip them every Christmas before sending off for grading?

It's very possible I'm just an ignoramus but whole 'cleaned' thing is the most contentious part for me.

Cleaning is usually indicated by excessive and obvious hairlines that go all directions under light. Most coins will have been cleaned in the past as in rinsed in water sometimes with soap. But wiping with jewellery cloth is a whole new level of cleaning. Toning does hide some cleaning as NGC states that conservation (their marketed cleaning) may reveal old cleaning signs. NGC Conservation and PCGS Restoration are basically cleaning but done properly.

Cleaning is not problematic. Improper cleaning—use of abrasive means or corrosive chemicals— causes a coin to drop in value. Cleaning was once common practice but went out of fashion at some point in the last century. Now 3rd party grading by the likes of NGC is a much recent invention, and it has changed coin collecting as a hobby, for better or worse. The lustre of a coin is key to its eye appeal and often the most important parameter of grading. Ignore what graders call "wear" "high points" "contact marks", as the lustre is more important than all.

Regarding lustre there are actually coins without it. Proof coins may or may not have it but let's ignore those, supposed circulation coins may have little or no lustre, too. This predominantly happens when the dies were highly polished: some of the 1887 sovereigns are proof like and have little or no lustre, and you often see die polish lines on these 1887. 1882 20 Lires from Italy are another example. Graders need to have a lot of knowledge about the coins to decide whether a coin was cleaned to lose it or didn't come with any in the first place.

Edited November 11, 2023 by SeverinDigsSovereigns

[GoldDiggerDave]

9 hours ago, SlowFrog said:

This one confuses me because I'm thinking most coins have been cleaned at some point? As in, rubbed with something to remove excess dirt. Even keeping a coin in a pocket could give the same impression. I'm sure there's really obvious exceptions but at what point in a coin's history is the cleaning deemed to not matter anymore? Can I just keep a bunch of my older coins out on top of the wardrobe for a couple of years and flip them every Christmas before sending off for grading?

It's very possible I'm just an ignoramus but whole 'cleaned' thing is the most contentious part for me.

You do raise a very good point,  I can not tell if every coin will or will not be deemed as "cleaned" "scratched" and then getting the dreaded "details"  attribution.  

Some things I do look out for,

Mechanical cleaning I.E someones gone at the coin and scratched the dirt off,  if you get a pen and paper and scribble back and forth in different directions you will see multiple straight lines all going in the same straight  directions,  a coin thats even been heavily circulated does not get wear or scratch like this so this is one of the easier ones to see.    

Other mechanical is swirl marks, most likely someones gone at the coin with a solvent and a cotton bud to try and remove a stubborn mark. 

Jewellers clothes or just been heavily polished, this tends to round off the highest sharpest points on the coin.  

Ex-Jewellery, look for the obvious signs of mounting but the surface will give it away,  if it looks cratered/orange pealed then its been the subject to been worn in a piece of jewellery over time. 

Scratches......This is a good one, old scratches can effect the overall grade of a coin however there is some tolerance and they don't always get graded as "scratched"  one to look for if the scratch looks new, and the resulting scratch mark is brighter than the overall fields of the coin.   The point where a scratch goes from new to old is subjective and would be based on the eye appeal of the coin.  

Overall consistency of the coin.........   If theres very obvious dirty bits in the hard to reach areas and others are bright new........another sign it's been cleaned. 

Other thing I look for especially on silver coins, crowns etc.  The coin looks toned unmolested  fields are evenly toned and it still gets hit for " details" "cleaned"     Look at the very highest  points of the coin  and these can be very bright in comparison to the rest of the coin and a tell tale sign its been rubbed recently.... certainly in the last few decades.  

This is a coin what was on TIR yesterday the owner was saying its aUNC and he's entitled to his own opinion, based on the photo taken I'm 100% certain this has been cleaned and not very well.

 

You can "conserve" coins its none mechanical cleaning, I do this on almost every new gold and silver proof coins to remove die grease and pick up you get on new coins.,  I'm not keen on conserving old silver coins as it make them look unnatural IMO.       Gold bullion currency coins can look far nicer once they have been conserved and at times theres still some original lustre under the 100+ years of circulation.  

 

 

[SilverJacks]

20 hours ago, Leonmarsh said:

My AU58 and another AU58 recently sold 

Night and day, eagles shoulder feathers, fields heavily marked yet same grade 

Strangely the bird looks like it's eaten a bit much too 

Whilst I would agree that the reverse looks nicer, i feel compelled to defend my coin with a more balanced view. I have sold the coin at what I thought was a good price and I don’t want the buyer to read this thread and be disappointed or have regrets. I sold at the best value and barring a significant drop in spot price, you’d be hard pressed to find an AU58 any cheaper.

The reason they are the same grade is down to wear. Ordinarily during circulation, the highest point of the coin (the relief) wears first. But with these coins being incuse, the highest point (aside from the mint mark) is the fields. With that in mind, lustre in the fields is highly prized for these coins. Although not all coins get that prominent lustre, some are made with more than others but in any case wear will show first in the fields due to the incuse design.

Both coins will likely have similar degree of wear to the fields, making them both AU58s and as such, carry similar premiums. The bag marks aren’t all that different to me, although the lighting can make them more prominent in photos.  Personally, I don’t consider them night & day at all. But the difference is in the strike. Yours is very well struck, mine is weaker struck, at least the reverse is anyway. Tbf it is not uncommon to see MS grade coins with similarly weak design in the eagles wing.
If they had no wear in the fields, they would both be MS and it seems your coin would be higher grade due to strike, although that’s all hypothetical.

Anyway, I am not an expert, a numismatist or a coin guru, but I just thought I would state this to give a more balanced view, as I am hoping the buyer is happy with his purchase. If a buyer is disappointed , then I am disappointed too.

And my bird has not eaten too much, yours just has a faster metabolism!

 

[Leonmarsh]

No need to defend the coin it was a bargain at 500 I paid 625 for mine when spot was alot lower and I would have bought that one too if I had the cash 

To be fair that pic is alot better especially in the birds shoulder feathers than was originally posted again shows how's pics can confuse things 

It a belting coin at a great price buyer will be happy I would be 

 

[SilverJacks]

Yours is an impressive 58 also mate. A very strong strike tbf. I'm sure it will be snapped up soon 👍

[SlowFrog]

18 hours ago, SeverinDigsSovereigns said:

Gold coins that are not .999 do tone over time. It's not gold that reacts with stuff in air but other metals like silver and copper. Silver loves sulphur and forms blue/black bits on the surface, and copper reacts with oxygen to form dark red spots. If stored in moist places the copper spots could turn green. Red bits appear along the legends because the raised letters trap someone's hand oil some centuries ago, and the oil hastens toning (therefore fingerprint toning on many silver pieces). Many sovereigns appear lighter in colour once you properly clean them. By properly cleaning I mean whatever NGC conservation or David does, most likely a soda bath. 

But whilst I enjoy attractive toning on old silver coins, I certainly dislike toning on gold ones. Gold is supposed to be shiny, and even the Roman coins that are more than a millenium old appear shinier than some .900 coins made two centuries ago. 

Cleaning is usually indicated by excessive and obvious hairlines that go all directions under light. Most coins will have been cleaned in the past as in rinsed in water sometimes with soap. But wiping with jewellery cloth is a whole new level of cleaning. Toning does hide some cleaning as NGC states that conservation (their marketed cleaning) may reveal old cleaning signs. NGC Conservation and PCGS Restoration are basically cleaning but done properly.

Cleaning is not problematic. Improper cleaning—use of abrasive means or corrosive chemicals— causes a coin to drop in value. Cleaning was once common practice but went out of fashion at some point in the last century. Now 3rd party grading by the likes of NGC is a much recent invention, and it has changed coin collecting as a hobby, for better or worse. The lustre of a coin is key to its eye appeal and often the most important parameter of grading. Ignore what graders call "wear" "high points" "contact marks", as the lustre is more important than all.

Regarding lustre there are actually coins without it. Proof coins may or may not have it but let's ignore those, supposed circulation coins may have little or no lustre, too. This predominantly happens when the dies were highly polished: some of the 1887 sovereigns are proof like and have little or no lustre, and you often see die polish lines on these 1887. 1882 20 Lires from Italy are another example. Graders need to have a lot of knowledge about the coins to decide whether a coin was cleaned to lose it or didn't come with any in the first place.

 

9 hours ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

You do raise a very good point,  I can not tell if every coin will or will not be deemed as "cleaned" "scratched" and then getting the dreaded "details"  attribution.  

Some things I do look out for,

Mechanical cleaning I.E someones gone at the coin and scratched the dirt off,  if you get a pen and paper and scribble back and forth in different directions you will see multiple straight lines all going in the same straight  directions,  a coin thats even been heavily circulated does not get wear or scratch like this so this is one of the easier ones to see.    

Other mechanical is swirl marks, most likely someones gone at the coin with a solvent and a cotton bud to try and remove a stubborn mark. 

Jewellers clothes or just been heavily polished, this tends to round off the highest sharpest points on the coin.  

Ex-Jewellery, look for the obvious signs of mounting but the surface will give it away,  if it looks cratered/orange pealed then its been the subject to been worn in a piece of jewellery over time. 

Scratches......This is a good one, old scratches can effect the overall grade of a coin however there is some tolerance and they don't always get graded as "scratched"  one to look for if the scratch looks new, and the resulting scratch mark is brighter than the overall fields of the coin.   The point where a scratch goes from new to old is subjective and would be based on the eye appeal of the coin.  

Overall consistency of the coin.........   If theres very obvious dirty bits in the hard to reach areas and others are bright new........another sign it's been cleaned. 

Other thing I look for especially on silver coins, crowns etc.  The coin looks toned unmolested  fields are evenly toned and it still gets hit for " details" "cleaned"     Look at the very highest  points of the coin  and these can be very bright in comparison to the rest of the coin and a tell tale sign its been rubbed recently.... certainly in the last few decades.  

This is a coin what was on TIR yesterday the owner was saying its aUNC and he's entitled to his own opinion, based on the photo taken I'm 100% certain this has been cleaned and not very well.

 

You can "conserve" coins its none mechanical cleaning, I do this on almost every new gold and silver proof coins to remove die grease and pick up you get on new coins.,  I'm not keen on conserving old silver coins as it make them look unnatural IMO.       Gold bullion currency coins can look far nicer once they have been conserved and at times theres still some original lustre under the 100+ years of circulation.  

 

 

Awesome posts! Thanks chaps - lots of really interesting and valuable info shared.. 👍