Grading coins both pre and post decimal

[Gollum 2]

Ok. are all coins both from say the 18th century and the 20th all graded with the same criteria. I cant understand why I see some say victorian coins graded as say VF yet the same wear on a post decimal coin is scrap, if the unc version is available even for the 18th century coin ( however rare )surely they should all be using the same grading system and criteria. Or am I watching too many people grading such coins wrongly.

[TomGoodheart 452]

Er .. if I understand you correctly Garry, it's supply and demand. How many pristine 1967 pennies are there? Thousands if not millions. How many 1867 pennies in pristine condition ... not so many. Does anyone want a vf 1967 penny when you can pick up an EF example for under £1? No. Pretty much scrap. 1965 shilling? £1.50 in BU from Chris here. Why bother with anything less than VF then?

So the grading standards/ criterion are the same. Just as you go back in time then it becomes trickier to find really good examples and the price goes up. Look at the 1875 pennies in the Coin aquisition thread. While everyone might want a BU example there aren't that many and they will cost an arm and a leg. So most have to compromise and settle for less. Not so with modern (ie post 1950) coins. Most are easily found gleaming much as the day the mint sent them on their merry way so there's less appeal to a knackered specimen .. same grade, but .. unwanted.

[Gollum 2]

Hi Tom ,thanks for replying.

So if I had a 1840 shilling that had say the nose missing and no other imperfections, and a 2001 shilling ( for the purposes of this explanation only !) with identical wear they would both be graded exactly the same then ?.

If so the question has been answered for me. I just got the feeling that people allowed the grading criteria to be lowered from one century to the other merely for convenience of the coin they wanted or were selling was all.

[Rob 3,324]

Hi Tom ,thanks for replying.

So if I had a 1840 shilling that had say the nose missing and no other imperfections, and a 2001 shilling ( for the purposes of this explanation only !) with identical wear they would both be graded exactly the same then ?.

If so the question has been answered for me. I just got the feeling that people allowed the grading criteria to be lowered from one century to the other merely for convenience of the coin they wanted or were selling was all.

This is a problem sometimes because you often see grades inflated for age by people who want to sell an item. On ebay, the only way is UNC or EF if old, so everything has its grade upped and the older it is the worse it gets. A rule of thumb seems to be a full grade every 100-150 years back to the start of milled. Hammered is a different matter as has been discussed previously.

[Paulus 2,004]

Hi Tom ,thanks for replying.

So if I had a 1840 shilling that had say the nose missing and no other imperfections, and a 2001 shilling ( for the purposes of this explanation only !) with identical wear they would both be graded exactly the same then ?.

If so the question has been answered for me. I just got the feeling that people allowed the grading criteria to be lowered from one century to the other merely for convenience of the coin they wanted or were selling was all.

I agree with Tom. It's relative to the supply and demand for the coin, there seem to be many early milled coins graded VF or GVF (even by reputable dealers and graders) that in the condition they are in wouldn't sell for anything at all if they were post 1950. But thankfully there is some consistency across the centuries, so that inevitably you won't ever find any EF or above hammered coins or UNC or better coins prior to 1797 ... I have the sinking feeling however that I might be contradicted by some of the experts, of which I am certainly not one!

[Rob 3,324]

Hi Tom ,thanks for replying.

So if I had a 1840 shilling that had say the nose missing and no other imperfections, and a 2001 shilling ( for the purposes of this explanation only !) with identical wear they would both be graded exactly the same then ?.

If so the question has been answered for me. I just got the feeling that people allowed the grading criteria to be lowered from one century to the other merely for convenience of the coin they wanted or were selling was all.

I agree with Tom. It's relative to the supply and demand for the coin, there seem to be many early milled coins graded VF or GVF (even by reputable dealers and graders) that in the condition they are in wouldn't sell for anything at all if they were post 1950. But thankfully there is some consistency across the centuries, so that inevitably you won't ever find any EF or above hammered coins or UNC or better coins prior to 1797 ... I have the sinking feeling however that I might be contradicted by some of the experts, of which I am certainly not one!

You do get unc milled prior to 1797, though the vagaries of hammered coinage pretty much excludes these as a block from saying whether there is wear on a coin or not. Small things might justifiably get say a practically as struck good EF, but it is difficult to say the same with conviction for a large module hammered coin that is almost inevitably double struck and unevenly struck.

[Peter 616]

Early copper can be notoriously badley struck with weakness,spelling errors, off centres and the like (especially William 111).I have bought GF's that are less than F.The copper is even cast in some instances.

The Anne patterns and George 1 are better but not without their problems.I would say genuine VF+ William 111 are as rare as hens teeth.

[TomGoodheart 452]

As Rob says elsewhere, before grading a coin, you need to know what a pristine example looks like. If all the coins that came straight out the mint were already weakly struck, it makes it difficult. Particularly for ebayers who may never have seen a really good example.

This for example : CHARLES II FARTHING HIGH GRADE

On the face of it and not knowing anything about the issue, so relying on my copy of Spink, I think it's had decent wear. The rim is worn and the details of the hair and shoulder armour are going. This is an issue with a fairly high rim which I'd expect to protect the lettering anyway so I'd say it's had more than "limited circulation" and grade as Fine.

Now that's deliberately conservative (I'd stretch to "approaching VF") and doesn't detract from it being a nice coin. And copper experts here will know the issue better and grade differently and I'll defer to their knowledge. But 'high grade'? Not how I'd describe it.

But if all you've ever seen are washers you'd likely think this is an exceptional specimen and it would then be easy to grade with your heart rather than your head! So yeah, grading should be consistent and there shouldn't be a difference based on age .. but ..

Edited January 6, 2012 by TomGoodheart

[Peter 616]

Apart from the gouge it isn't a bad coin and reasonable copper.It is a good strike and clear date.

I would grade at GF/NVF money and....but won't be bidding myself.Dealers have problems with these grades and a wide variation often occurs.Without the gouge I might be tempted.

[TomGoodheart 452]

I would grade at GF/NVF

Oh, well, I'm pleased to hear I wasn't a million miles out! Using ebay as a guide I often think my grading skills for milled coins are non-existent!