Guess The Grade: Proof 1839 1/2 Crown

7Jaguars · December 4, 2015 12:24PM

OK, I wonder about grading sometimes, whatcha think?
Don't cheat, or at least give honest opinion and linkify for me if you can.

http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/18522633_large.jpg

brg5658 · December 4, 2015 12:35PM

Here ya go...

JCMhouston · December 4, 2015 12:48PM

I'm guessing they would give that a 66 or 7. But as you know it's difficult to grade from a picture.

bidask · December 4, 2015 1:13PM

66

7Jaguars · December 4, 2015 1:45PM

PS - thanks for the link. This one should compare favorably to that in the recent Baldwin's 1839 set. Keep guessing for a bit longer and I will post in the morning.

TwoKopeiki · December 4, 2015 2:06PM

Hmm, knowing the certificate number from your image link - I looked up and was really surprised at the grade PCGS gave it.

coffeyce · December 4, 2015 2:57PM

66 very nice piece

amwldcoin · December 4, 2015 10:22PM

Pictures make it look a bit muted. I'm going with 64. Obviously impossible to grade from the pictures.

Zohar · December 4, 2015 10:28PM

Looked up grade, very disappointing.

ajaan · December 4, 2015 10:39PM

PR63 PCGS doesn't like spots

7Jaguars · December 4, 2015 10:42PM

Well, here goes: Deep Cameo 63+

AM, not quite sure what you mean by muted as it has the "aluminum foil" look and despite very minor original toning is actually as sparkling as any 175 year old coin could be with in hand appearance even better than picture. Very nice strike and very early die state (First Strike? LOL!!). There are no friction points and NO signs of cleaning OR hairlines. Shocking to me. This would definitely compare to any 1839 half crown, and I have a pretty fair background in the series.

Another coin even more difficult to understand is this matte proof 1951 half crown:

http://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/20327167_large.jpg Please linkify if someone can help.

Some left over matting/sandblasting material still adheres to the devices on the reverse but is not corrosion.

Zohar · December 4, 2015 11:34PM

7Jaguars · December 5, 2015 12:11AM

Thanks!

pruebas · December 5, 2015 12:47AM

Both coin are very nice!

I could easily see the 1839 a PR67.

Musky1011 · December 5, 2015 1:32AM

62

brg5658 · December 5, 2015 1:38AM

IMO the 1839 coin in hand must exhibit significant hairlines that are hidden by the way that PCGS insists on photographing proof coins by completely blowing out the fields with light. This way of photographing proofs also kills the appearance of the cameo contrast between fields and devices (I am not a fan of this way of photographing proofs).

That is the only way I can see that coin being only a 63. In this case PCGS graders have seen the coin in hand not just in the blown out photos, so I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

7Jaguars · December 5, 2015 2:14AM

I agree with that assessment of their photography, but you are certainly more expert. I've naturally looked at this coin many times in hand, and under magnification. I just don't pick up hairlines even under magnification and switchup in lighting. I have an 1839 groat that may have come from the same original set and is absolutely superb (I haven't slabbed it). Coins like these two '39s really do challenge the ridiculous notion of "finest known" as they are up to snuff with those in that Baldwin set offered - wish all my coins were as nice!

The second coin is at least as egregious and is as nice a late matte proof as you will see. It is MUCH nicer than a graded 1950 matte HC that I have with a much higher grade given ATS - this '51 matte really bugs me at least as much as the OP & would like to hear a person-to-person assessment as to how the grade was reached, complete with all requisite lighting and scope(s).

Actually, I put these two coins up for pleasure of the readers more than anything but also to challenge some of the grading we have seen with the unfortunate caveat of being only pictures and not in hand (well, what are we to do?). Matte grading at both major services is IMO unpredictable and not reproducible, and IMO often not well-considered as I have seen both overgrading and undergrading, and by as much as several points.

Hussulo · December 5, 2015 2:17AM

I would say 65-66 but the spot might knock it down to 63. Hard to grade from the picture as you cant see the surfaces.

7Jaguars · December 6, 2015 12:55AM

Compare OP coin to PCGS 500726 - this a Proof 66+!

Any other guesses as to the grade on the matte 1951 half crown?

Hint: if you care, grade should shock you.

marcmoish · December 6, 2015 5:33AM

Its a 66 with this pic in hand or NOT so IDK what's going on in the kitchen.

IMHO

7Jaguars · December 6, 2015 9:03AM

They gave it..................

Proof 61! NO HAIRLINES, NO RUB, NO CLEANING!!! That under ALL forms of lighting and up to 30x mag.

I was flabbergasted to put it mildly. I wanted to walk cross-country and

demand a regrade while I was there.

coinkat · December 6, 2015 10:28AM

Just curious- Are these your coins?

asheland · December 7, 2015 6:26AM

PF64

7Jaguars · December 7, 2015 8:52AM

My coins now, originally the latter Spink and the former actually a Stack's auction piece from nearly 20 years ago - very much cherry-picked after looking through many of the set-originated '39 half crowns, bought because it was the best seen by myself and several others (these used to be EVERYWHERE). So I am biased, but then again I chose carefully with regards to the first and the famous SNC for the latter. I could have shown others overgraded but I sold them.

coinkat · December 7, 2015 8:07PM

congrats in connection with your efforts to obtain them. Sorry the grading process has been a challenge

brg5658 · December 7, 2015 11:25PM

If you own them, and you can see them in person -- then I don't know why it really matters what PCGS put on the label / plastic.

Hydrant · December 8, 2015 3:14PM

66

7Jaguars · December 8, 2015 10:47PM

Yes, I quite agree with the coin(s) in hand, and I have seen quite a run of similar coins...

Sadly, the 61 is only their opinion (although I can assure you I have shared this with quite a few experts, all shocked at the grade) and wouldn't change what I think of the coin but when it comes to ever selling it - like with Heritage, say, the assigned grade right or wrong is rather critical and can be a many times different in price.

I am tempted to send it back for a regrade, but when I sent in TWICE a four coin set of all types of a particular date complete with auction and provenance references as well as relevant standard catalogue references, they just kept sending it back unchanged in their opinion and gave up on that - even though on the British rarity scale one of them was an R6. I also offered to send in the rest of a set that one of the coins came in and was given no response. To their credit, on another coin it took 9 months to get the coin back but ultimately were correct.

The problem with such occurrences is that the issue rises past that of personal opinion, and one wonders what is actually going on. I don't want to get bammed but PM me if you should be interested in any further details.

brg5658 · December 8, 2015 11:26PM

Originally posted by: 7Jaguars

Yes, I quite agree with the coin(s) in hand, and I have seen quite a run of similar coins...

Sadly, the 61 is only their opinion (although I can assure you I have shared this with quite a few experts, all shocked at the grade) and wouldn't change what I think of the coin but when it comes to ever selling it - like with Heritage, say, the assigned grade right or wrong is rather critical and can be a many times different in price.

I am tempted to send it back for a regrade, but when I sent in TWICE a four coin set of all types of a particular date complete with auction and provenance references as well as relevant standard catalogue references, they just kept sending it back unchanged in their opinion and gave up on that - even though on the British rarity scale one of them was an R6. I also offered to send in the rest of a set that one of the coins came in and was given no response. To their credit, on another coin it took 9 months to get the coin back but ultimately were correct.

The problem with such occurrences is that the issue rises past that of personal opinion, and one wonders what is actually going on. I don't want to get bammed but PM me if you should be interested in any further details.

Send them to NGC, get the right grades, then cross them back over to PCGS if you are hell-bent on them being in PCGS plastic?

coinkat · December 9, 2015 8:58AM

Matte Proofs are a challenge to grade- Not taking sides, I just think there is an expectation with Matte Proofs that is often not obtainable.

7Jaguars · December 9, 2015 11:48AM

Yes, true as I've seen some grossly overgraded as well. The matte proof 1927 crown that sold earlier the year at 25k+ USD was not "there" but had the slab number was one example...The few matte pennies that have come up have been all over the map - maybe they just shouldn't grade them.

Guess The Grade: Proof 1839 1/2 Crown

Comments

Categories