Sovereign mint lustre

[Conor44 9]

Hi all, just a quick question: is it normal for a coin to have a really strong cartwheel lustre on one side and drastically less on the other? I have an ef Victoria sovereign and the reverse has a lovely cartwheel effect while the obverse still maintains some but not near as much as the reverse. Thoughts?

Also if a coin maintains lustre like this does it confirm that the coin is in fact extremely fine? The only bit of wear on the coin is centred in a small area around Viccy's brow and ear, apart from that, nothing else whatsoever on the coin.

By the way sorry about the crappy photo, couldn't be arsed cropping it to be honest! Just thought I'd show the bust of Victoria as I know people will be asking to see it.

C44

 

[VickySilver 830]

This is quite often the case. Also, the hair esp. is not well struck up (versus actual wear) which is frequently the case. I'd not be surprised if this has been dipped as even that last bit of alloy will colour with oxidation over time. Still a nice piece, and depending on in-hand examination if without rub might still rate as unc.  Meaning bag marks, but not wear from circulation.

[mhcoins 95]

The hairs very flat above the queens ear and on high grade examples you always see the hair curl in front of the ear which is also absent. 

I'd say an attractive VF (XF45 ish)

[VickySilver 830]

Yes, this is a common emote. I am more technical in grading, wear vs. weak strike are different entities IMO. Of course, all of us would rather have a fully struck pristine example but such pieces command very stiff premiums. I think this can be taken of advantage of buying weak strike technically uncirculated specimens and getting them slabbed by American TPG companies and then sold at Heritage or Stacks or the like (this really holds for rare dates).

[Conor44 9]

4 hours ago, mhcoins said:

The hairs very flat above the queens ear and on high grade examples you always see the hair curl in front of the ear which is also absent. 

I'd say an attractive VF (XF45 ish)

Yes the obverse does have a slight bit of wear however the reverse is pristine. What kind of grade would you give considering the wear isn't overall and remotely concentrated on the spots you mentioned?

[Peter 615]

Cabinet friction?

[mhcoins 95]

1 hour ago, Conor44 said:

Yes the obverse does have a slight bit of wear however the reverse is pristine. What kind of grade would you give considering the wear isn't overall and remotely concentrated on the spots you mentioned?

judging from the image of the obverse you have provided, i'd say an attractive VF, reverse better (based on your description). For me there is too much flatness on the highest point of the coin. Weakness of strike to this extent, isn't something I've come across on a Milled Sovereigns. 

[mhcoins 95]

Just as a comparison, I'm currently offering this 1848 Victoria Sovereign as an EF +. Yours doesn't appear to be only half a grade lower  

[Conor44 9]

8 hours ago, mhcoins said:

The hairs very flat above the queens ear and on high grade examples you always see the hair curl in front of the ear which is also absent. 

I'd say an attractive VF (XF45 ish

What I cannot understand is,given that the reverse looks almost aunc with cartwheel effect and no apparent signs of waer, I think it unfair to grade this coin a mere VF

[Conor44 9]

I think it quite unfair to give this coin a mere VF given that the reverse is in , I would say, almost uncirculated condition- also there are certain hair strands  on your 1848 sovereign that, even if it was worn, don't seem to have been there in the first place on mine.

C44

[VickySilver 830]

Apparently better lustre on the first specimen. Deeper engraved hair on the second with better obverse strike. I think the first has LESS actual wear than the first. Please see the brilliance of the field on the obverse and areas such as the lateral terminus of the brow ridge that appear to show less wear, although it may have been dipped on some occasion. IMO, engraving in the 1870s was not what it was in the 1840s and this is readily seen on the silver series as well.

From the somewhat less-than-satisfactory images I would vote an EF on the first.

Edited August 15, 2016 by VickySilver

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Connor ...What you buy has nothing to do with me .

I feel you are spending a few quid and unsure what your buying and that could end up costly.

Maybe put the handbrake on and do some reading ,learning and ask more questions before the next purchase.

Be lucky 

Pete.

[Conor44 9]

5 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Connor ...What you buy has nothing to do with me .

I feel you are spending a few quid and unsure what your buying and that could end up costly.

Maybe put the handbrake on and do some reading ,learning and ask more questions before the next purchase.

Be lucky 

Pete.

Hi, I was waiting for someone to say something like that considering almost all of my posts are about an unsure coin! You have to understand though that these are only three coins in my collection, all of which were purchased when I was a little less experienced than I am now. I have since learned to buy the best examples I can afford and only buy from reputable sources. In this topic though I am simply curious as to what to do if one side of a coin seems superior to the other.

C44

Edited August 15, 2016 by Conor44

[Conor44 9]

 

[mhcoins 95]

IMO the wear on the obverse isn't from weakness of strike, its from circulation. This supported by the scratches on it too. Don't get me wrong Its still a collectable example and a scarce date but i stand by my opinion of VF - VF + Grade. Yes the reverse is certainly more appealing but thats what would much it up too VF + overall.

[Conor44 9]

Yeah I knew the scratches would be mentioned but in actuality they are a lot less apparent than the photo shows them up to be

C44

[Conor44 9]

mhcoins I am not contradicting your opinion as you obviously know  a lot more about coins than I do ,and if my coin is the grade you say well so be it, but

Looking at plenty of YH Victoria busts on the net though and it seems that some are naturally void of hair strands in the area above the ear but im no expert. I have also been looking at GVF examples of this type also and while the Victoria obverse looks similar to mine in regards to wear, there is wear on the reverse also, especially on the harp, whereas on mine the rev is perfect?

Wow, grading really is a matter of debate and argument LOL

C44

[copper123 1,485]

Looks like GVF that sov , you can of course get lustred GVF sovs due to the coin being 85% or therabouts pure gold

Gold due not tarnish like other metals so retains lustre longer.

A poor strike can also look like wear so really coins like this have to be seen in hand

Edited August 15, 2016 by copper123

[Paulus 1,975]

3 hours ago, copper123 said:

Looks like GVF that sov , you can of course get lustred GVF sovs due to the coin being 85% or therabouts pure gold

Gold due not tarnish like other metals so retains lustre longer.

A poor strike can also look like wear so really coins like this have to be seen in hand

I'm not a gold coin collector although I have a handful, but I must admit I thought the gold content was over 90% (22/24)?

[Nick 329]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

I'm not a gold coin collector although I have a handful, but I must admit I thought the gold content was over 90% (22/24)?

They are 22 carat, so that is 0.9167 (91.67%).

[copper123 1,485]

Yes it was a guess TBH and I was expecting a reply like this - wasn't a bad guess BTW I think