Grading for issue / type - question

Teg

Lloyd has a great farthing on eBay. 1698 (Date In Exergue), this is pretty much the hardest to find date of any copper currency farthing.
eBay
Cool coin!
He is “shy” to put a grade on it (Lloyd shy??), and the Farthing Specialist envelope it comes with says
NVF for type.
This set me thinking – how do you grade for issue, or for type?
If this were a 1697 it would probably be NF at my best guess.

SPINK 2004 for 1698 D.I.E. lists -- F 150, VF 450.

If they are using the same grading criteria as for 1697 – then 1698 D.I.E. does not exist – to my knowledge in F, let alone VF. In Fine grade I would expect to be able to make out every letter and numeral on a coin.

I am sure many people looking at Spink – then at Lloyd’s coin would think – I’ll wait for one of those better Quality ones to turn up. Peck says these always turn up in rather poor condition. He was right. This coin in this grade would sit well in any top class British Copper collection.

Any thoughts / examples on how to grade for issue / type ( not just for farthings!)

Teg

oldshep

Teg - You must have stumped the experts!!! There is almost always someone who can answer any question on this forum.
Shep

Lloyd

This is a really good question - I mean, the grotty thing I've got on Ebay is the best I've seen.

But if you look closely at for instance, the portrait on the coin, you can actually see that the coin has not been really worn as much as it appears first glance. You need the coin in the hand mind you - I've thrown a mega flashbulb at that coin to try to bring out the detail. There are low areas of the bust which are worn, whilst higher areas are not so worn. Also the Britannia is good - we know this from experience of all the other 1/4 and 1/2d's in the series. Sometimes on really good specimens the Britannia is invizzibubbble

The lettering also: certain areas just don't wear down independently of the rest of the coin. Look at the obverse, GVLIELMVS. The second half of the word is completely missing. This is categorically NOT wear for two good reasons:

1. The corresponding reverse area has vanished too.
2. Why is the rest of the GVLIEL still there? Has a pint sized Lepricorn only handled the coin in one spot for the last 300 years?

These flat patches are very apparent on W III coppers.

You will also note that the corresponding area on the reverse, to the lettering problem just mentioned, is the beginning of the date. Has the first part of the date worn down alone. Not likely is it.

We're on a similar line to certain hammered coins which show up "VG As Struck" I suppose. For all we know this 1698 could be the equivalent of a GEF. I'd love to know what it looked like just after minting.

After the giveaways in Sunday's auctions, If this coin goes for less than £100, I'm gonna start selling BRMC's (Banana Republic Modern Commemoratives)

Lloyd

BTW, I've had that "I'll wait for a better one" sent to me by email on numerous occassions. I know the real reason but Mrs Roberts says I must keep the big cakehole shut.

Lloyd

By The Way (no. 2) ....

What do I really think the coin is graded? I think it's at least VF... (and I think the guy who wrote the ticket thought that also) .... but I would never dare use this.

I guess the lesson is "know your enemy". A guy familiar with only grading US coins would probably launch my coin into the garbage.

Lloyd

coinkat

Teg;

Welcome to the forum... your posts are an insightful addition.

I am not a copper expert and grading this one is a tough call from either side of the pond. I would rather have the coin in hand before offering an opinion... I recall I was on the more conservative side of the grade range on the 1821 farthing that you posted earlier. This farthing variety is probably about as good as one will see and sometimes it is easy to get caught up in grading and loose perspective on rarity. I know that has happened to me when it comes to varieties.

Teg

Hi Coinkat,
Thanks, and very good point.
It is easy to think that everyone else's coins are BU.
Lots of the British Museum Coins are much worse than the cast photos in Peck make them appear.
My 1698 D.I.E. is overall about like Lloyds. I chose it because the date is very strong- but that leaves other areas very weak. None of these coins are strong all over.

I would love it if someone could show a good strong 1698 D.I.E.

If anyone is in any doubt, my coin is Ex Dr. Johnson - Pecks buddy, and sat in C.C's. collection for 20+ years, until he found an "upgrade". I still prefer the Dr Johnson coin - worse overall detail - especially obverse - but better date.

teg

MacCrimmon

Thanks for the post, Teg.

Indeed, one should judge the grade from an 'as struck' situation and that does take experience. This is why coppers such as these should be kept far away from any of the TPGs as they simply do not know how to ascertain grades on these types of coins.

PCGS does take into consideration the mint and striking qualities of some US material (Indian Head nickels come to mind), but those are a far cry from the manufacturing processes and strike variables which are inherent in the early milled coppers. I did have a 1675 farthing which was for all practical purposes a choice unc. coin with a bit of lustre, and yet it was especially bluntly struck on Britannia. The flan was OK, but not anything like you would expect to see on UK coppers even 40 years later with Geo I.

Lloyd, I especially love those old, original envelopes as they add character to important pieces such as your '98 DIE. Good luck on the auction.

Teg

Bizarre but interesting date,
For a rare coin Peck notes 2 obverse and three reverse dies.
Most rare coins have far fewer dies.

This is a rare coin – but there are more dies than Peck knew.

Back to the wear, I am sure Lloyd enjoys his Leprechaun rubbing fantasy.

The other more boring- possibilities, the die was angled in some way- you would expect an extra strong strike on the other side.
Nope.
It looks more like an off -shaped blank?

Agree 100% with Lloyd- it is not just wear!

I have stuck a small few quid on the coin, happy if I get it – but have not started collecting 1698 by die variety yet.

But then again – why not?

I wonder why no Silver proof for this coin?!

The book values do not show it - but this coin is at least 100x rarer than 1694 W&M.


Hmmmmm Teg

coinkat

When it comes to English copper, I would be the last to argue with Lloyd whether it be grading or especially a variety... Thanks Lloyd for the posts that you have made and for the coins that you have shared.