Charles II milled coin grading

coinkat

Grading Charles II coins represents a big challenge... the strikes on the majority of obverse bust examples are not that great, but the grading seems to be very tight... especially in the UK. If the coin is not fully struck up and has lustre, well then what? It seems that on this side of the Atlantic a weak strike can be forgiven alittle easier than in the UK and the UK numismatic community seems to be alittle more forgiving of imperfections in terms of rim problems, cleanings and hairlines which on this side of the Atlantic are close to the kiss of death among collectors. Any thoughts? I rarely see fully struck up Charles II coinage.

Sylvestius

As i've specialised in Charles II coinage before then i can tell you some of the things i've noted from handling alot of it.

For hairlines, past cleans, rim digs etc. It's not so much of a problem, sure they are not actively wanted and preferably avoided, the price will reflect these issues but it's not the end of the road for the coin.

Strike with these does tend to be a fairly tight factor to base value upon. The reason i presume is due to the design itself, such exquisite detail and relief, much of it is lost when the strike is weak. Weak strike on the reverse is not a problem so much, the obverse is where it tends to matter.

A well struck coin with genuine wear is preferable (but that's my own personal preference). You'll note the area that shows it up the most is the part of Charles' wig that runs from his' forehead to above his ear. The better struck and the more detail on that, then the better the coin.

It's all aesthetics really, these things are struck in high relief (or fairly high), and they wear fairly fast. I like to be able to appreciate the craftmanship of John Roettier and i presume other collectors do too.

Another reason why the grading is so tight on these is because unusually for British coinage (except for Early milled coins), the price tag goes up dramatically with each grade.

F £50, VF £150, EF £400 (It's a big jump, thus you'll find most coins of this era being described as VF+, EF-, AVF or better, GVF+). There's alot riding on the grades. You know £200 difference between a - and a +.

coinkat

Sylvestius:

I partially agree with you, but I would prefer a weakly struck original coin free of problems. The issue with this series is there are at least 5 different obverse varieties and the design seems to vary from denomination to denomination. The coins of a shilling and smaller have faired better than 1/2 crowns and crowns. The dates from 1662 and 1663 featuring the first and second obverse seem to be well struck and are more available in a higher grade than later issues of the 1670's and 80's.

I think it would be a challenge to put together a set of crowns by date, excluding varieties, in a decent circulated grade...

Aethelred

This is DPOTD quality stuff!

Sylvestius

<< <i>I think it would be a challenge to put together a set of crowns by date, excluding varieties, in a decent circulated grade... >>




Well aesthetics falls to individuality, i personally don't like weakly struck coins.

Anyhow my experience with Charles II coinage is almost entirely focused upon sixpences which only made use of one obverse portrait. Some of the ones on the crown are quite different. The quality of strike varies from denomination to denomination and obverse to obverse. The smaller coins will be better struck because they are thinner and smaller and thus it takes less pressure, crowns i imagine would fair the worse.


A date run of crowns in AVF-VF would be a very, very difficult task indeed. Trust me a date run of sixers was hard enough and they are relatively short and uncomplicated when compared to the crowns and even worse halfcrowns. Bringing in edge lettering variants and you've got something that could take you two lifetimes to complete.

coinkat

Sylvestius:

As you pointed out, the striking characteristics for the 6d are different than the Crown and Half Crown. Further, it is interesting that the reverse is usually better struck and often grades higher than the obverse. It seems that this is not an unusual trend for coins of England (specifically Edward VII and George V coinage usually have stronger reverses).

Haymarking can be a problem too, but it seems to be worse for coins struck during the reign of James II.

I am looking through some online auction results attempting to look at pictures to develop a greater appreciation for the differences in grading these in the VF range... and it seems there really is a range.

I think Dix Noonan has auction data base that will assist with this.

MacCrimmon

Coinkat,

Check the Goldberg's Cheshire material to contrast some high grade early milled material.

There is not a lot, but some decent examples. Also, if you want a reference library of the images, get them now as the GB site tends to drop entire auctions and/or images from their archives.

Also, as to copper farthings, this piece was above exceptional, and something to be purchased if I had been collecting these difficult coins.

Good luck in your challenge.

coinkat

THANKS for the link...

Sylvestius

<< <i>Sylvestius:

As you pointed out, the striking characteristics for the 6d are different than the Crown and Half Crown. Further, it is interesting that the reverse is usually better struck and often grades higher than the obverse. It seems that this is not an unusual trend for coins of England (specifically Edward VII and George V coinage usually have stronger reverses). >>




That's because the reverses are in lower relief to the obverses. In Britain they used to 'sacrifice' the reverse designs in favour of the obverse, the trend was to have fairly high relief obverses but as you'll note if the reverse is also in high relief then you'll get clashed dies, because there's not enough metal for both. Therefore reverses tended to be very flat designs like shields, nothing but thin lines making up the design usually. On early milled though you'll note that you'll often see the 'ghosting' of clashed dies on the reverses, the reverse fields will look like they've suffered from subsidence, especially toward the centre of the coin, or in areas that line up with the bust on the obverse.

William III coins are particularly bad for this.

As for haymarking James II coins are affected frequently but are not the worst offenders, William III seems to exhibit this more than most, with William and Mary being in third behind James II.

If you are dealing in early milled gold then keep an eye on the milling if it looks irregular or of substandard quality and especially if the coin is underweight then it's most likely a filed coin.*

*Diagonally milled coins only, chevron milling won't be a problem.

coinkat

Mac:

I looked at the Cheshire list... there were many impressive coins... all slabbed and I was alittle surprised that some did not bring what I would have expected.

On the other hand, I just got the prices realized in the Elfman auction that closed on the 17th... I lost everything... including the Harold II penny.