Options
GTG: my (oldp) 1694 Milan Filippo + more
EVillageProwler
Posts: 5,859 ✭✭✭✭✭
In a different thread not long ago, folks commented that my raw 2 Scudi (1656-IAB Genoa) looked such-and-such grade, and I agreed that the coin did look such-and-such grade but that we need to be careful because some series commonly are poorly struck and look lowly-graded even when fresh from the mint. But, it's hard to debate grading opinion with a bunch of folks who aren't familiar with the series (me included).
So, now, I want folks to GTG this coin that has been straight-graded by our hosts. I will say that this coin is in a modern slab (probably 2 or 3 years old), and that the image has been processed by me using PSE to try to make it look both nice (ahem!) and faithful to the actual coin. I took the pictures with my iPhone 6 in direct afternoon sun light.
One thing I want to ask of all respondents: please do not give wild guesses, but try to make educated guesses based on some modicum of research or analysis. Thanks!
.jpg)
So, now, I want folks to GTG this coin that has been straight-graded by our hosts. I will say that this coin is in a modern slab (probably 2 or 3 years old), and that the image has been processed by me using PSE to try to make it look both nice (ahem!) and faithful to the actual coin. I took the pictures with my iPhone 6 in direct afternoon sun light.
One thing I want to ask of all respondents: please do not give wild guesses, but try to make educated guesses based on some modicum of research or analysis. Thanks!
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
0
Comments
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
It's an undated (1741-51)-FP Scudo (of 140 Soldi) from Venice, Dav-1544. It too was done from my iPhone 6, with PSE. The bad thing about this coin is that it is in extra-thick (causing wrist and finger contortions to avoid shadows and glare), but otherwise regular size, PCGS straight-grade holder. I'll add that the surfaces are very lustrous, much more so than the 1694 Milan Filippo.
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
As for grade on yours, I am not an expert on world coins by any means, but your coins look lustrous to me and given the variations in striking characteristics, I would say they have very little wear. The first has an obverse that is at least au and the reverse looks a bit weak. I'll go with a 53. The second looks lustrous though the reverse looks a bit flat. Still, I'll say 58-63, and I'll guess 62 if reverse has any luster and I'll guess it does.
Mine is also an au.
Tom
My Milan Filippo is graded AU55 by our hosts. It is an extremely poor example of craftsmanship. The planchet is not smooth, and the strike consequently uneven and generally poor. I feel this is a circ because of the rub on the cheek (and perhaps elsewhere). However, as I wrote before, this coin actually has luster. IMO, the correct grade range for this beast is AU53 to AU55: 53 if the TPG penalizes it for its lousy craftsmanship, and 55 if the TPG is forgiving.
My Venice Scudo has copious luster on the shield side and slightly less so on the cross side (the coin is slightly bowled, concave on the cross side). IMO, the correct grade range is AU55 to MS62. It has the look of an AU62+ coin; my guess is that if I submitted it raw many times, the two most likely grades will be AU58 (#1) and MS62 (#2). Our hosts not only put this coin in a lousy extra-thick holder, but also called it AU55. Talk about adding insult to injury!
As for your Milan 1/2 Scudo, I'd need some sense of how lustrous it is, because that will decide whether the coin is AU53/55 or AU55/58 (or better!).
Here is my undated (1554-56) Naples & Sicily 1/2 Ducato. What do you think is its grade? I will say that my image is horrible: the coin is actually very flashy. I know it is unfair to as GTG using lousy images. Sorry!
UPDATE: I re-did the image for my Naples & Sicily 1/2 Ducato, and it shows the luster better.
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
EVP - I had to step away from the computer for the weekend so I didn't get a chance to respond to earlier comments. I think the venice scudo might have more legs than a 55. The strike seems to be good and surfaces look nice. I would have thought AU-58....maybe a chance at 61.
On a separate topic, I struggle with the influence that luster should have on the technical grade. I know this has been covered in past threads. I guess you could consider me to be more bearish than bullish when it comes to luster. The trouble I have with it might be a byproduct of my misunderstanding of the attributes of luster. First, I honestly do not see how a coin with EF details can have luster. It takes some significant circulation to wear down the high points of a coin to bring it to an EF, doesn't it? During this gradual process, I find it hard to believe that mint luster remains intact, even in the protected nooks & crannies of a coin. The second aspect of luster that causes me to pause is how to interpret luster on a 300 to 400 year old coin. I have seen luster described as the perception of cartwheel effect on surfaces of mint coins resulting from the irregularities and flow lines that were present in the dies used to strike it. That being said, I wonder if people sometimes misinterpret clean surfaces as luster original to the minting process, when in reality the coin has actually been cleaned/wiped over time in a market acceptable fashion? For what it is worth, here is an article on luster (from ebay of all places) that describes luster. I don't know the author's credentials but I think the article makes its point.
Article on luster
<< <i>For what it is worth, here is an article on luster (from ebay of all places) that describes luster. I don't know the author's credentials but I think the article makes its point. Article on luster >>
A good read, for sure. BTW the very bottom says
<< <i>Article provided by PCI, Inc. Coin Grading Service. >>
So it appears the eBay user plagiarized. Well … that explains what it's doing on eBay!
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>On a separate topic, I struggle with the influence that luster should have on the technical grade. I know this has been covered in past threads. I guess you could consider me to be more bearish than bullish when it comes to luster. The trouble I have with it might be a byproduct of my misunderstanding of the attributes of luster. First, I honestly do not see how a coin with EF details can have luster. It takes some significant circulation to wear down the high points of a coin to bring it to an EF, doesn't it? During this gradual process, I find it hard to believe that mint luster remains intact, even in the protected nooks & crannies of a coin. The second aspect of luster that causes me to pause is how to interpret luster on a 300 to 400 year old coin. I have seen luster described as the perception of cartwheel effect on surfaces of mint coins resulting from the irregularities and flow lines that were present in the dies used to strike it. That being said, I wonder if people sometimes misinterpret clean surfaces as luster original to the minting process, when in reality the coin has actually been cleaned/wiped over time in a market acceptable fashion? For what it is worth, here is an article on luster (from ebay of all places) that describes luster. I don't know the author's credentials but I think the article makes its point.
Article on luster >>
I think this is a far more complicated topic than just presented in the above paragraph. First, I want to say that I am assuming we're talking about US grading standards. Specifically, about the quasi-ANA standards adopted by NGC and PCGS. Right?
Well, both services (especially PCGS) are still learning how to grade world coins. They have outside expert consultants that help with attribution as well as "attribution" (if you know what I mean).
If a coin is struck using a hammered method, then that should have a different set of allowances than one struck from a far more modern method. And, the Germans and Austrians generally seem to have done a much job minting coins than, say, the Italians and British. Some coins are birthed with very poor luster (like my Filippo) while others are awesome (like a Hogmouth taler from Hall).
For US coins, even from as early as 1795 Draped Bust dollars, I think it is ok to expect trace luster in the protected areas on EF-graded coins. But, don't expect that for a 1794 dollar. It's just a one-year difference, but the difference in quality of the effort was huge.
And, finally, luster isn't always presented as a cartwheel. On coins with busy designs, or with die striations, you will find it very hard to see a cartwheel. Therefore, it is common for the noobs amongst us to get fooled by unscrupulous sellers marketing cleaned/wiped/whizzed/etc coins are natural.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>
<< <i>On a separate topic, I struggle with the influence that luster should have on the technical grade. I know this has been covered in past threads. I guess you could consider me to be more bearish than bullish when it comes to luster. The trouble I have with it might be a byproduct of my misunderstanding of the attributes of luster. First, I honestly do not see how a coin with EF details can have luster. It takes some significant circulation to wear down the high points of a coin to bring it to an EF, doesn't it? During this gradual process, I find it hard to believe that mint luster remains intact, even in the protected nooks & crannies of a coin. The second aspect of luster that causes me to pause is how to interpret luster on a 300 to 400 year old coin. I have seen luster described as the perception of cartwheel effect on surfaces of mint coins resulting from the irregularities and flow lines that were present in the dies used to strike it. That being said, I wonder if people sometimes misinterpret clean surfaces as luster original to the minting process, when in reality the coin has actually been cleaned/wiped over time in a market acceptable fashion? For what it is worth, here is an article on luster (from ebay of all places) that describes luster. I don't know the author's credentials but I think the article makes its point.
Article on luster >>
I think this is a far more complicated topic than just presented in the above paragraph. First, I want to say that I am assuming we're talking about US grading standards. Specifically, about the quasi-ANA standards adopted by NGC and PCGS. Right?
Well, both services (especially PCGS) are still learning how to grade world coins. They have outside expert consultants that help with attribution as well as "attribution" (if you know what I mean).
If a coin is struck using a hammered method, then that should have a different set of allowances than one struck from a far more modern method. And, the Germans and Austrians generally seem to have done a much job minting coins than, say, the Italians and British. Some coins are birthed with very poor luster (like my Filippo) while others are awesome (like a Hogmouth taler from Hall).
For US coins, even from as early as 1795 Draped Bust dollars, I think it is ok to expect trace luster in the protected areas on EF-graded coins. But, don't expect that for a 1794 dollar. It's just a one-year difference, but the difference in quality of the effort was huge.
And, finally, luster isn't always presented as a cartwheel. On coins with busy designs, or with die striations, you will find it very hard to see a cartwheel. Therefore, it is common for the noobs amongst us to get fooled by unscrupulous sellers marketing cleaned/wiped/whizzed/etc coins are natural.
EVP >>
Good commentary.
Given how variable grading can be on America's 200 years of "modern" coins, and how poorly certain coins grade fit into the ANA standards / Sheldon scale (like the 1794 dollar), then adding the complexity of hammered coins and coins minted in very different locations with different techniques... Well it makes assignment of numerical grade a seemingly hopeless endeavor.
I have always preferred assigning grade ranges to hammered coins: F, VF, EF, etc. I don't think a hammered coin should ever be graded uncirculated (UNC, FDC), although regularly this is done. Very few qualify as EF. Very few original hammered coins have luster, since the majority of them were pulled out of the ground and have more than 500 years of oxidation. Some that have been cleaned and dipped have apparent luster, but not original surfaces, so I'm not sure what to call that.
With milled coins of the last 400-500 years, it's a little trickier, as some are found in fantastic condition, and a good number are not from buried hoards. I think it's OK to give these coins numeric grades, but should be careful not to grade them in the same way you'd grade an American coin. As EVP mentioned, luster can appear differently than on modern issues. Blast white coins are always dipped/cleaned, and toning is most frequently quite dark. Die breaks, irregular flans, chips, bumps, evidence of cleaning and scratches are often the norm, and for the most part would detract from the numeric grade but do not condemn a coin to "genuine" status.
Grading coins will create some controversy either with standards, how standards are applied and whether there is consistency. Grading has evolved in the US as to US coinage and the question remains of whether the Sheldon Scale will be accepted elsewhere for world coinage. While grading and slabs provide a benefit in many ways, it remains part of an evolutionary process. Grading a coin really serves to provide an objective opinion as to it's condition. And this is where the controversy starts because the opinion must consider the quality of the strike and where that quality fits in for the date and the series. Objectivity often crumbles and subjectivity takes over as lustre and originality are considered. Lustre is important, however, it is often muted by the original look and layer of what accumulates on a coin after circulating or being stored. Muted lustre usually does not get benefits especially in the EF45-AU53 range.
Lustre is often viewed solely in terms of reflectivity. This analysis is often short sided because reflectivity is muted. The real test is to look for remain die flow lines in the fields and whether the fields are in fact muted. If the fields are flat with wear and die flow lines are gone, a lower grade is warranted. If not, the originality of the coin can hinder the chance of a higher grade which is unfortunate. This is a huge issue for coins in general and presents a true grading challenge. This circles back to preference and subjectivity. Some folks have a clear vision of lustre instead of a more expansive view which is to look for what creates the lustre.
World coins, especially early milled coins, are held to an unreasonable standard. We have benefit of technology and hindsight. In the process of grading coins today, there seems to be minimal sympathy in terms of the limitations of minting coins 200-400 years ago. As an example, look at British coins from the reign of Charles II through George I and you will see flecking and haymarking. Unfortunately, coins that feature the challenges of the day are frowned upon today. Finding fully struck Charles II and James II coins is a challenge. The strike of these coins often heavily dictate the grade. And that is not likely going to change even though the standard seems unrealistic.
I am not even going to start with Hammered grading... another thread and another time.
edited Sunday morning for some clarity
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.