Armageddon - British coin slabbing begins

[marvinfinnley 4]

I agree with marvinfinnley to a certain extent in that slabbed coins offering a certain amount of protection for the novice collector, there are a lot of fakes out there. They are also in my opinion good at grading modern coins.

However Rob does make some very valid points. They aren't always good at varieties and as for the older coins they tend to over grade. They seem to almost say well it is 300 years old so you would expect some wear. We'll just grade it Unc.

An uncirculated coin can't have wear irrespective of age.

Below is a 1697 6d graded MS61 by NGC. It is one of mine and even though MS61 is low in their uncirculated range it is still graded uncirculated.

The coin does show adjustment marks etc, but it also shows wear. I would not have bought it for the same price as an uncirculated coin of the same type. I did get it for VF price so I'm happy.

There is always a certain amount of risk in acquiring anything ostensibly of value, and the only mitigation for that risk is to become knowledgeable enough to not have to depend entirely on another's opinion. That being said, it increases one's comfort zone, at least for me, to have another, supposedly authoritative, opinion that reinforces my own. In the end, I make up my own mind about a coin first, then look at the slab grade to see if it makes sense. If I like the coin enough, I will buy it regardless of what the slab says.

[Geordie582 18]

I still believe the difference between slabbing and 'naked' is the difference between a numismatic collector and an investor. If you are fixated on resale value you cannot be a collector!

[TomGoodheart 400]

They aren't always good at varieties and as for the older coins they tend to over grade. They seem to almost say well it is 300 years old so you would expect some wear. We'll just grade it Unc.

There is always a certain amount of risk in acquiring anything ostensibly of value, and the only mitigation for that risk is to become knowledgeable enough to not have to depend entirely on another's opinion. That being said, it increases one's comfort zone, at least for me, to have another, supposedly authoritative, opinion that reinforces my own. In the end, I make up my own mind about a coin first, then look at the slab grade to see if it makes sense. If I like the coin enough, I will buy it regardless of what the slab says.

I agree with the comments above and with Geordie. Here (again) is a coin that fascinates me. Graded NGC MS62 and sold with the following description for $1050. But is it a 'nice' coin? One you would want in your collection? I doubt it somehow, at least not for that price. So what is the advantage of the slabbing? - around $900 I'd say.

"Great Britain. Charles I (1625-49) silver Shilling (1643-44). S-2843. Tower Mint issue, under Parliament (1642-48). "P" in brackets mm (Spink #98, struck 1643-44). Extremely elusive variety, the first time this cataloguer has ever seen this peculiar mintmark on a superior coin! The standard catalogue describes this issue as "coarse work" and that is clearly an understatement, for the die-work here is almost comical. The reason, of course, is that the talent escaped London with the king at almost the same moment this very coin was struck. The king was under threat of life and Crown even at the outset of the Civil War, when this coin was minted. He was as yet not disowned as Monarch, however, and the weak Parliament which preceded Cromwell's rise to overlordship was the official issuer of this coin, or "in the king's name" as the saying went. If you understand this groundwork, this historical context, you must perforce be impressed by this extraordinary specimen! NGC graded MS62 but the cataloguer is at a loss to explain the number. The coin is clearly Choice and without wear, peering at it under magnification. The surfaces are original and elegantly toned a medium gray color. While crudely cut, the portrait is extraordinary, suggestive of the strife of its day; the king's bodice shows some fascinating little details, vague emblems of majesty. The shield is equally interesting and well struck. So too the legends, although they are only partial, some letters being off-flan because of its shape. The rarely seen mintmark is crisp in detail. At first glance this coin looks like nothing, a crude cobbling of elements. The more you study it, though, the more you realize it's a simply superb example of this emergency coinage, made at one of England's most horrific moments, outbreak of its disastrous Civil War, which when it ended in 1660 brought back a monarchy totally different in power and attitude from that which prevailed in 1643, when this coin was made, almost even then "in memory" of once-mighty kingship. NGC graded MS-62. "

[Rob 3,152]

Here (again) is a coin that fascinates me. Graded NGC MS62 and sold with the following description for $1050. But is it a 'nice' coin? One you would want in your collection? I doubt it somehow, at least not for that price. So what is the advantage of the slabbing? - around $900 I'd say.

"Great Britain. Charles I (1625-49) silver Shilling (1643-44). S-2843. Tower Mint issue, under Parliament (1642-48). "P" in brackets mm (Spink #98, struck 1643-44). Extremely elusive variety, the first time this cataloguer has ever seen this peculiar mintmark on a superior coin! The standard catalogue describes this issue as "coarse work" and that is clearly an understatement, for the die-work here is almost comical. The reason, of course, is that the talent escaped London with the king at almost the same moment this very coin was struck. The king was under threat of life and Crown even at the outset of the Civil War, when this coin was minted. He was as yet not disowned as Monarch, however, and the weak Parliament which preceded Cromwell's rise to overlordship was the official issuer of this coin, or "in the king's name" as the saying went. If you understand this groundwork, this historical context, you must perforce be impressed by this extraordinary specimen! NGC graded MS62 but the cataloguer is at a loss to explain the number. The coin is clearly Choice and without wear, peering at it under magnification. The surfaces are original and elegantly toned a medium gray color. While crudely cut, the portrait is extraordinary, suggestive of the strife of its day; the king's bodice shows some fascinating little details, vague emblems of majesty. The shield is equally interesting and well struck. So too the legends, although they are only partial, some letters being off-flan because of its shape. The rarely seen mintmark is crisp in detail. At first glance this coin looks like nothing, a crude cobbling of elements. The more you study it, though, the more you realize it's a simply superb example of this emergency coinage, made at one of England's most horrific moments, outbreak of its disastrous Civil War, which when it ended in 1660 brought back a monarchy totally different in power and attitude from that which prevailed in 1643, when this coin was made, almost even then "in memory" of once-mighty kingship. NGC graded MS-62. "

I recall seeing this or something similar too and made a mental note to avoid it. The description and other blurb had to be written by a politician, nobody else would be capable of writing so much drivel.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Rob

[TomGoodheart 400]

Estate agent talk.

"Crisp but double struck,particularly on obv. Weak in places and on an uneven flan, but quite pleasing. gVF." would have done just as well I think.

Edited February 8, 2007 by TomGoodheart

[Ch2toWm4 0]

I am troubled by the use of PCGS, NGC, and ANACS doing "Market Grading" rather than "Technical Grading". In other words, "What is is Worth/" rather than "What is It?"

There is an interesting discussion on this point by a Canadian grading company at http://www.coinoisseur.com/GradingPhilosophy.html

[Rob 3,152]

I am troubled by the use of PCGS, NGC, and ANACS doing "Market Grading" rather than "Technical Grading". In other words, "What is is Worth/" rather than "What is It?"

There is an interesting discussion on this point by a Canadian grading company at http://www.coinoisseur.com/GradingPhilosophy.html

It's probably easier for them to look at a coin and say that it would probably sell for xxx$s and give a grade accordingly than it is to rack their brains trying to work out what it is they're looking at.

[marvinfinnley 4]

I am troubled by the use of PCGS, NGC, and ANACS doing "Market Grading" rather than "Technical Grading". In other words, "What is is Worth/" rather than "What is It?"

There is an interesting discussion on this point by a Canadian grading company at http://www.coinoisseur.com/GradingPhilosophy.html

It's probably easier for them to look at a coin and say that it would probably sell for xxx$s and give a grade accordingly than it is to rack their brains trying to work out what it is they're looking at.

I think one can safely ignore the slab grade for hammered coins. There are just too many variables involved for a grader who is most likely used to later milled coins where each and every coin left the mint in (almost) exactly same condition (give or take a bit of die wear). Same goes for US Colonial coinage for the most part. Minting methods were just too crude to be able to really grade this type of coinage with many small gradations (e.g., MS61, 62, 63, etc.). Now, if a hammered coin appears with a slab grade from a "reputable" company and graded MS67 (!!), now that's a coin I would like to see. One can probably take gross distinctions as a type of yard stick (e.g., MS61 versus MS65) for early coins, but trying to apply the same sort of small numeric distinctions to early coinage is probably ridiculous. For hammered coinage and, to a certain extent, early milled, one needs to be, or to depend upon, an educated and experienced collector.

Again, it really also depends upon the type of collector one is. Do you try to get every possible type? Grade might be irrelevant in the case of very rare examples, or do you collect, as I do, coins which delight the eye with their beauty when gazed upon? Personally, I wouldn't buy the Charles I coin in the earlier post; one can hardly make out the design, it's so messed up. But I would never put another down for buying it. It's just personal preference.

[scottishmoney 29]

Interesting comparison of different grading companies grading the same coin

Borrowed from a USA discussion site. This is the same coin graded by five different companies, the owner had it "conserved" for the last submission which is why it looks a bit different. But notice the grades are all over the map. Go figure.

[Colin G. 147]

Interesting comparison of different grading companies grading the same coin

Borrowed from a USA discussion site. This is the same coin graded by five different companies, the owner had it "conserved" for the last submission which is why it looks a bit different. But notice the grades are all over the map. Go figure.

I wonder which one is worth the most?

[Peter 615]

What a COMPLETE FARCE.

Can someone over the pond tell us all the difference in value for the same coin in the various slabbed grades?

[scottishmoney 29]

Well it gets very muddied, some companies are products are traded higher, since they are perceived to be stricter graders. PCGS, especially the older green labels, and NGC are usually highest priced. Others do not trade at high prices, and some of my local dealers actually downgrade these coins on their own, and price accordingly downward from the stated grade on the holder.

[muygrandeoso 0]

I still believe the difference between slabbing and 'naked' is the difference between a numismatic collector and an investor. If you are fixated on resale value you cannot be a collector!

Well said! There are a few of us yanks in the states who collect for the joy, and not as as part of our investment

portfolio, and this is why I collect Victorian bronze instead of US coins. Slabbing was the end of collecting in the states, and now it is more about "My slab is better than your slab"

Muygrandeoso

[marvinfinnley 4]

I still believe the difference between slabbing and 'naked' is the difference between a numismatic collector and an investor. If you are fixated on resale value you cannot be a collector!

Apart from the subject of slabs, I would be interested to know this gentleman's definition of a "numismatic collector." To me, a person who collects coins for their beauty and history is a numismatist. Such a person is interested in the history of the era that produced the coin; he or she delights in the study of the design and its execution, and, perhaps, of the engraver or designer who worked on the coin. For example, my ownership of Pistrucci's execellent George III crown prompted me to learn more about Pistrucci. I am fascinated by the machinations of the birth of the bronze coinage, so I acquired Freeman's and Peck's works. I studied the life of the Wyons, as I own W. Wyon's two George III pattern crowns.

It is just because I love the designs on coins that I try to get them in the best condition possible. I am not a hoarder who must have every date and mintmark, so I am satisfied with "type" collecting. However, the desire for a coin in the best possible conditions results in sometimes having to pay a steep price for a particularly rare coin. This is a side effect of the way I collect. Due to the emphasis on quality in the market today, greater eye appeal brings with it more demand, and hence higher prices for only slight improvements in the perceived eye appeal. Since at some point, the coin will be sold (either by me or someone else after I am dead), it makes sense to get a second opinion when buying expensive coins so that when the coin is sold, it will appeal to both the well informed, and the less informed buyers, thereby gaining the widest possible market. The market recognizes that some slabbing companies have more expertise than others, but that doesn't mean they're perfect. Also, some companies will pay if the coin is regraded at a lower grade. In sum, I don't think the mere presence of slabbed coins in my collection means that I am only an "investor."

[Geordie582 18]

My opinion is simple. I collect hammered silver and study the origin, history and developement of coinage. I am happy to have many 'poor' examples in my collection as they provide an insight to the use of the coins. An uncirculated coin is a good example of the moneyers art but has no history. Many of my Edwardian (Edward I,II,III not VII) and coins are 'cut halfpennies & farthings', real circulated currency but not exactly the sort of thing I see discussed among the slabbing community.

The real difference, I believe, is that of the interest in appearance and not of where the coin has been, who is likely to have handled it, how much would it buy and what historical event changed it. Because of this, I can't understand the arguments over the minute wear. Every mark or scratch tells a story.

I don't think you will ever reconcile the collector/investor with a numismatist. My opinion and will always be disputed, just like the squabbles over "grade".

Edited February 9, 2007 by Geordie582

[TomGoodheart 400]

I generally agree with Geordie. But then I too am a collector of hammered coinage. My main aim in trying to get the best possible grade is because I am aware that the fine details that can identify a variety disappear with wear. As a variety collector, within a pretty narrow range, I try to collect the known varieties and hopefully new ones!

In most cases I simply don't have the option of looking for a 'better' example due to scarcity. But for the common issues I do look out for upgrades. And even then, I just don't see the attraction of things like 'fine issue' coins struck on specially prepared flans and never circulated. They are just patterns really and, as Geordie says, don't have the 'history' of a circulated example. Below is a 'fine work' coin and a similar one of mine.

Mine's on the right! This is about as good as I'm likely to get, there's no sign of wear even on high points. But what attracted me to pay a bit over the odds for it was that these particular coins are very rarely as well centred or on such an evenly round decent sized flan.

Even then, variations in flan thickness have led to weak patches where the striking wasn't hard enough. The obverse die has corroded or started to crack and the flan has jumped between strikes so some letters are 'doubled'. On a milled coin these would be unattractive faults. But on a hammered coin like this they simply illustrate the multitude of factors that make collecting such coins a challenge! But I can see that such a monstrosity won't appeal to everyone!

As for grading, I bought it as VF, but given that under a lens no wear and only a few 'bag mark' scratches can be seen you could go higher. But what on earth does nEF or UNC mean for a coin like this when the beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder? Though if only I could be bothered to get it graded, it would be interesting to see what PCGs made of it!

Edited February 9, 2007 by TomGoodheart

[scottishmoney 29]

I gather my lovelies on the basis of their artistic and historical merit, not on whether they will be saleable in the future. I view slabbing as an admission of lack of suitably intelligent outlook in the pursuit of one's interests, namely hobbies. I have about 3 slabbed coins, but I didn't buy them for the slab, but for the coin.

[Geordie582 18]

I am interested in such things as,

Why was the currency so unreliable that people cut 'test pieces' from thier coins, as in the first example, yet aparently still accepted the coins despite having lost some of their silver?

Why were coins, such as the second example, so crudely made and so thin that they fell apart as my example. Surely totally impracticable and why was it that Henry I punished Moneyers and not Henry II, that example?

This, for me, is the meat of numismatics.

[scottishmoney 29]

Or that Hank the VIIIth debased the currency so, that he was referred to as "Old Coppernose" because his coins looked so coppery

[Geordie582 18]

Yes! There are endless stories and puzzles - if you look!

[marvinfinnley 4]

My opinion is simple. I collect hammered silver and study the origin, history and developement of coinage. I am happy to have many 'poor' examples in my collection as they provide an insight to the use of the coins. An uncirculated coin is a good example of the moneyers art but has no history. Many of my Edwardian (Edward I,II,III not VII) and coins are 'cut halfpennies & farthings', real circulated currency but not exactly the sort of thing I see discussed among the slabbing community.

The real difference, I believe, is that of the interest in appearance and not of where the coin has been, who is likely to have handled it, how much would it buy and what historical event changed it. Because of this, I can't understand the arguments over the minute wear. Every mark or scratch tells a story.

I don't think you will ever reconcile the collector/investor with a numismatist. My opinion and will always be disputed, just like the squabbles over "grade".

Thanks for your thoughts. As I mentioned in a previous post, I don't think one can intelligently "slab" hammered coinage; there are just too many variables. However, a slabbed coin is just another's opinion. If I were to contemplate buying a really expensive hammered coin, I would only consider doing so from a recognized expert in the field, such as a top-flight auction house or private individual. Anytime one is spending a large amount of money, one should take care. Just like buying an old masters artwork. In fact, some really expensive coins in the US have been gone over by several such experts prior to their sale. In a way, it's also like having a diamond certified by the Gemological Society of America. One could argue that one shouldn't buy a diamond without becoming him or herself an expert; but is it really realistic to have to be an expert every time one wants to buy something? When you buy a house, don't you rely on the city or county to ensure that it's built to some recognized standard? I know that I am not an expert on building, nor am I present when the house is constructed, so I rely on the municipality for some degree of expertise.

Now if you are buying inexpensive coins, then I agree there is less motive for third party opinions. If you make a mistake and buy a counterfeit, not much is lost. I just don't understand the feeling that one has to categorize anyone who buys a slabbed coin as an "investor" as if to say the person knows nothing about the coin, nor is the person interested in the history or art of the coin.

You talk about wanting to collect by variety, and wanting to have a coin that has been used in commerce; that's all well and good, but how about appreciating the beauty of the design and the skill of the engraving? One can't do that very well if one can't see the design and most of the engraving has been worn off, can one? So is one approach inherently better than the other? Taking the second method to the extreme can result in expensive coins, hence third party opinions, hence slabbing, etc., etc., etc.

[Geordie582 18]

My stance is, Who examines the graders? I know of 'expert' deal;ers whos opinion I value, sometimes, and those who I think are living in cloud cuckoo land. There are none who's opinion I'd stake my life (and my money ) on

[Emperor Oli 0]

My stance is, Who examines the graders? I know of 'expert' deal;ers whos opinion I value, sometimes, and those who I think are living in cloud cuckoo land. There are none who's opinion I'd stake my life (and my money ) on

I agree with you Geordie, but apparently each coin is graded by a few separate people who don't know the others' grading. I found this video on PCGS's website that shows the process of grading.

[Geordie582 18]

I think I should bow out of this discussion as I am a hammered collector and will always dispute so called graders in that field (unless I happen to agree, of course!) It's the milled clan that can take a microscope to a coin to grade it. It just doesn't apply to Hammered.