ozjohn

I reported both of these coins. Another I reported it's not even a good fake if there is such a thing.https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VICTORIAN-SILVER-CROWN-1892/323114460538?hash=item4b3b1f657a:g:PGoAAOSwLWZamv79

That's my point. Complain on an organised scale to maximise the effect.

At the moment items are reported randomly as I do. What I am suggesting is a concentrated effort from this forum to ebay. So instead of a complaint from just me or perhaps a couple of complaints elsewhere they receive many complaints for each unmarked replica item that is listed. perhaps it will work or perhaps not but at least it is worth trying and it takes little effort on the part of the individual to report an item. Method. Click on Report Item in the listing. Select Report Category. Select Prohibited & Restricted items, Select Reason for report, Select Stamps currency and coins. Select Detailed reason. Select Replica coins, replica paper money and replica stamps. You will then get an information popup: The item in this listing is a replica coin, replica paper money or replica stamp that has not been clearly marked as a reproduction, replica or copy. Then press Submit, Note this popup clearly states that Ebay's policy is reproductions should be identified on the item NOT the listing of this fact. I do feel that Ebay is more likely to take action to remove these items if they receive multiple complaints for each listing of this type.

Perhaps it should be the policy of members of this forum to report these items en mass. Ebay policy (which they often ignore) states that replica / repro/ copies should be marked as such. This may help to spread of these items to dishonest people who relist them as genuine. It would certainly put more pressure on Ebay to inforce their own rules.

This link may be of interest as it describes coin grading from a US perspective .http://www.coingrading.com/intro1.html

A close up scan of the "gouge" that may help. There is certainly some similarity between the marks on the 1957 half crown and the 1912 halfcrown however the marks under the Queen's eye and the next mark to the left have the appearance of flaws in the flan as the metal appears to be lifting despite the regularity of the marks, What I would call bag marks on this coin can be seen all over the coin as small scratches and dents.

This one seems a bit large to qualify as a bagmark which IMO should be restricted to minor marks resulting from contact between coins as you describe. As for strike thru. If you look at the coin in hand the "gouge" is brighter than the surrounding field indicating more recent damage. This probably has a bearing on the bagmark theory as well.

If it was hit by another coin during the minting process I feel sorry for that coin .

Not the coin of the week but you might as well see the obverse for completeness.

Interesting observations regarding the UK and US criteria for coin grading. Also it has to be realized that the US TPG dominate the TPG market and as a result call the shots. I was trolling through MS Halfcrowns and Florins and was surprised by the prices being asked for some of these coins which was above $US 300 for some of the common dates of the George V series . I do not know if these coins achieve these prices but the expectation is there that a slabbed coin will command a much higher price even when you account for the cost of the TPG. An added thought I have noticed US TPG seem fairly tolerant of edge knocks and similar damage to the design and fields of a coin. Personally I think I would be reluctant to attribute a high grade to a coin with damage such as the one shown graded by NGC AU 58 with a gouge mark by the A in HALFCROWN.

PWA 1967, I think we have crossed swords in the past. Can't say I care too much for your continuing contribution to this forum either. Ozjohn

Hi Paddy, Love your response. You have renewed my confidence in this forum. Thanks again. Regards, Ozjohn

I rest my case no one is prepared to question the judgement of the TPGs. As soon as this question is raised everyone shuts up. What's wrong with you don't you have a view? What are you scared of? Sorry IMO you are a bunch of wimps. I think this may be my last post on this forum..

I am assuming we are talking about TPGs for example CGS v PGCS. The first uses their own 0 to 100 scale while PGCS uses the Shelden a 0 to 70 scale which automatically injects confusion into the system although conversion charts like the one included in this thread exist. The only reason I can think of why CGS used this scale is to demonstrate some difference between CGS and the US TPGs. However I do not think this approach helps the CGS product and they would have been better advised to adopt the 0 - 70 Shelden scale,I can remember viewing that NGS video explaining their methodology for grading coins but have never seen anything as detailed as that that from CGS on their grading process which may account for their inconsistency of their grading. However the US TPGs seem to produce as many questions regarding their grading as CGS. As it happens CGS is owned by London Coins where there is also a conflict of interest between both grading and selling your product which has been pointed out on these forums many times. Common to all TPGs they purport to authenticate coins without presenting any evidence as to their expertise in this area. Let us think for one moment what collectors and investors require from TPGs from both sides of the Atlantic consistency in grading which seems to be lacking at present which is probably the greatest failing of all TPGs. ie if the same coin was submitted to a number of TPGs it should receive the same grade from all of them. If it does not you are effectively creating different markets depending on the TPG you use. I also get the distinct feeling that disputing of TPGs grades is not exactly welcomed on these forums. As we say in Australia don't stir the possum.

As far as I am concerned the aim of professional grading should be consistency. From what I remember from the NGC grading video that someone posted on this site the an uncirculated coin was graded as MS 60 . A higher grade could then be attributed for the amount of bag marks etc., strike quality and lustre and the subject coin would move up the MS grades depending on how it scored on these criteria. This particular example shows what looks like wear in various places and several knocks especially on the obverse and as a result its grade should be reduced to below MS. You could argue that the source I am quoting is NGC and this coin was graded by PGCS well I go back to my first statement CONSISTENCY is the key where a NGC grading or PGCS grading should be the same ie if I had a NGC coin graded at MS 61 and then it submitted to PGCS or any other TPG then I would expect the same result. If something else results then the whole point of employing a TPG is lost .

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Top-Grade-PCGS-MS-65-BU-1928-Great-Britain-Silver-1-Florin-Unc-Very-Rare/222812830841?hash=item33e0adfc79:g:EZwAAOSw~rpZQk2N I'm not sure how this coin gained a MS 65 obverse wear on top of the ear, eye brow and mo with several dingles on the effigy and fields. Reverse wear to bottom rims of English and Scottish shields including the mace between them. Maybe this can be put down to a light strike but wasn't the ME and new design supposed to stop this? In any case IMO a poorly struck coin shouldn't achieve MS65 grading..Then there's the price starting price of $US 430 ! IMO this coin should be graded at around AU 58 and priced under $US 50.I think all TPGs have a long way to go in achieving the consistent results that collectors and investors require.

There's something about this listing that doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps a fakehttps://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Reverse-Legend-In-Gothic-Script-1870-Queen-Victoria-Florin-2-Shilling/332537882394?hash=item4d6ccd671a:g:9FEAAOSwXOVacJCs

A cracking obverse however. I guess we are lucky that sufficient coins have survived the years so we can admire them. The subject coin is not my best example but a coin I have had for many years. I think I was intrigued when I brought it as it seemed to be of a high grade but on closer examination seemed to show some wear. This was before I learnt of all the problems the RM was having with these coins. I doubt if it cost more than $10 at the time.

The first scan is a NGC slabbed halfcrown graded MS 62 while the lsecond scan is an ungraded 1917 halfcrown. My view is that the iungraded coin is the better coin perhaps MS 63/64 when compared with the slabbed coin. Any thoughts would be appreciated

I have rephotographed the 1916 coin with my new Sony camera fitted with a macro lens taken 1/40s at f /5.5 which gives a better image than the original scan also a photo showing the milling. The light source was 2 el cheapo LED clip on flexible reading lamps which may not be the best for this kind of work

Found this one on Ebay https://www.ebay.com/itm/Great-Britain-George-V-Silver-1915-1-2-Crown-PCGS-MS63-WWI-Issue-Toned-KM-818-1/302606398962?epid=102093249&hash=item4674bf35f2:g:r2UAAOSwHUhaHfuP It does not look the same as the one I posted however the obverse strike is pretty poor even so it obtained a MS 63 grading.

Yes but the milling is pristine and in my experience the milling receives a lot of wear during circulation. Also the obverse field has none of the usual scratches bumps etc. In fact in hand the fields of coin appears to have much of their original lustre. Maybe it was damaged some time in its life? Who knows but it does serve to illustrate the difficulty in grading poorly minted coins.

Yes the weakness of the strike on the reverse is obvious on the second scan but harder to decide if it could be wear on the obverse of this coin which brings us back to the difficulty in grading this series of coins. Sometimes the milling can provide some clues. However with NGC slabs the milling is completely hidden although it would have been visible to the original grader. The scan of the 1916 halfcrown shows what looks like wear on the obverse especially on the top of the king's ear although the reverse is pretty good strike. Examination of the milled edge shows it to be in pristine condition ( not scanned as it is hard to do on a flat bed scanner). From that I would conclude this coin is in pretty close to UNC condition with a poorly struck obverse. I know the TPG try to gage the strike when appraising a coin but IMO this one would struggle to receive a VF grading if it was determined that the obverse condition was due to wear rather than a poor strike.

I was looking at a 1937 proof set for sale which contains both the Maundy 3d and the normal 3d as well s the new brass issue. My question is what is the difference between the two silver issues and if the same why include two 3d silver coins in the set?. This was the case in the 1911 proof set that included the Maundy 1d, 2d,3d &4d coins but no extra 3d.

I have already reported this item https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/One-florin-1870-Great-Britain-England-UK-United-Kingdom-1-gothic-silver-coin/273003745559?hash=item3f904a9117:g:zEoAAOSwBjdaSA-i to no avail. Perhaps a few more reports may move Ebay to remove this item.