A Case of Undergrading?

[Red Riley 2]

Scottish Money touched on this yesterday, and given all the research I am doing, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that in terms of wear, certain coin surfaces almost never sink that far down the grading chart. For example:

1)Reverse of Elizabeth II sixpence - the worst I have come across is NVF. For the coin to have sunk into 'fine' I would have expected to see considerable wear on the centre part of the rose and on the main body of the thistle, but no, even the most appalling coin from the beginning of the reign is still pretty plain in these areas, with nowhere else showing much wear either.

2)Reverse of Portcullis Threepence - again never seem to show any wear. The most obvious place for this to occur is what I assume are circular rivets at the points where the various members of the portcullis intersect, but on all the coins I have examined (and I've looked at a few) this is still pretty plain.

And yet, both these coins are regularly offered as 'Fine' (admittedly for not much money). I would accept that the obverse does fall much further, but I really can't see there ever being sufficient wear on the reverse to warrant an 'F ' designation.

Has anyone actually seen either of these coins in F?

[Gary D 76]

Scottish Money touched on this yesterday, and given all the research I am doing, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that in terms of wear, certain coin surfaces almost never sink that far down the grading chart. For example:

1)Reverse of Elizabeth II sixpence - the worst I have come across is NVF. For the coin to have sunk into 'fine' I would have expected to see considerable wear on the centre part of the rose and on the main body of the thistle, but no, even the most appalling coin from the beginning of the reign is still pretty plain in these areas, with nowhere else showing much wear either.

2)Reverse of Portcullis Threepence - again never seem to show any wear. The most obvious place for this to occur is what I assume are circular rivets at the points where the various members of the portcullis intersect, but on all the coins I have examined (and I've looked at a few) this is still pretty plain.

And yet, both these coins are regularly offered as 'Fine' (admittedly for not much money). I would accept that the obverse does fall much further, but I really can't see there ever being sufficient wear on the reverse to warrant an 'F ' designation.

Has anyone actually seen either of these coins in F?

I think with the 3d the rim is so proud that you would need considerable wear before it starts to show on the design and especially with only a max of 30 years of circulation.

Scottish Money touched on this yesterday, and given all the research I am doing, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that in terms of wear, certain coin surfaces almost never sink that far down the grading chart. For example:

1)Reverse of Elizabeth II sixpence - the worst I have come across is NVF. For the coin to have sunk into 'fine' I would have expected to see considerable wear on the centre part of the rose and on the main body of the thistle, but no, even the most appalling coin from the beginning of the reign is still pretty plain in these areas, with nowhere else showing much wear either.

2)Reverse of Portcullis Threepence - again never seem to show any wear. The most obvious place for this to occur is what I assume are circular rivets at the points where the various members of the portcullis intersect, but on all the coins I have examined (and I've looked at a few) this is still pretty plain.

And yet, both these coins are regularly offered as 'Fine' (admittedly for not much money). I would accept that the obverse does fall much further, but I really can't see there ever being sufficient wear on the reverse to warrant an 'F ' designation.

Has anyone actually seen either of these coins in F?

I think with the 3d the rim is so proud that you would need considerable wear before it starts to show on the design and especially with only a max of 30 years of circulation.

According to Burton Hobson (Picture Guide to Coin Condition) the points of highest wear on the E11 3d are the center stone in the crown and the bar across the top of the portcullis. And for the 6d the body of the thistle.

He shows the GV1 3d down to very good.

[Red Riley 2]

Yes, I can make the KG6 3d hit fair, but I struggle to register anything like sufficient wear in the QE2 version. I am currently staring at a 1955 3d that presumably circilated right up to decimalisation, but no way does this show enough wear to drop it even below VF. Sometimes I think we artificially assume that a coin will wear down to a certain grade and bend the rules to fit. It also strikes me that more recent coins need far, far less wear to touch a particular grade than is the case with coins from the Victorian period.

[Colin G. 147]

Yes, I can make the KG6 3d hit fair, but I struggle to register anything like sufficient wear in the QE2 version. I am currently staring at a 1955 3d that presumably circilated right up to decimalisation, but no way does this show enough wear to drop it even below VF. Sometimes I think we artificially assume that a coin will wear down to a certain grade and bend the rules to fit. It also strikes me that more recent coins need far, far less wear to touch a particular grade than is the case with coins from the Victorian period.

Time to throw a few EII 3d's into the washing machine, cement mixer etc