Buying Some Coins - Have a Question
ELuis
Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭✭✭
I found some coins and one in particular a 1R has this kind of punch or maybe an old small weld left just above the crown, am I right, or what do you think that can be?
On the other side, it is minimal if any:
I asked too, the person that is selling the coin, waiting for the response.
Thanks.
0
Comments
What country if Mexico (unless 1732 or 1733) wait and find better if Peru or Guatemala best to buy when the chance is there in front of you.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
Is from Mexico 1746.
Is there something left over, maybe the coin was used as a pendant?
The coin condition is way nice, except for that minimal issue.
Wait a better 1746 will show up. May take time but one will show up. I am not sure what caused that damage.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
1746 1 real Mexico 18 graded numerical by NGC and 9 by PCGS that is a lot compared to other dates. By date most Mexico 1 reales are not rare except a few like 1732, some 1733's and 1771.
Over 2 years and have yet to see one single 1771 for sale. Still looking for one for my set.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
Thank you, I can pass this one.
Sure Mexico 1 reales are tougher than Mexico 8 reales 1732-1771 but with a little patience most dates show up for sale from time to time. But the 8 reales are much more sought after by collectors.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
I have been looking for a RAW 1R sample in a nice condition at least just to have one in a better condition, on the other coins that I was looking at, I found another one a 1744 in the XF+ or AU without any issues.
Buy the 1744 that is a tough grade. Anything that grades numerical XF or higher is tough for any date in this series 1732-1771 (some do not exist in that grade for certain dates). Graded 1744's in that grade cost anywhere from 300$-450$.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
As for ungraded coins in that grade range XF-AU I cannot say the exact price range I have never found any as of yet anyways in 2+ years.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
Not easy to find, they do not show up too often for sure.
So, you got/found your 1745 Mo M 1R PCGS MS-63 - Graded? - A way nice 1R indeed!.
That coin is not the norm of my collection I am not rich by any means and never will be. I can buy 1 new mint state per year max while collecting other lower graded coins. I guess that is better than never been able to add any new ones in that grade to my collection. I am very happy with my small time collection 99% in EF or lower. I am just as happy to own those coins as any coin in mint state. It is the history behind the coins I appreciate not the grades.
To many other bills to pay I am afraid. Not complaining just stating a facts.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
I do not get to enjoy mint state coins I put them (in this case I only own 1 so far) in my bank vault with any other coins of a certain value. And they never come out of there. I enjoy the images I have of them that is it. With cheaper coins I can keep them in my home safe and look at them more often.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
I also buy coins in other conditions, except always try to avoid the holed ones or with details.
TPGs have a lot to answer for in terms of what is 'acceptable'. Being mounted in jewellery, cleaning, holes etc are seen in a much worse light because of them. They should be cheaper, but now they are leper coins. It's nonsense.
I agree for Mexico (minus the milled 1732's) but for other countries some dates are so tough I am OK with details or holed (Peru, Guatemala).
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
It’s the market’s decision how to collect or value Details coins. The TPGs are just describing what is there. Would you rather those issues not by noted by sellers?
And you’re part of the market. If you think they’re undervalued and under-appreciated, you should be buying them.
It's not the market's decision to classify coins as 'details' and put it in bold letters on the front, bigger than anything else. Of course anything that says DEFECTIVE on it will put off buyers. But all coins are defective - the TPG's have just chosen the ways they consider fatal. Other coins with 'damage' still straight grade because the 'damage' isn't quite as much.
If they want to offer a helpful service, the TPGs should do what auctions and dealers do - list all the pros and cons of a coin. It's the 'details' designation that should be binned, not the coins.
Oh, I do. What grade would these get?
GRAFFITI:
George IV 2nd Issue Penny, 1826
London. Copper, 34mm, 18.09g. Laureate portrait of King George IV facing left, legend around, date below; GEORGIUS IV DEI GRATIA. Seated figure of Britannia facing right, trident in left hand and shield bearing the Union flag in right, legend around and national flower emblems in exergue, BRITANNIAR: REX FID: DEF: (S 3823).
The obverse is engraved 'The Patron of Frivolity and VICE’ in response to George IV’s extravagance. In 1820, when he tried to divorce Queen Caroline for adultery, she became an anti-monarch figure, enabling activists to overcome state censorship and revitalize reform. It was also the run up to the Catholic Emancipation Act 1828. The reverse is engraved ‘To Perpetuate Royalty £50,000 a year to a German Whelp' referencing an annuity of £50,000 per annum paid to George’s only child Princess Charlotte’s widower, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, despite his becoming King of Belgium in 1831.
FAKE:
Commonwealth Contemporary Counterfeit Halfcrown, 1653
Tower. Silver, 32mm, 5.8g. English shield within laurel and palm branch; mintmark sun; THE. COMMONWEALTH. OF. ENGLAND. English and Irish shields, value .II.VI. above, beaded circle, date at top; .GOD. WITH. VS. (cf. S 3215).
As a genuine coin but with irregular letters, blundered cross hatching on the shield, and an inverted A for the mark of value (II.VI).
DAMAGED:
Æthelred II the Unready First Reign Helmet Type Penny, 1003-1009
London. Silver, 1.46g. Helmeted, armoured bust of Æthelred right; +Æ Ð ELRÆD REX ΛNGL. Long voided cross with tri-crescent terminals, central lozenge with beaded finials, pellet at centre; +EADPOLD M.Ω.D LUND (Eadwold moneyer of London) (S 1152). Ex Mack.
The cuts are peck marks, made by Vikings to test the purity of the coin.
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE:
Claudius Sestertius with PROB Countermark, 41-50
Rome. Bronze, 24.75g. Laureate head right; TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP. Oak-wreath; EX SC OB CIVES SERVATOS (RIC I, 96).
After the conquest of 42, large quantities of early OB CIVES SERVATOS (without PP) were issued for Britain, all countermarked PROB.
CLEANED:
Galba Denarius, 68-69
Rome. Silver, 16x17mm, 3.03g. Bare head of Galba right; IMP SER GALBA AVG. Oak wreath, S P Q R, OB C S (RIC I, 167). From the Westbury Sub Mendip (Somerset) Hoard 2016, Portable Antiquities Scheme: SOM-F1847A.
I have a holed coin too, but the forum won't let me post it. Even the TPG's website hates holed coins
Again, it’s the market’s decision to value Details coins. If a buyer is put off by a TPG calling a coin Details, it is the buyer’s conscious decision to be put off. It is their decision reject or devalue that coin for it having been designated as such by a third party. They don’t need to value or accept that opinion.
You aren’t really criticizing the TPGs, you are criticizing the way people collect coins and the opinions they value. But if you are happily collecting coins that others find defective, why complain? You can buy them for less because of that. And you can’t control other peoples’ tastes.
And there is no such thing as listing all of the pros and cons of a coin. All grades below 70 are summaries, and there is no complete description of a coin’s condition.
Do you really believe that? That people will overlook a 'DAMAGED' label so easily? No, they don't have to listen, but it takes a lot of confidence to ignore them. If the TPG writes 'DAMAGED' on something, they are telling everyone that their opinion is that it is not worth buying and to look for something else. Strangely enough, that puts people off coins they wouldn't necessarily have rejected otherwise. This is what I am criticising. I do not believe people would avoid certain coins so much if it wasn't for this policy.
Good auction houses and dealers manage it. A grade is not a description of anything but wear, so will not do.
Again, it is their choice how to value both the TPG opinion and the coin. The TPG doesn’t care whether you collect Details coins or not. The label is simply describing what is there. If the Details label makes people avoid the coin, it is because they both choose to trust the label and choose to devalue or to reject the coin because of that label.
Auction houses and dealers are famously inaccurate and ineffective at describing the physical conditions of coins. That is why the TPGs were created. A big reason why coins often trade for more raw when they have surface issues is that those issues are not described or recognized. And again, auction houses and dealers never have a “complete” description either, because that is simply not a possibility. All description of the physical condition of a coin, below 70, is summary.
Again, (note how infuriating the use of this word is), this is my point. You may not be able to trust a dealer as they are selling the item and clearly have a vested interest (although it is nonsense to say they all mislead in this way). So, you want a TPG to be a 'third party' (as in their name). But they fail in this, because rather than describing the condition of the coin, they score it, and decide what you should or should not like. That pleases people who want to collect 'top pop' (based on someone else's opinion) but is a terrible missed opportunity for the rest of us.
It is obviously possible to describe the condition of a coin in an objective way. It is also obvious that it would be a summary - but being good at summarising means picking out the salient points, not just one and writing DAMAGED across it.
You are simply repeating the same statements without grasping my points. Any sort of service that described condition will do so by summarizing. The TPGs have developed a particular system of summaries and descriptions, but any other service would simply have a different system. If the TPG calls a coin “UNC Details - Mount Removed”, it’s because they view the coin as lacking wear and having been removed from a mount. What more do you want? Are you saying that coins should not be described as “Mount Removed” and that characteristic should be ignored? If they call a coin “62”, that means they view the coin as lacking major forms of damage and being in a condition consistent with the range encompassed within the “62” grade. They are not going to describe and denote every single nick or hairline on a 62-graded coin.
And again, it is not a missed opportunity for you. If you like the coin, you should be glad that others don’t so that it is cheaper for you. If you don’t value the opinions of the TPGs, crack the coins out. Who cares? Just don’t complain if other people do value TPG opinions - that’s their choice.
Yes. That’s what the TPGs do - they pick out the salient points. If there is major damage, obviously it is noted as the primary issue.
And FWIW, although cataloguers are 'famously inaccurate and ineffective' (see my post regarding the Goldberg sale in June, when a coin was described as being better than the Norweb coin, which it was, and described in that sale as brilliant, mint state, i.e. better than itself!), TPGs are also famously inconsistent in applying their own rules. 20% of all the slabs I have bought were because the item was incorrectly attributed or graded. Peck marks? Sometimes they see them, sometimes they don't. Graffiti is sometimes penalised, sometimes not, Cleaned (maybe, maybe not) etc. etc. Sure, all people make mistakes. I know that I made half a dozen cataloguing errors in a sale with approx. 4000 lots and I'm willing to hold my hands up and say mea culpa, I'm only human. But to set the TPGs on a pedestal is misguided. There will be good graders and there will be bad graders, but you don't know what you are going to get, and they have the same human failings whether good or bad.
Trust your own eyes and not what someone else tells you to think.
Ditto.
I did not buy this coin, on the question I made to the site that was selling this 1R about the condition they never responded.
Very rare medal, two different grades.
PCGS XF Details, ex-jewelry. Sold for $4500 last week:
PCGS MS61. Sold for $26,400 last year:
On the coin I posted, today I just got a response, this one;
in the top is a handle mark. It was not polished but it is a little bit shiny.
I am not buying the coin anymore, looks to me like a good candidate for DETAILS if graded.
For the coin type in the OP (pillars), the few better "details" coins for most dates (outside of Mexico 8R and the hoard Peru 8R) are among the best and sometimes might be the best in existence. Most of the problems on these better coins I have seen or owned aren't actual defects. It just doesn't meet the TPG's arbitrary standards of "market acceptability" which aren't even consistently applied.
So, how can it not be "market acceptable" when the prospective buyer often or usually can't find another decent or comparable one? We're not talking about US or most late 18th century and later European coinage which can easily be bought in high quality 90%+ of the time.
.> @John Conduitt said:
For the coin type in the OP (pillars), it would make more sense for the TPG to "net grade" it. That's what the Spanish auctions do who sell most of the better examples outside the US. It will or may vary for others, depending upon the actual preferences of the primary buyers, something the TPG cannot possibly know much of the time.
The TPGs are universally applying a US centric standard to non-US coinage when the primary collector base may or may not prefer to use it. It makes sense for US coinage, because most of it is so common but not for all others.