Coin Grading

[colliewalker1 0]

Chris has given some very helpful information on this website about coin grading and I am now more able to judge the comparitive condition of a coin from the grade given - in conjunction with a photo of said coin of course!

However, I am cominmg across grades which confuse me somewhat.Chris quotes 'Fine' or just 'F' as "the first truly collectable condition...." which is a very helpful starting point.But what about GF - presumably this means Good to Fine - or perhaps Fine minus: this appears to be less than "the first truly collectable condition"

although I have just bought a GF Crown [not yet delivered] and this looked very acceptable from the photo - fingers crossed pending delivery!!

But what about 'GEF' that I have seen given as a grade - does this mean Good to Extra Fine? This doesn't seem sensible as surely it should be Fine To Extra Fine?

All this seems to underline tne thought that in the final analysis it's the PHOTO that really counts!In fact I have seen some sellers on Ebay say that the buyer should decide the grade for himself/herself from the photo!

Members' thoughts will be appreciated!

[Chris Perkins 228]

GF = Good Fine, in other words a little better than fine. Take no notice of me saying that Fine being the first truly collectable condition, that's just the case with many modern British coins. In fact for anything post 1930 some would say that EF or even UNC is the first truly collectable condition!

GEF = A Good Extremely Fine, so a little better than EF. It does not mean between Good and Extremely Fine, becasue that's very wide!

I do mention about the preceeding G, N and A grades here:

http://www.predecimal.com/coingrading.htm

[custard1966 1]

Michael Gouby avoids grades like GF precisely because of this possible confusion

He uses F+ for better than fine and F? for 'not quite fine.

see

http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/grading.htm

As you say actually seeing the coin and making your own mind up is best. Failing that you need a trusted dealer whose grading you are familiar with.

[Master Jmd 89]

yes, i think that mr. Gouby has an easily understandable system there...

[Sylvester 15]

Michael Gouby avoids grades like GF precisely because of this possible confusion

He uses F+ for better than fine and F? for 'not quite fine.

see

http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/grading.htm

As you say actually seeing the coin and making your own mind up is best. Failing that you need a trusted dealer whose grading you are familiar with.

Why F? that makes me think, why what's wrong with it... it's Fine but it's been cleaned, or it's fine but an ex-mount?

Wouldn't F- suffice?

[Sylvester 15]

AS? for As Struck... i spent about 2 minutes just trying to work that one out and as for that AS90/50 stuff i was puzzelled, Bearing in mind i've been spending far too much time with US grading lately so i'm getting AU58, MS63... So i was thinking where's 95 come into it? The top grade is MS70!)

Sure this would be better;

UNC 40% Lustre

UNC 90% Lustre

BU

And i really don't like those question marks.

I'll stick with the; G, VF, AF, F, GF, AVF, VF, GVF, AEF, EF, GEF, AU, UNC, BU, Gem UNC.

I rarely use N although i do browse through some dealer's catalogues and they use NVF, NEF all the time. (Actually it looks better, but 'almost' sounds better than 'nearly'! )

[Chris Perkins 228]

I think Mr Gouby's attempted grading reforms are interesting, and i'm sure they work. Thing is, when novices have learnt the 'traditional' system, there really is no need to learn another (apart from if you want to buy coins from America).

I don't like being fixed to just F, VF, EF, UNC, so with my grading I use a lot of 'N', 'A' and 'G'. I just feel comfortable like that, as coins are not often bang on a grade, and those Gouby '?'s do look funny.

[Master Jmd 89]

I'll stick with the; G, VF, AF, F, GF, AVF, VF, GVF, AEF, EF, GEF, AU, UNC, BU, Gem UNC.

I rarely use N although i do browse through some dealer's catalogues and they use NVF, NEF all the time.

I use 'N' as a grade better than 'A' so NVF is slightly better conditioned then AVF.

I also put Gem UNC before BU to use as NBU

[Sylvester 15]

Well NBU is a useful grade to have actually, cos some coins particularly copper can be like 95% or more orginial lustre and are only missing the BU designation due to the fact that they have a slight deficiency of lustre in say one small place, but the coin overall is superior to most UNCs.

[Half Penny Jon 0]

I don't know about everyone else, but I find coins graded abt. BU off-putting because I imagine a big scratch or carbon spot (only with coins without a photograph).

[Master Jmd 89]

I don't know about everyone else, but I find coins graded abt. BU off-putting because I imagine a big scratch or carbon spot (only with coins without a photograph).

yes, me too, thats why i strictly go for BU's

[Sylvester 15]

I dunno i've got a thing for GVF... why do i like that grade?

AEF is another grade that i'm particularly fond of...

For modern i like GEF, but i like my GVF 1992 10p!

[Master Jmd 89]

The older the coin the lower the grade for beauty ...ie: i would hate to have a BU 1700 farthing, i would prefer the 'older look'

[Sylvester 15]

The older the coin the lower the grade for beauty ...ie: i would hate to have a BU 1700 farthing, i would prefer the 'older look'

I dunno there's something about a BU 1684 farthing if such a thing exists!

[colliewalker1 0]

A question for Sylvester please!

Looking at one of Tony Clayton's excellent web pages- 'Pictures of coins of the UK',dealing with half-crowns I see that a photo of an 1834 William IV coin was donated by you!

As a beginner I am concentrating on 19th century silver coins(larger size!)and this is the sort of coin that I would like to add to my collection.

This looks a nice coin and I notice that unlike many coins of this age the reverse side does not look unduly worn: the monarch's head looks good too - particularly the face - the hair looks a bit 'smoothed'!

What grade would you apply to this coin - and what should I expect to pay for one like it?

Regards - Denis

PS At what stage do you think that coins like this become uninteresting from a collecting viewpoint - e.g 20th century Edward VII/George V/Edward VII/George VI.....

[Sylvester 15]

Ha ha... yes i've donated alot of stuff over there, (don't look in the sixpence section whatever you do!) if i still had it i would have sold it to you, but i sold it to Chris on here i think.

It was only F in my opinion (this is without looking at the pic, i really should go and have a look), it was 1834 a common year and thus they are quite cheap, i'd say about £20, i think i paid about £15 for it.

The coins from William IV through to Victoria Young head wear mostly on the obverse with not too much on the reverse.

I like William IV coins myself half crowns in particular, you want to see a post 1826 Geo IV halfcrown with Garnished Shield though, now they are quite something.

Dunno i still prefer the W4 ones though!

[Sylvester 15]

PS At what stage do you think that coins like this become uninteresting from a collecting viewpoint - e.g 20th century Edward VII/George V/Edward VII/George VI.....

Well that's a very interesting question and it depends upon the person to a large extent and their interests. (Prepare for a whole load of dates)

I could answer all these things for the point at which coins become uninteresting to collectors;

1) 1799 [that's my own personal preference]

2) 1837 [that's about as far as i go into late milled]

3) 1887 [generally that's where the prices start going down]

4) 1901 [some would answer that, end of Victoria]

But many collectors collect things after this point, some state 1910. Edward VII silver is hardly cheap... so lets go further.

Personally if i view it from a silver collecting point of view i'd state 1919 as the the cut off date, cos in 1920 the silver was downgraded from 92.5% fine to 50% fine... the prices drop further here.

From a gold collecting point of view possibly 1932 which saw the end of the circulating sovereigns.

Most would argue 1936 as the reigns of George VI and Elizabeth II are pretty common, the latter very much so. Some go forward to 1946 with the end of silver. Others would stretch to 1952 with the demise of George VI.

Many collectors on a tight budget would say 1970 and the end of predecimal currency.

And then you get those that would say 1662...

It's a very individual thing, mostly i'd cut off at 1919 for most coins, rarer ones like Wreath Crowns and of course the ubiquitous gold sovereigns through to the proof of 1937 would still be of interest to collectors.

Some coins of George VI reign are quite scarce and collectable though.

Copper collectors would tell you 1860, bronze collectors might say 1936.

It all depends what YOU want to collect.

I'll let the copper/bronze fans deal with that area.

But if i was collecting late milled i'd finish at 1919 with the end of sterling silver and take gold as far as 1932.

My own collecting preferences as they are though would see me probably cut off the silver at 1787 and cease the gold in 1873 (with the end of the London mint shield reverse sovereigns... well the affordable ones anyway!)

[Half Penny Jon 0]

1936 is really as modern as I would go as far as bronze goes.

[Master Jmd 89]

i would say 1837

...anything under 200 years old is modern in my opinion, anything over 800 years is old in my opinion

Edited August 26, 2004 by Master Jmd

[Sylvester 15]

Anything after 1815 is modern in my opinion.

[colliewalker1 0]

Some very interesting contributions here - and I found Sylvester's response paricularly interesting. For example, learning of the drastic reduction in the silver content of coins in 1920.

I am concentrating on 'late milled'19th century silver coins and my very embryonic collection so far includes an 1889 Victoria Crown with an 1822 George IV on order: perhaps logically I should add George III and William IV versions next, then go down in size to half crowns, florins and shillings.

I don't think that silver coins smaller than shillings appeal to me.

I am toying with the idea of adding some more modern 'silver' coins representing my birth year - some would think this pretty historic (but I won't reveal which year!) - and that of my wife.

I don't see any special appeal in 'rare' years, despite their greater 'value'

[Master Jmd 89]

I am toying with the idea of adding some more modern 'silver' coins representing my birth year

if you were born before 1947 then you can do this, otherwise you would only have cupro-nickel

[colliewalker1 0]

Replying to Master Jmd's post of the 28th August:-

[1] How do you insert a quote from the post to which you are replying - I just can't see how this is done!!

[2] I take your point about post 1947 coins being cupro-nickel - but I AM old enough for a silver one to be appropriate!

[Master Jmd 89]

Replying to Master Jmd's post of the 28th August:-

[1] How do you insert a quote from the post to which you are replying - I just can't see how this is done!!

[2] I take your point about post 1947 coins being cupro-nickel - but I AM old enough for a silver one to be appropriate!

There is a quote button above each post

[colliewalker1 0]

There is a  quote button above each post 

I should have said that I had discovered the Quote Button but couldn't see where to go from there.I have switched to 'Guided Mode'(for old dummies like me!) and copied and pasted to the panel provided.Here goes and I hope it works!

I am really stretching myself and am trying to insert a smiley too!!!

(EDITED BY SYLVESTER...) All that was needed was a space between the exclaimation marks and :rolleyes:cos if you don't leave a space then this happens!)