Calling British experts: Grading early proofs

coinpictures

Received my Great Britain 1831 1/2d NGC PF64BN today. At first glance I was shocked, but then figured maybe I don't know enough about either grading 19th-century proofs or the process whereby bronzed proofs were made.

This coin has a lot more hits/scratches than I would have expected from a PF64. Also, there are areas that appear to be wear on the high points (eyebrow, hair, base of bust)... or are those areas where the "bronzing" didn't fully take effect?

Pictures below; two different angles of the obverse. There is a quarter-inch scratch on the reverse, in the field to the right of Britannia. It's not very deep, but it's *much* longer than a bagmark would be.

If this were a business strike, I'd put it at AU58 at best (because of the wear). In the very last picture, I've highlighted areas on the reverse and adjusted the brightness and contrast to highlight the dings and scratches. The biggest concern is the tall vertical area to the right of Britannia; you can see a scratch running top to bottom.

Is this acceptable for a PF64 or did NGC screw up another one?

It's from David Lawrence, so I have a 10-day return. It does have nice (subdued) mirrorlike qualities to it.

Thanks!

SYRACUSIAN

I'm no expert, but I'd send it back, especially if it was not a bargain price. I'm more concerned with the wear on the obverse, right side of the portrait, rather than the hits and scratches on the reverse.

Aethelred

<< <i>I'm more concerned with the wear on the obverse, right side of the portrait, rather than the hits and scratches on the reverse. >>



It may just be me, but it looks like Britannia's fingers are just a little flat and there may be a trace of wear on her leg. I also think the coin looks thumbed.

ajaan

That scratch looks new. It's on the coin right?

spinaker2000

There is always the option to send it back to NGC for a review. Don't they have a guarentee?? And have to pay you the difference?? Either way, I don't think it's 64. I wouldn't be happy either.

rhound1977

Hmmmmm (thinking out loud)

It's a nice coin, but I wouldn't have thought proof....

I have imaged coins (large images) and found flaws in them that I did not see with the naked eye or a magnifying glass. I have been shocked
at times when I have seen these images plastered on my 17" LCD flat screen versus what I saw before. Are we becoming overly critical now
that we have these 8 megapixel high resolution 100X the size of the original coin to critique?

Is photo grading a product of the future?

Imaging coins through a slab can be misleading and a pain in the a$$.

I hope I'm not starting a controversey, and I am no expert on grading, but I do certainly see here what is being pointed out, but what would we
see with a 5x magnifier?

Here's an example of just 'how close' a coin can be scrutinized from a camera image {I was just looking at the over date here) we can see
lots of gouges and scratches. This coin is raw and not slabed. BTW I would grade the coin a nice AU or low end MS.



Anyway I was not trying to do a Highjack here, but I think the mid to high end digital camera can point out flaws that we do not see with the eye
or the average magnifying glass.

Sorry for the banter, I will blame it on the wine I have had.......

coinpictures

<< <i>That scratch looks new. It's on the coin right? >>



Most definitely.

As to the comments about high-resolution photos revealing flaws that aren't noticable to the naked eye or low magnification, yes, I agree. I've noticed this especially on gold coins. It's damned hard to take a picture of a gold coin that doesn't look like it was beat to hell.

In this case though, the obverse wear and the longe scratch on the reverse *are* visible to the naked eye...

Glad I'm not the only one that thinks this coin doesn't make 64...

wybrit

It looks little better than the 1839 penny I just sold (which was correctly graded by PCGS as AU58).

I would ship that puppy back if it were me and this seller took the return.

1jester

I don't believe the coin deserves the PR64 grade. There are many issues with the coin, including thumbing, as Aethelred mentioned, and myriad scratches and knicks and scrapes, as well as what I see as perceptible wear. I personally wouldn't be happy with the coin at all, but perhaps as an impaired proof at PR55 or so.

coinpictures

<< <i>There are many issues with the coin, including thumbing, as Aethelred mentioned, >>



What exactly do you mean by "thumbing"? I don't see signs of a fingerprint...

MacCrimmon

<< <i>

<< <i>There are many issues with the coin, including thumbing, as Aethelred mentioned, >>



What exactly do you mean by "thumbing"? I don't see signs of a fingerprint... >>



Thumbing is the application of oil, (like that obtainable from your nose, etc.) a small amount of which is rubbed or "worked" over a spot with hairlines, etc. in order to minimize or occlude their appearance for a brief time (long enough to escape the notice of the graders).

In my view, that is not a "nice" PF64. Given you have just received it, you should return the coin. Even with some of the Cheshire coins, NGC didn't slip the cog this badly; IMHO, of course.

There are always 1831 1/2d.s popping up, and presently most milled UK copper/bronze is a tad soft in price, especially if it is just in the "real" 63/64 range (US). Only the choice condition rarities (MS/PF65+ and up) are bringing slight premiums.

AuldFartte

I'm FAR from being any kind of expert, but I don't think that's a 64 either. It looks hairlined to me.

Rhound: I completely agree with your thoughts concerning the high resolution pics and our increasing "critical" nature. I know that most of my coins look much better "in hand" than in my photos because of the camera's propensity for finding more "defects" than the eye can see, or even a 5x loupe could see. I hope "photo grading" doesn't become a reality.

mrfred

I agree w/ everybody so far, that proof-64 seems a decided overgrade.

Re. 'thumbing', I believe the term is also applied w/o use of external oil. The human thumb is very oily on its own. I've experimented with thumbing some old US Lincoln cents before putting them in a 2x2, and as noted here, there is an improvement. I suppose, then, that the act of slabbing would seal in the improvement, so to speak.

I know I am getting OT here, but of all possible methods to clean a coin, thumbing seems to me to be the most acceptable. We handle coins in circulation with our hands all the time, naturally rubbing in the oils from the skin.

coinpictures

Well, the coin is packaged up for return. I spent some time looking at the other British coppers at David Lawrence, and I must say there are a lot of FUGLY coins there; quite a few that I looked at and said "NO WAY" with respect to the grade on the slab. As a general rule, nowhere near the quality that NEN stocks... I almost wonder if there was some grading favoratism going on.

For example, do you agree with the grade below? I sure as hell don't... even assuming it's crappy photography, there are some major dings on this coin. I suppose they all could be on the slab rather than the coin...



How about these?

coinkat

I am not the copper expert that others here are, but I would return it.

As for the other pictures, I would rather not be critical of the coins or the pictures in light of my own inability to post decent pictures.

MrFred... make sure you listen to Lush Life and the other Coltrane Prestige LP from his recording sessions from 1959.

wybrit

Coinkat has a good point. The pictures of the pennies in your later post certainly do not flatter them and they would discourage me from buying them regardless of the grade stamped on them. If they can be sent out on approval or with full refund if not satisfied, then there is no issue.

The 1907 is clearly a soft strike as can often be found on Edward VII. My example of that date has a much better reverse strike but it's still no great shakes - my obverse is quite weak.

If the picture of the 1914 1d even approximates its appearance, then the "buy the coin and not the slab" cliché certainly applies.

MacCrimmon

Actually, in looking at the latest DL images, I'm not sure they aren't scans. The biggest knock is that they show no lustre, and the actual lustre can forgive a great deal.

Years ago I was smitten with an 1831 Matron which Tom R. had. It was a horribly blunt strike, but the screaming cartwheels and ice blue tone made it sing 'sweet nothings'.....fortunately, I resisted.....and here I am

That 1914 has that mottled tone which I've seen on many of these bronzes from this era. Most look like garbage (to me anyway), but I have seen some which sang those same 'sweet nothings'. So, you really have to see those coins in-hand to truly know the "score".

1jester

Mottled toning does nothing for me, but all these coppers have serious issues, including fingerprints. rubs, knicks, scratches, and the 1901 has some verdigris (corrosion) behind Vicky's left ear. Personally, I'd stay away from all of them.