ozjohn

Had another look at both coins on PCGS verification. For the first coin on the obverse there is damage to the King's forehead and a scratch on the King's neck extending into the adjacent field. Also the strike is weaker and the hint of wear on the Kings beard on the side of the face Scuffing perhaps some wear extends up the King's neck and on the eyebrow. As for the reverse it is a good strike with luster. However there is a disfiguring mark in the field above the top RHS of the shield. The second coin, the one I have. The obverse is a good strike with the King's ear fully struck. On the king's neck there is a little scuffing near the point of the truncation and several small scratches in the field behind the King's neck. For the reverse again a good strike and toned. Regarding the luster the coin in hand has good luster

I'll take another look.

Toning? Not sure if your comments account for a MS 64 for the top coin as against a MS 62 for the bottom coin. The one thing required of a grading service is consistency.

Again a comment on a familiar topic. Attached are two PCGS photographs from their PGCS's verification web site, both 1933 half crowns. Coin # 37007246 is a coin I own, while coin# 45189418 is a coin I saw on Ebay that has been graded by PCGS. On looking at both coin's photographs on the PCGS verification site IMO coin # 3700246 is a better coin although being graded by PCGS as MS 62 as against MS64 for coin #45189418. I understand that the coins were submitted at different times but the whole idea of professional coin grading is to provide a consistent result that collectors and investors can rely upon. Have PCGS grading standards fakken? To digress some coins submitted to NGC and PCGS are declared as cleaned and described as AU features etc. with out citing any examples it can be hard to se why they have made this opinion while other coins that seem to have obvious cleaning marks on them indicating some form of cleaning seem to receive a grading while coins submitted PCGS that have been dipped are deemed by PCGS as not cleaned Your comments are invited

If you are looking for a spreadsheet it's hard to go past OpenOffice. It's virtually the same as Excel and costs nothing also runs on Win10/11.

Another coin I noticed with the pattern struck in line. This time an 1899 florin CGS 60. As remarked before this damage has been noticed before on other coins from Victoria to George VI.

Only ever brought the silver proof versions and not many of those either.

Xmas day forecast for Brisbane, 30 deg. C and sunny.

Merry Christmas to one and all from Australia. May your collections grow in 2025.

Just reached Alotau, PNG on a cruise from Brisbane. Very hot and humid. Back in Brisbane 5/12.

Saw the coins on Google headlines. An impressive hoard.

Another coin with similar damage. They seem to come in single marks and twos or threes in a line and are far too regular for bag damage. I've seen these marks on both George V and VI coins and as far as I can remember on the obverse. This example was dated 1924.

Another coin with similar damage. on the king's forehead. From what I have noticed the marks come in 3s approximately in line.

I think this one is a bit more than bag damage more like a metal flaw or intentional damage on the reverse by the A in half-crown. Probably down graded due to this but still attracted a fairly high grade from NGC along with PGCS who seem fairly tolerant to damage. To be honest I probably wouldn't brought the coin If I had noticed it earlier.

Exactly. However I've seen marks similar the ones described on several coins over the years and I think they are a bit more than bag marks. caused by coins knocking together. I was looking about cleaning on the PCGS site the other day and it seems that they do not consider dipping as cleaning.