ozjohn

Before and after using cloudy ammonia that I had to hand. Cloudy ammonia in Australia is 25% with detergent added. I think it has improved the coin marginally but it has removed the green verdigris by the G in GRA. The coin looks better in hand but a very light strike. When I did chemistry at uni it was called Redox, Reduction, Oxidization depending on which way it was going.

Are you talking about clear household ammonia for cleaning that seems to be 25% ammonia or further diluting this product? With regard to your comment the 1918 half crown is a very nice coin but I struggle to accept it has remained without any sign of toning after over a hundred years.

Attached picture is of a 1911 proof set as advertised by Coins and Medals, Brisbane. As you can see the coins are toned after being left somewhere possibly over a hundred years. This is the condition I would expect to find coins of this age to be in. However the amount of coins for sale of a similar age that are bright makes me wonder how they remain in that condition over a similar age as with the 1918 half crown? Anyone who has silver objects will note the only way of keeping them shiny is frequent cleaning Perhaps it may be useful what toning of silver is. It is the equivalent of rust on iron and steel. In other words corrosion where silver metal is attacked by the oxygen and sulfur in the atmosphere to form oxides and sulfides of silver. Some will argue that toning is attractive and I am sympathetic to that view but not all toning is of that nature. Again the colors produced by toning are as a result of constructive and destructive interference where the incident and reflected light interact with each other. Again I still wonder how silver coins retain their shiny status? Some coins certified by TPGs as cleaned while some it is obvious due to signs of abrasion while others I have been stumped by this verdict. Having said that I can only make that judgement from the photographs of the coin and not in hand.

A long way from Brisbane but we can get a selection of bottled UK beers here. Hook Norton, Adnams Broardside , Speckled Hen, Theakstons , Spitfire to name a few.

Very nice coin.

A previously discussed buy the coin not the "grade" Having said that the aim of PGs should be to provide consistency. Strike quality is one of the points in accessing the higher grades and the the upper shield on the MS 65 graded coin should have downgraded this coin.

An NGC MS 65 and PCGS MS 64 for comparison and my best 1920 ungraded florin. If I was given the choice of the PG coins I think the MS 64 is the better coin on the photographs and my one ain't too bad either. I'll be interested to see how much these two coins sell for.

Sorry I put this one in the wrong place.

Noticed this one on Ebay. The reverse is pretty good but the obverse seems to show some wear on the top of the ear, side of face, side of head and moustache. Also the toning is not that attractive. Perhaps a weak strike on the obverse but MS 65 seems to be pushing it. Buy now for GBP 745 or best offer again is pushing it.

There's that semicircular patch under the chin could be due to anything . I think I have said this before. When I look at my silver bits and pieces they start to tarnish (tone) after a month or so. How a 100 year old coin put away remain bright and shiny without some form of cleaning beats me. A obviously cleaned coin with abrasion marks is certainly devalued however a bright shiny 100 year coin attracts little comment for the most part while a toned coin excite some collectors although this is corrosion silver being attacked by oxygen and sulfur in the atmosphere in exactly the same way as iron and steel rust. Perhaps collectors are too picky with non abrasive cleaning such as Goddards or the Al foil/ bicarbonate methods of cleaning, I have seen coins with very heavy toning come to life with judicious dipping and IMO should not be considered as devalued in some way. Having said that any cleaning should be aproached with caution.

The coin attached is judged by PCGS as AU cleaned. I had a good look at it and cannot see any obvious evidence of cleaning. I would be interested if any one can ID what made PCGS come to this conclusion. In any case not a bad coin for KGV,

Another fake being offered as genuine.

IMO I think the Sheldon system is better as it allows for finer grading classifications. It would be helpful if someone with professional grading experience to outline their methods in detail. I can remember PCGS had a video that went through the process of the grading procedure but lacked the finer detail. I also remember a coin on this video being handled with bare fingers which I thought would be a no no. If anyone has had professional grading experience please share it with us. My priorities would be wear, damage and strike. Here wear and strike can be difficult to determine He The other thing I look at the edge milling and rim as they can be the first to show any wear due to circulation.

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.