1797 Cartwheel penny

[declanwmagee 122]

Is it one of those "at a glance" things once you know what you're looking at?

Guidance would be greatly appreciated, 'cos I can't book it in properly till I can work it out....

[azda 979]

I'd say cleaned for starters

[declanwmagee 122]

OK, cleaned 10 leaves, or cleaned 11 leaves?

[Rob 3,152]

OK, cleaned 10 leaves, or cleaned 11 leaves?

10. The tie points down, whereas on the 11 it points horizontally outwards. You remember that big blue book that smells nice, that you don't use very often...........?

[declanwmagee 122]

OK, cleaned 10 leaves, or cleaned 11 leaves?

10. The tie points down, whereas on the 11 it points horizontally outwards. You remember that big blue book that smells nice, that you don't use very often...........?

Thank you Rob!

It's funny you should say that, we're house sitting at the moment, so I only brought a reduced library with me: Spink, CCGB, British Coins market values - just the ones I use for valuations. That was so I could fit the whole shooting match in a tuck box. So far I've wished I'd brought Davies, ESC, both Grooms, and now Peck. I have a little pile of coins that can't go further in the system till I get to use those references, and that was one of them!

[declanwmagee 122]

So do we think that CGS got this one wrong?

[Peckris 579]

So do we think that CGS got this one wrong?

The eBay gallery picture looks fine, but the seller's pictures won't load at all.

[declanwmagee 122]

The tie looks like it's pointing down to me. The 11 leaves plate at the back of Peck looks entirely different, and points outwards, as Rob points out...

It also looks identical to my example, except it's better, but it's a 10-leaf tie.

[Rob 3,152]

The description could be wrong, but if not is incorrectly attributed. The extra leaf is found behind the bottom leaf on the LHS and is clearly not present.

[Peckris 579]

Here's an oddity from the same seller :

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1929-George-V-50-Sterling-Silver-Halfcrown-CGS-EF-60-/290568189198?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item43a736b50e#ht_3911wt_953

Scroll down to the pictures below the picture of George V etc. Do you agree that the coin obverse in the CGS capsule looks - as graded and advertised - to be only EF, whereas the same coin (apparently) pictured obverse / reverse on a black background, appears to be UNC?

[Colin G. 147]

That's the difference between photographing them in the slab and out of the slab, you can get the lighting right when out of a slab, but it is very difficult when encapsulated

[Peckris 579]

That's the difference between photographing them in the slab and out of the slab, you can get the lighting right when out of a slab, but it is very difficult when encapsulated

It's not that Colin - in the slab it looks a bit worn, i.e. EF maximum, but outside it looks not only UNC but most lustre too.

[Nick 329]

That's the difference between photographing them in the slab and out of the slab, you can get the lighting right when out of a slab, but it is very difficult when encapsulated

It's not that Colin - in the slab it looks a bit worn, i.e. EF maximum, but outside it looks not only UNC but most lustre too.

It is the same coin though (the tiny scratches and specs in the patina match up). It shows that it's possible to flatter a coin simply by choice of angle of lighting.

[Peckris 579]

That's the difference between photographing them in the slab and out of the slab, you can get the lighting right when out of a slab, but it is very difficult when encapsulated

It's not that Colin - in the slab it looks a bit worn, i.e. EF maximum, but outside it looks not only UNC but most lustre too.

It is the same coin though (the tiny scratches and specs in the patina match up). It shows that it's possible to flatter a coin simply by choice of angle of lighting.

How can you be sure Nick? The pictures aren't that big (it's one time where "azda size" images would actually help ). I can't make out any scratches at all. As for the toning, the dark patch surrounding GEO is the same on both, but the similar dark patch around REX on the right, doesn't appear on the unslabbed picture (left). Also, there appears to be loads of lustre on the left, but none at all on the right. The only way to completely 'kill' lustre is via scanning, but the slabbed picture must be a photo not a scan.

Either way, I wonder at the seller paying £10 to slab a sub-£30 coin - its population rating of 9th out of 9 comes as no surprise at all. What is surprising is that 9 people have bothered to pay CGS to slab a 1929 halfcrown! CGS have made £90 minimum out of that particular exercise. "Nice work if you can get it".

[Nick 329]

It is the same coin though (the tiny scratches and specs in the patina match up). It shows that it's possible to flatter a coin simply by choice of angle of lighting.

How can you be sure Nick? The pictures aren't that big (it's one time where "azda size" images would actually help ). I can't make out any scratches at all. As for the toning, the dark patch surrounding GEO is the same on both, but the similar dark patch around REX on the right, doesn't appear on the unslabbed picture (left). Also, there appears to be loads of lustre on the left, but none at all on the right. The only way to completely 'kill' lustre is via scanning, but the slabbed picture must be a photo not a scan.

Either way, I wonder at the seller paying £10 to slab a sub-£30 coin - its population rating of 9th out of 9 comes as no surprise at all. What is surprising is that 9 people have bothered to pay CGS to slab a 1929 halfcrown! CGS have made £90 minimum out of that particular exercise. "Nice work if you can get it".

If you look at the area around the truncation, there is a spot just to the left of the tip, a horizontal scratch on the neck just up from the tip and another spot to the left (as you look at it) of the X. These all match up on both photos. At a glance though, I would agree that they do look like different coins.

I've often wondered why low grade (or common) coins are submitted for grading. Could it be that CGS UK give discounts for bulk submissions? Or perhaps, some people are just deluded into thinking that their coin is the best out there.

Here are the cropped photos scaled to the same size (I cheated slightly by downloading the left picture from the CGS UK website).

[Rob 3,152]

Either way, I wonder at the seller paying £10 to slab a sub-£30 coin - its population rating of 9th out of 9 comes as no surprise at all. What is surprising is that 9 people have bothered to pay CGS to slab a 1929 halfcrown! CGS have made £90 minimum out of that particular exercise. "Nice work if you can get it".

I've often wondered why low grade (or common) coins are submitted for grading. Could it be that CGS UK give discounts for bulk submissions? Or perhaps, some people are just deluded into thinking that their coin is the best out there.

They haven't necessarily been submitted by a paying customer. They slabbed some themselves to get the populations up, particularly the cheap items. Expensive coins are a different matter as you have to spend money to acquire the coin in the first place, so some of these can be reasonably assumed to be from paying customers but it would be wrong to assume that all are.

[Colin G. 147]

I suppose you will also get denomination collectors who may be looking to encase their collection and therefore some of the later dates will inevitably get submitted. You just have to look at the vast amounts of modern currency slabbed in the states.

The population report shows 49 decimal 1/2 pennies graded and 162 decimal pennies encased, so the halfcrowns look quite sensible in comparison

[Peckris 579]

Either way, I wonder at the seller paying £10 to slab a sub-£30 coin - its population rating of 9th out of 9 comes as no surprise at all. What is surprising is that 9 people have bothered to pay CGS to slab a 1929 halfcrown! CGS have made £90 minimum out of that particular exercise. "Nice work if you can get it".

I've often wondered why low grade (or common) coins are submitted for grading. Could it be that CGS UK give discounts for bulk submissions? Or perhaps, some people are just deluded into thinking that their coin is the best out there.

They haven't necessarily been submitted by a paying customer. They slabbed some themselves to get the populations up, particularly the cheap items. Expensive coins are a different matter as you have to spend money to acquire the coin in the first place, so some of these can be reasonably assumed to be from paying customers but it would be wrong to assume that all are.

Thanks Nick, Rob. That one small scratch does seem to give the game away.

Presumably CGS - if they have recorded some low-value coins themselves to boost populations - took photos and have all the statistical documentation, but may not have incurred the expense of actual slabbing? Unless they decided to 'sell on' the slabbed items at a fattish profit to recoup expenses. One does wonder though, why they would bother to boost the population of something like 1929 halfcrowns, unless it was some kind of statistical self-aggrandisement. (I.e. the total number of CGS slabs done to date...)

[Peckris 579]

I suppose you will also get denomination collectors who may be looking to encase their collection and therefore some of the later dates will inevitably get submitted. You just have to look at the vast amounts of modern currency slabbed in the states.

The population report shows 49 decimal 1/2 pennies graded and 162 decimal pennies encased, so the halfcrowns look quite sensible in comparison

By the same now-broke-but-certified individual??

[Accumulator 52]

Picked this up at London Coins auction today, attributed as Peck 1132 with 10 leaves. I bought because I was sure it was the rarer Peck 1133 with 11 leaves. What do others think?

Apologies, I only have the catalogue photo at the moment.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Accumulator

[Rob 3,152]

Picked this up at London Coins auction today, attributed as Peck 1132 with 10 leaves. I bought because I was sure it was the rarer Peck 1133 with 11 leaves. What do others think?

Apologies, I only have the catalogue photo at the moment.

Looks like the 11 leaves to me not least because it has 11 leaves. Also the tie points straight out and the dot below the bust is present.

[Accumulator 52]

Picked this up at London Coins auction today, attributed as Peck 1132 with 10 leaves. I bought because I was sure it was the rarer Peck 1133 with 11 leaves. What do others think?

Apologies, I only have the catalogue photo at the moment.

Looks like the 11 leaves to me not least because it has 11 leaves. Also the tie points straight out and the dot below the bust is present.

My thoughts exactly. Amazed they got this wrong, but rather pleased to obtain an UNC Peck 1133 with a fair amount of lustre at a reasonable price. I now have an EF spare which will probably go to eBay unless anyone is interested?

[Rob 3,152]

Picked this up at London Coins auction today, attributed as Peck 1132 with 10 leaves. I bought because I was sure it was the rarer Peck 1133 with 11 leaves. What do others think?

Apologies, I only have the catalogue photo at the moment.

Looks like the 11 leaves to me not least because it has 11 leaves. Also the tie points straight out and the dot below the bust is present.

My thoughts exactly. Amazed they got this wrong, but rather pleased to obtain an UNC Peck 1133 with a fair amount of lustre at a reasonable price. I now have an EF spare which will probably go to eBay unless anyone is interested?

Is it 1133 or 1133A - i.e are the dots on the rock incuse or raised? The latter is easily missed too and given the indifference to accurate attribution of the obvious bits, with a bit of luck you could get an added bonus. I picked up an example of the latter (Adams 36) at London Coins in Sept. 2007 for just over 40% of what it sold for four years earlier, simply because it was now in a CGS 78 slab which displeased the number brigade rather than the description in Spink's catalogue which stated it was the best example the cataloguer had seen of the variety. Whether it's the best or not, I'll live with someone else's opinion every day for bargains like that.

[Accumulator 52]

Picked this up at London Coins auction today, attributed as Peck 1132 with 10 leaves. I bought because I was sure it was the rarer Peck 1133 with 11 leaves. What do others think?

Apologies, I only have the catalogue photo at the moment.

Looks like the 11 leaves to me not least because it has 11 leaves. Also the tie points straight out and the dot below the bust is present.

My thoughts exactly. Amazed they got this wrong, but rather pleased to obtain an UNC Peck 1133 with a fair amount of lustre at a reasonable price. I now have an EF spare which will probably go to eBay unless anyone is interested?

Is it 1133 or 1133A - i.e are the dots on the rock incuse or raised? The latter is easily missed too and given the indifference to accurate attribution of the obvious bits, with a bit of luck you could get an added bonus. I picked up an example of the latter (Adams 36) at London Coins in Sept. 2007 for just over 40% of what it sold for four years earlier, simply because it was now in a CGS 78 slab which displeased the number brigade rather than the description in Spink's catalogue which stated it was the best example the cataloguer had seen of the variety. Whether it's the best or not, I'll live with someone else's opinion every day for bargains like that.

I could have missed that Rob! Unfortunately, though, the three dots are incuse (see below). Well done on finding yours.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Accumulator