Which Crown would you rather own and why?

coinkat

I have posted the trueview images of a 1716 and 1726 George I Crowns.

Which would you rather own?

Which has the better look of the two?

How do you think they graded?

Just alittle background- The 1716 is the first year of issue and 1726 is the last. The 1716 has a greater surviving population as opposed to the 1726 which has a population of 6 in all grades at PCGS.

Bailathacl

Greatly prefer the “look” of the second one. The both look AU (53?).

TheRaven

1716 I believe by a hair. The gunk by the G in George and I just like the reverse of the 1716 better.

bigmarty58

I like the 1716 - 53
1726 - 55

fluffy155

Going by the TV I'd have to pick the 1726. The 1716 looks flat and the fields look off. My guesses for the grades before looking... XF details and 50.

JohnnyCache

I think they are close, with both having their good and bad points, but my eye leans to the 1726.
As for the Why? It's just simply an opinion on which of the two my eye likes more.

Elmhurst

I’d pass on both, sorry. Looks like old cleaning to me.

Cocoinut

I'd go with the 1716. I find the hit on the "R" in GEORGIUS on the 1726 to be too distracting .

bronzemat

I like 1716 too. The hit at 9'o'clock on the 1726 drive me nuts.

pruebas

I like the 1716 as well for the same reasons as above.

HoledandCreative

You can't be too picky with a pop of 6, price would have to be a factor with that spot or hole. I like the 16 better, also.

Bob13

I like the 1716 better as well, mostly due to the reverse rim ding and observe spot.

I could see both anywhere from AU50-55.

John Conduitt

Both are nice coins. They both look good regardless of knocks or old cleaning. Historically, the oldest is more appealing. I don’t know how relevant the PCGS populations are so I don’t know I’d have a coin based on that, but the wear on the 1726 is less. So with it so difficult to choose, I’d go for the cheapest, as whatever grades PCGS have given will dictate that now they’ve been slabbed.

TwoKopeiki

I like the 1712, but it looks to have old cleaning. Maybe neither of those 2 and continue to look for a better example?

Clio

I would've voted for the 1716 without seeing how they look in hand. Interesting to have the scarcer example as well. Would be hard for me to choose.

lordmarcovan

Both nice, but I prefer the first (1716). The second has a black spot at 9:00 which doesn’t ruin it, but does put it in second place as far as I’m concerned.

TPRC

I also prefer the 1716. Don't love the spot on the 1726.
1716-50
1726-53

RedSeals

Id take the obverse of the 1716 and the reverse of the 1726. Glue em together.

neildrobertson

The reverse on the 1726 is strong enough that it outweighs a slight preference for the color on the 1716 obverse.

coinkat

Thanks for all the comments- I thought this might be a thought provoking question on several levels...

The grades... 1716 was AU details and cleaned; the 1726 was graded AU50

A total of 17 1716 Crowns and 6 1726 Crowns have been graded by PCGS. The quality for this series leaves a little to be desired. And the surviving population simply adds to the misery of trying to assemble appropriate examples. The George I crowns simply do not have the quality and look of the George II Crowns which feature a young and old head spread over 10 different dates... 12 if Proofs are included. I write this because this series is not easy to find in any grade- I think PCGS has graded a total of 51 coins for this series of five dates... 1716; 1718; 1720; 1723 and 1726

I suspect some might simply ask... Why did you buy these two? Well, I bought them raw and submitted them to our host. I suspected a straight grade on the 1716 might be problematic because it did withstand a cleaning. I thought it has recovered to the point where a straight grade was possible. This is one time where I can write that both coins look better in hand than in the image. And the images are good... its just that the George II are next to impossible to capture in a favorable light.

I plan on keeping both- they are in the registry set for the series. I really can not express the difficulty I have had even finding examples such as the ones I have posted. Sharing illustrates what is possible even though it may not always be pretty or at a grade that we want. Collecting certain coins is not like going to Burger King... You simply can't always have it your way.

Normally, I would refrain from buying a coin I thought would present a problem in terms of a straight grade. In this instance, I made the decision to live with whatever the outcome might be. I have one other waiting to grade and then I will need one other to complete the set of 5. I should close by writing that this has been a long term project but the decision to create a registry set is more a recent development.

TheRaven

I would ask the question, a coin from 1716, or any coin with that much age to it, wouldn't most of them have been cleaned over the 100's of years the coins have existed. Being this was typically a more excepted action in the past then it is now.

Rexford

@TheRaven said:
I would ask the question, a coin from 1716, or any coin with that much age to it, wouldn't most of them have been cleaned over the 100's of years the coins have existed. Being this was typically a more excepted action in the past then it is now.

Many times, but not always. There are plenty of European coins from this period or earlier that have not been cleaned in a harmful manner. For all coin types there is a threshold where the amount of cleaning present becomes unacceptable for a straight grade, though the severeness of that threshold may vary from coin type to coin type.

coinkat

At the time I submitted both of these crowns, my grade was a straight grade 40 on the 1716 and a 45 on the 1726. I also took some time to look at images from past auctions... And the surviving population really confirms that there simply is not much of a surviving population in a state of preservation in what I would consider "quality for the grade" or just those that have "the look"

I pulled both the 1716 and 1726 out again today to take a deep look//exam. The obverse spot on the 1726 that has most concerned is flaw in the planchet. While it is a distraction, GB coinage from this era has issues including haymarking which can be problematic. This flaw really does not bother me as it is part of what exists for the time frame.

Inasmuch as I will admit to mistakes, the 1716 even with the au details grade is just not a bad coin in comparison to what survived.

Everyone is entitled to their thoughts//opinions.

Bjorn

Is that porosity on the obverse of the second coin, or just tiny toning spots? Like several others, I slightly prefer the obverse on the 1st and reverse on the 2nd coin.

coinkat

haymarking with a planchet imperfection