Shilling Higher End Grades

[Guest richbedforduk]

I always struggle with the high end grades. I am ok with EF, but I loathe to put something down as UNC/BU in case I get it wrong. It is often better to undergrade than overgrade. I have thought something looks great to the eye, even great under a glass, but when you microscope or scan it you can get quite a shock. So far I have not graded anything over EF/UNC, just in case.

I have struggled a bit with these two shillings.

The 1842 looks fantastic to my eye, really bright and crisp, but not to the same extent in the picture. This was in an envelope marked GF, NEF & 32%.

The 1844 does not look as bright, but somewhat sharper. This was in an envelope marked as BU.

Your comments please.

[Guest richbedforduk]

1844

[Peter 615]

The 1842 is a nice GVF 1/-

There is a lot of wear but eye appeal is good.

[Gary 7]

Both have seen circulation, the 1842 more than the 44. I would put the 42 at VF and the 44 GVF.

[Guest richbedforduk]

Thank you both.

Once the images were in this thread, I could see that the earlobe on the '42 was worn. I then felt that the '42 was VF.

The '44 is a lot better, but a bit gummy. A lot of the coins have spent 50 odd years in thoses plastic pouches. (I would suggest that plastic pouches are avoided, or changed every few years). It is also a good example of a coin looking better in the hand, rather than on the screen. I would have graded at EF. I have tried to avoid split grades, but I will go with what you have suggested.

Thanks again, now for a few more.

[Peckris 579]

Thank you both.

Once the images were in this thread, I could see that the earlobe on the '42 was worn. I then felt that the '42 was VF.

The '44 is a lot better, but a bit gummy. A lot of the coins have spent 50 odd years in thoses plastic pouches. (I would suggest that plastic pouches are avoided, or changed every few years). It is also a good example of a coin looking better in the hand, rather than on the screen. I would have graded at EF. I have tried to avoid split grades, but I will go with what you have suggested.

Thanks again, now for a few more.

I agree with Peter - the 1842 is lifted up to GVF by its reverse which is easily half a grade or more better than the obverse (which is only VF in my opinion).

The 1844 is more difficult to grade from a picture. The hair above the ear looks quite seriously worn, but far more than it should, considering the rest of the overse is much better. But that hair detail is notoriously prone to die wear. The reverse looks superb, but you can see the edges of oak leaves wearing, which would make it EF maximum, or NEF if you're a purist. All in all, the 1844 COULD be EF (though a weakish EF) but seeing it in hand would be a better indicator