CGS Grading

[Red Riley 2]

This is my view too. In fact I'd be interested whether any of the other hammered coin collectors here feel any differently? In fact, how about the milled lot? Do you honestly buy a coin by grade alone? Surely not! I imagine we all look at a coin and think 'wow' or ' argh' or whatever by comparing what we see with what we have previously seen. Yes, it's nice to get confirmation from other collectors or dealers that our estimate of grading is about right, but ultimately, do we not all buy by eye appeal?

I know I've posted thsi before but here's a coin that suffers from many of the faults of hammered coinage. The flan isn't of uniform thickness leaving weak patches here and there. In fact you can see places where the silver has been folded in but not properly bonded with the rest of the blank before the coin was struck. The dies have cracked with use. And the coin has jumped ever so slightly between blows leading to double striking here and there.

But to me, and despite (or perhaps because of) the flaws, this is still a stonking coin! Eye appeal. 100%

As a collector I agree with you 100%. I always kept the odd lower grade penny, common dates in my frontline collection and I never did own a lustrous 1899, 1905, 1911 or 1922 penny simply because I liked the strike/toning of the coins I already held or because the process by which I acquired them was memorable in some way. As a dealer it's different and I wouldn't have bought the lower grade coins in a hundred years as they would be very difficult to dispose of.

I hope this comes out OK but I love virtually everything about this coin, which to my mind has masses more character than a purely lustrous specimen;

Edited January 13, 2011 by Red Riley

[azda 979]

This is my view too. In fact I'd be interested whether any of the other hammered coin collectors here feel any differently? In fact, how about the milled lot? Do you honestly buy a coin by grade alone? Surely not! I imagine we all look at a coin and think 'wow' or ' argh' or whatever by comparing what we see with what we have previously seen. Yes, it's nice to get confirmation from other collectors or dealers that our estimate of grading is about right, but ultimately, do we not all buy by eye appeal?

I know I've posted thsi before but here's a coin that suffers from many of the faults of hammered coinage. The flan isn't of uniform thickness leaving weak patches here and there. In fact you can see places where the silver has been folded in but not properly bonded with the rest of the blank before the coin was struck. The dies have cracked with use. And the coin has jumped ever so slightly between blows leading to double striking here and there.

But to me, and despite (or perhaps because of) the flaws, this is still a stonking coin! Eye appeal. 100%

As a collector I agree with you 100%. I always kept the odd lower grade penny, common dates in my frontline collection and I never did own a lustrous 1899, 1905, 1911 or 1922 penny simply because I liked the strike/toning of the coins I already held or because the process by which I acquired them was memorable in some way. As a dealer it's different and I wouldn't have bought the lower grade coins in a hundred years as they would be very difficult to dispose of.

I hope this comes out OK but I love virtually everything about this coin, which to my mind has masses more character than a purely lustrous specimen;

If i'm honest, i'm starting to think along the same lines of eye appeal, hence i haven't bought anything for a little while (for me anyway) although my eye appeal must go in hand with some sort of half decent grade. I have seen 1 or 2 coins from 1 or 2 dealers on here that i wish to buy, must get into barter mode

[TomGoodheart 403]

I hope this comes out OK but I love virtually everything about this coin, which to my mind has masses more character than a purely lustrous specimen;

The thing about your penny is that it looks old. And to me, it should do! It has little wear and so you can see all the detail as you'd wish but it isn't bright and shiny as if it had just come out of the bag. Instead its history is there for all to see, which I like. Old coins, for me, should ideally look old.

[Peckris 579]

This is my view too. In fact I'd be interested whether any of the other hammered coin collectors here feel any differently? In fact, how about the milled lot? Do you honestly buy a coin by grade alone? Surely not! I imagine we all look at a coin and think 'wow' or ' argh' or whatever by comparing what we see with what we have previously seen. Yes, it's nice to get confirmation from other collectors or dealers that our estimate of grading is about right, but ultimately, do we not all buy by eye appeal?

I know I've posted thsi before but here's a coin that suffers from many of the faults of hammered coinage. The flan isn't of uniform thickness leaving weak patches here and there. In fact you can see places where the silver has been folded in but not properly bonded with the rest of the blank before the coin was struck. The dies have cracked with use. And the coin has jumped ever so slightly between blows leading to double striking here and there.

But to me, and despite (or perhaps because of) the flaws, this is still a stonking coin! Eye appeal. 100%

As a collector I agree with you 100%. I always kept the odd lower grade penny, common dates in my frontline collection and I never did own a lustrous 1899, 1905, 1911 or 1922 penny simply because I liked the strike/toning of the coins I already held or because the process by which I acquired them was memorable in some way. As a dealer it's different and I wouldn't have bought the lower grade coins in a hundred years as they would be very difficult to dispose of.

I hope this comes out OK but I love virtually everything about this coin, which to my mind has masses more character than a purely lustrous specimen;

It's a lovely strike - particularly strong rim especially on the reverse. I almost did a double take, it looked like the reverse of the 1895 2mm at first... (which also has a very strong rim usually)