US TPG grading of English Early Milled

[Paulus 1,980]

This is a mini-rant at the over-grades sometimes given, please do not read on if your blood pressure is already too high.

On what planet is this coin remotely MS (Mint State), let alone MS63? I would struggle with GVF (with problems) for this common date:

It is a farthing listed on eBay.uk http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-II-1736-COPPER-FARTHING-LUSTROUS-TOP-GRADE-SLABBED-NGC-MS-63-/281584625878?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item418fc068d6

Can anyone explain this massive miss-grading (in my view), or is it just another case of buyer beware, buy the coin not the slab, TPG inconsistency/laziness/vested interest??

Makes a mockery of our beloved hobby

[Nicholas 51]

MS 63 seems very high and the issue I have is that these stabbing companies do not take into consideration strike and die wear. This coin may have looked like this when it was minted (with more shine) - I can also see traces of die wear and cracking suggesting old dies. Without seeing the coin in person it's hard to see whether the flatness on the portrait is a soft strike or wear and tear.

Interestingly they include quality of strike when grading ancient coins. Perhaps they should consider a hybrid grading process to cover all key elements ...

[Rob 3,241]

George II halfpennies and farthings are notorious for blocked dies. They used them until there was virtually no relief remaining. It is not a case of soft striking imo as you often see a well struck side paired with a weak other side. e.g, here are two examples of the 1738 V/S in GEORGIVS obverse die. Nicholson's is on the left, my current example on the right. There is only one die, so any wear or die fill confirms the chronological order in which individual examples were struck. The case for die fill is helped by the profile of the weak areas in the head, which are concave on the coin (and not flat, thus eliminating wear). The Nicholson coin which is the earlier example, has more wear, so allow for this. Apart from the hair detail, the Nicholson coin is also marginally stronger in the legend.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Rob

[scott 145]

yes and that's the thing with early milled, not always as clear cut with regards to striking planchet flaws.

its has clear Lustre, what I cant fathom is MS when there is clear rubbing on the reverse raised services.

I have a similar problem grading this one.

great detail, and a nice tone, yet reverse has its own mint issues, but the price reflected the mint damage.

Edited February 4, 2015 by scott

[Peckris 579]

I think die wear SHOULD be reflected in the grade, but not as much as circulation wear.

To give one example, my 1919H penny is EF in all but hair detail, which is F at best, due to the dies being used beyond their sell-by date, and hair detail being the first to suffer. Yet I would expect it to be graded NEF as it's just one feature that has suffered. Perhaps that's where a numerical system wins out - but you'd still need the description to state clearly what the situation is (e.g. 'die wear', 'strike', etc).

[Paulus 1,980]

I think die wear SHOULD be reflected in the grade, but not as much as circulation wear.

To give one example, my 1919H penny is EF in all but hair detail, which is F at best, due to the dies being used beyond their sell-by date, and hair detail being the first to suffer. Yet I would expect it to be graded NEF as it's just one feature that has suffered. Perhaps that's where a numerical system wins out - but you'd still need the description to state clearly what the situation is (e.g. 'die wear', 'strike', etc).

I fully agree

[VickySilver 885]

To play devil's advocate: an MS coin is defined as being just as it was when it was ejected from the dies, with perhaps bag or bin contact being allowed but dropping the absolute number. On this basis I don't have an issue with the OP coin which if graded technically only might even merit a HIGHER grade; obviously some deduction was taken even from this scheme. I see only worn and rusted die strike with some of the "damage" being in the planchet itself.

So, as has been alluded to, how should a grade be derived? Technical versus/and aesthetics????

[Colin G. 147]

In my opinion there is wear evident along the length of Britannia from her head down her left side to her left ankle. Admittedly the weakness makes this more difficult to determine, and whilst the wear is marginal, but in my opinion it is evident. The same is also evident along the laurel and cuirass on the Obverse. I have to admit if I was technically grading I would not be as harsh as GVF, but I would struggle with calling this Mint State/UNC....and whilst it is a common date, decent examples of lustrous George II farthings are notoriously tough.

[VickySilver 885]

I see that as planchet issues in areas not struck up, the flatness and the apparent scratches not IMO post mint damage. Mark free fields, relatively. I can see a bit of discolouration to the device high points but think that may be from cabinet contact/oxidation as opposed to mechanical. If you take B's head, for example, it is entirely smooth if discoloured without evidence of mark. The marks lower on the device are not substantially different to those on the obverse, and not wear.

[Colin G. 147]

I agree that some of the flatness across Britannia's face is due to weak strike, because the wear would be beyond the depth at which the remainder of the coin is worn, but there is definitely wear down that left hand side where the toning is present, albeit not a great amount!!