azda

By the looks of it ski, it was when John took the photo. I've done the same a few times after taking a good picture and spotted something, the Charles II maundy 2d being one of those, i did'nt see an inverted C in hand, but after taking the picture it was more than noticable

I wouldn't class those as anything more significant than bag marks, which on some more modern UNC coins look far worse without affecting the technical grade. Remember that's a sixpence shown at around 10 times real size. I think the obverse is a strong strike, which counts in its favour, especially considering there are UNC Edwards of different dates that have less hair detail than that. And don't forget how large the picture has been 'blown up' which ALWAYS affects how it appears. Grading, as you've seen from this thread Nick, is always a highly subjective art. As for your coin, it's a gorgeous example of an Edward sixpence and anyone who says they wouldn't give it space in their own collection is being economical with the truth. Whether you define it as AUNC or UNC makes little difference in the end. Appearance is everything. There are precious few bag marks on that coin. As for the rim nicks - yes, there's clearly one on the reverse at 6 o'clock, but the others I'm not convinced about, particularly when you appreciate just how small the coin really is in relation to the picture. You don't get perfect edges on business strikes, and some of what you are calling rim nicks, don't look like 'cuts' or 'dents' to me, just the way the rim is slightly folded in places. And maybe not even visible at normal size. If we are going to judge everything on super-size enlargements, then we might as well all throw our non-proof coins into the trash. Debbie - there are many factors to take into account. Not the least of which is that small coins are less collected and popular than large coins, precisely because their detail is much harder to make out without using a glass. However, if you used the same glass where it wasn't needed - e.g. on crowns or pennies - you would soon see a plethora of apparent horror stories, which when you see the coin at normal size would NOT be apparent. But, you still need that glass to see if there is wear on Edward's hair and beard : as you do also on his larger coins, him being one of the harder monarchs to see hair wear on. And the principle is also true that grading should be consistent across denominations; a fairer comparison in terms of picture would be one that 'blows up' that sixpence to the size of a real life halfcrown. The other factor to take into account is that detail on small fine parts of the design (e.g. lion faces) is almost non-existent on UNC examples of a small coin, where on a large coin you would use those very parts to judge the first signs of wear. So size does matter when you look at the grade of a small coin, as the die itself contains less detail than the same design on larger denominations. If the coin was sent to CGS Peck, do you believe it would come back as UNC? Personally i don't think it would, but as i've said, it's a nice coin and for coinerys comment that its "tarnished" well, i'd rather buy this coin than a big shiny one without "tarnish" at least i'd know it had'nt been cleaned

Coin grading is subjective to everyone Debbie, no one will agree 100% on a coins grade, so thats why its down to every individual to try and learn more about this part of collecting, then decide if the coin you want to buy is as graded and if you want to pay the price the seller is selling it for, if not, try and haggle and maybe throw in your own observations of why you think the coin is a lesser grade, which will no doubt piss someone off lol. The sixpence here is a nice coin, i just hope Paul doesn't think i've been to harsh, but again as with the topic starter picture (1915 HC) he bought that in UNC from a dealer and it has been noted that it's not UNC, so basically Paul has bought a coin THINKING it was UNC and paid UNC money, now going down the grade towards EF in Spink 2012 it's still only 35 quid, so now Pal has to wait a few years before it even hits what Spink suggest this coin is in EF what he paid for in alleged UNC This is why its better to be harsh on the grading, it may not be music to Pauls ears right now, and i suspect he might have been a tad upset with my grading of the coins he was showing me, but as we have now seen, we can all make mistakes, but hoping they are not to expensive and we can learn from each other in the future. I again suspect Paul may have bought the sixpence is UNC?

The size of the coin won't matter Debbie, if there's a rim nick and digs etc they will be seen, but as you've obviously just read, Nick and Peckris didn't even spot the rim nick on a picture of that size and quality, so in hand would obviously be harder. This is the very reason i take hi res images so i can check the coin i've just bought for things i possibly can't see in the hand. My opinion is, a good hi res image is probably better than a coin in the hand, especially one so small.

The neck area and inbetween the ear and the eye there are a few more contact marks plus the rim nick at 6 oclock on the OBV. When Paul emailed the picture i went with GEF, i think i'm still of the same opinion but as we can see unless you study the coin VERY CAREFULLY and look beyond how nice it is then you can see it's not quite the UNC coin. Ok, I accept that there are a few more surface marks and rim nicks than I saw initially and therefore it is not quite UNC. GEF still seems a little harsh to me, but as a novice I'm willing to be educated by those with more knowledge and experience. It begs the question though: How many bag marks and rim nicks are acceptable for a coin with no wear to be called UNC? A good question Nick, perhaps Derek could clear that up. I know bag marks are acceptable as that part of the minting process cannot be altered, but rim nicks i'm not sure. Perhaps my GEF is a bit harsh, but then again, better to be harsh than thinking you have a coin in a certain grade when it clearly isn't, just my opinion

Ilike that !, but I am soooo tempted to spray paint it gold and wait for a chinese tourist to pass by Would be better to set up a Chinese fake coin factory and sell them off to the Chinese and see how they like it

The neck area and inbetween the ear and the eye there are a few more contact marks plus the rim nick at 6 oclock on the OBV. When Paul emailed the picture i went with GEF, i think i'm still of the same opinion but as we can see unless you study the coin VERY CAREFULLY and look beyond how nice it is then you can see it's not quite the UNC coin.

That's just the way the reverse was designed. I have an 1887 wreath reverse 6d in EF - the top veins are gone, the rounded parts of the crown are flat, the oak leaves are flattening, etc etc, but the veins on the two lower left leaves are still intact. Overall, the wear on that coin is obvious. There's no apparent wear at all on this one. None. And the rim nick at 6 oclock on the OBV? Does'nt that count? Paulus emailed me this coin a few days back and i said the coin was GEF, hence why i'm asking now why we have the UNC grade Does the rim nicks between 10 and 11 oclock and 6 and 7 oclock not count either? The 1 at 11 oclock seems quite big, obviously exagurated by the size of the picture, but if we're talking strict UNC then i'm sure after carfeul consideration you'll probably come to another theory, hence the reason that grading is quite a pain in the rear end and subjective to everyone who buys a coin

Then why have the top leaves got complete veins?

I didn't no, and I still don't. Please tell me which leaf(ves) I should be looking at. Surptising.....Ok, well top leaves on the left have veins, follow those leaves down and the veins are disspearing which would then indicate wear. Right hand side, in the middle of the coin, middle leave are worn. Mayybe i'm just imagining it, but looks clear enough to me.

I Take it Nick, you did'nt See the wear on the REV leaves on the sixpence?

UNC here

Is that a dot in the middle of the trident shaft to Bob? I heard of a dot being on a penny there, can't remember if it was the 1922 or not, but never seen one on the prong before.It needs a bath of olive oil

Rob might be the man for the job

Was taking a few pictures of some coins. When i was cropping etc came across this, what looks like O for C in CAROLVS 1st picture is the normal C 2nd is the possible O

I would say EF/gEF. I'd agree with Nick, i'd go with the EF mark. Have you thought about offering some of your coins on the forum Paulus? Anything less than 100 quid can be offered here in the items for sale thread. It will save a few quid ebay fees as well. Maybe put it in for a week, and if no offers or takers on your price then list it on the bay.Maybe list what you're selling and then send the pictures onto anyone who's interested and maybe your opinion of grade against each coin. Just a thought.

Which would explain no gap in the letter C.

This was also my thought Peck, how would it add metal? It wouldn't add metal, it would be incuse on the die. Therefore a die crack that is incuse would result in a raised link between the curves of the C. I agree it could well be a sideways O but you would need to look at the letter styles on a coin of the same denomination to be more certain. I have seen die cracks in all shapes and sizes and that have made all manner of things look like they have appeared, but you need to be certain. You need look no further than the O in CAROLVS on the same coin Colin

This was also my thought Peck, how would it add metal?

Looks like it to me, nice catch Azda Looks like a damaged C to me. If you look at the O it thins top and bottom whereas the broken C only thins were the gap between the upper and lower jaws should be. From my scoped picture Gary, you can clearly see that it does'nt thin top and bottom, it's clearly fatter

Looks like it to me, nice catch Azda Looks like a damaged C to me. If you look at the O it thins top and bottom whereas the broken C only thins were the gap between the upper and lower jaws should be. I agree it certainly looks like a die flaw/crack has extended between the curves of the C to form an "O" shape. This is based on the assumption that the style of the O is different. However having said that it could be argued to be an "O" if you can prove the C on a same denomination without the overstrike is also a different shape which it appears to be on the comparison. Are the photos of two coins that are the same denomination? or are they different denominations from the same maundy set? The possible error is a 3d 1680 the other a 2d 1678. I've scoped the possible error. Sideways O? IE, the fatter sides of a normal O being top and bottom other than left and right (if you get what i mean lol)

This is my nicest one the workmanship is amazing! That is a beauty si666, even i'd be interested in that, the workmanship in that is amazing. Wonder how Victoria would have taken to having a beard engraved on her portrait though. If found, i'm sure the engraver would have been hung lol

You'd be very lucky to get it for less than £100. Its one of those hyped coins Derek, like the 1979 Twopence where Spink has vastly over rated it.

The problem is, who's stole who's pictures.