Choice ?

[sound 25]

http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=2054&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue

Can anyone work this out ? It's an attractive coin but....

Mark

Edited February 18, 2015 by sound

[azda 979]

Nice scratch across the neck there. UNC? Not for me

[sound 25]

Well Dave I agree. However the reverse just dosn't make CGS 80, I'm struggling with EF. I know this period is difficult and it's always good to be humble, but the ear on the obverse looks decidedly flat.

mark

[Peter 615]

Weak strike and a £25 coin.

[PWA 1967 2,142]

In my opinion the obverse 78/80 and the reverse 60. overall does not make any better than 65 e/f.

Not knowing anything about half crowns i may be way off.

[PWA 1967 2,142]

Having read your later post the ear does look flat and overall not really an attractive coin.Is this a particular year for a weak strike ?

[azda 979]

Having read your later post the ear does look flat and overall not really an attractive coin.Is this a particular year for a weak strike ?

George V coinage as a whole was very problematic but that coin should never get a CGS80 even before we talk about the scratch On The neck. Thats crazy Grading especially since we moan sometimes at how low they grade some real chocie coins.

Edited February 19, 2015 by azda

[PWA 1967 2,142]

Yes i agree ,seems way off the mark.

[jacinbox 36]

In my opinion the obverse 78/80 and the reverse 60. overall does not make any better than 65 e/f.

Not knowing anything about half crowns i may be way off.

I would give it 70 Obv and Rev 60. Look at them lions like they have been starved to death. The first lion on the top corner their butt is gone missing. The vertical line sepearting the 4 compartments is missing and on the bottom shelf the lion's heads are missing.

With CGS it is always who the consignee is. I would grade it XF overall but hey whhat do I know.

[Coinery 1,157]

I'm going to go higher! The obverse eyebrow would normally be very much flattened if the wear on the ear was actually wear. Eyebrow looks good and, in view of the weakness in the reverse shield, I'm going weak ear, not worn.

The reverse looks barely worn at all to me, I'd go GEF, maybe AU (but would like an in-hand look at the lustre on the high points for that)!

From a CGS point of view, I don't think they should've graded it anything like that high if they are supposedly knocking coins down for strike and damage.......IMHO

[sound 25]

Well Stuart I buy the GEF for the obverse. However the reverse even allowing for the closed faces of the Lion's in this period and the weakness of strike, are flattened through wear IMO. So reverse a generous EF.

The thing is we can all argue about 1/2 a grade but collectors are shipping coins in bucket loads to CGS and accepting their grading as the final authority.

Would just say I'm not against CGS or numerical grading, just prefer traditional. It's the final authority bit that gets me.

I'm now building a reservoir of examples to show anyone who thinks slabbing is the final word. This one is going in front and centre.

Mark

[Nicholas 51]

No one listening at PCGS, CGS, NGC- please include strike in the grading ....

[Colin88 54]

How on earth can anyone with at least one half decent eye, grade that coin as UNC.??

Its spent a long time in someone's trouser pocket given the wear....particularly on the reverse....

[azda 979]

How on earth can anyone with at least one half decent eye, grade that coin as UNC.??

Its spent a long time in someone's trouser pocket given the wear....particularly on the reverse....

The HUGE Crux for me i's that OBV scratch, its not a bagmark it's a whacking great big SCRATCH And coins from CGS get downgraded for these type of things, so, sorry but OBV is not UNC for me

[Coinery 1,157]

...just prefer traditional. It's the final authority bit that gets me.

100% WITH YOU ON THAT!

I'm now building a reservoir of examples to show anyone who thinks slabbing is the final word. This one is going in front and centre.

BRILLIANT IDEA, MARK!

Mark

[ozjohn 661]

A poorly struck coin. The obverse seems to have a wider than normal rim indicating that it wasn't struck properly hence the flat ear. However the raised edge of the rim to the RHS of the head at about 1 to 2 o' clock indicates that there has been little circulation otherwise it would be flattened also it indicates that the blank didn't fit correctly in the die during striking otherwise it would be around the whole of the rim as can be seen on some coins. Again the reverse suffers from the light struck as the center of the shield which is particularly poorly struck is roughly in the same place as the flat ear. The scratch who knows where that came from. Overall the high grade assigned to the coin does not seem to be justified as I have seen coins graded at GVF looking better than the subject coin. I do not think any grading system really describes coins such at this with any accuracy. PGS try to include strike into the equation with their MS graded coins but the 10 odd percent they devote to this would hardly describe the deficiencies in the strike quality of this coin.

Perhaps CGS's grading is more a result of the conflict between the grader and the seller of the coin being one and the same organization.

[TomGoodheart 403]

Really? I know it's not my area but here's my 1916.

Graded nEF by the seller and I paid £27 .. including post from New Zealand.

My personal view is the reverse shows less wear than the London example. My lions at least have noses! No way would I rate theirs worth the money ... be interesting to see what it sells for.

.

Edited February 19, 2015 by TomGoodheart

[VickySilver 832]

IMO, the technical grade for reverse is quite HIGH, definitely uncirculated but with the usual strike. Continuing positive, the toning is somewhat attractive, and the cheek & brow very free of hits. As Dave has pointed out, the mark at neck is a detriment.

As they are usually strict, I am surprised this was not "net graded" to a 75, but 60 is a bit mean. The value probably 50% high.

I had to work very hard to get a presentable set of G5 2/6s, but with persistence nicer bits can be found.

[azda 979]

Let's be honest Here. If this coin was in the ebay thread we'd be all having a pop at the sellers grading, so its gone through CGS and is acceptable?

[Coinery 1,157]

Let's be honest Here. If this coin was in the ebay thread we'd be all having a pop at the sellers grading, so its gone through CGS and is acceptable?

Not true! I think it's very high grade with faults! If somebody advertised that as GEF (maybe even AU) with weak strike and a couple of detracting marks, I'd say their statement would be fair!

CGS seem to have forgotten to factor the issues into their numerical stamp! But we all know why, don't we?

[Nick 329]

I make no distinction between wear and weakness. The fact remains that a substantial portion of the design is missing. It wouldn't be more than EF money to my mind, regardless of the given grade.

[sound 25]

Well Stuart you and I are 1/2 grade apart on the reverse. Can't see us falling out.

In fairness I do generally find CGS consistent it's just every now and then you get some glaring anomalies. Now of course all of us can make mistakes, but most dealers don't charge for trying to accurately grade a coin.

Most of us would agree grading is an opinion, however numerical grading seeks to take itself above that idea. So when questionable examples come along they tend to stand out from the pack.

Mark

[PWA 1967 2,142]

hi mark.

The mistake (if it is one) has been made by three different graders .

I was led to believe they are looked at by a grader and the details put on a system.

This is then repeated twice by two other graders and if one grader rejects a coin that the coin is given a yellow ticket.

If they are slightly different the lowest grade is attributed.

This means all three graders put the coin at 80.

Makes me have doubts in this instance.

Pete.

[VickySilver 832]

Tom, sorry I missed your post which was evidently in the "net" prior to my response.I agree, your 1916 has a nice reverse; the obverse, even if softly struck has large issues with the aforementioned brow, beard and hair detail that severely limit its value. I tend to think (IMO) that the TPGs may respect or give more weight to the obverse, but this is obviously just a guess.

Last point:: the lustre on this piece may be better than obvious from the photo...

Edited February 19, 2015 by VickySilver

[Chris Perkins 228]

I find GV a pig to photograph. I think it's possible that the coin we're all talking about may well have original lustre all over, even on the weak bits. It's possible that it is therefore UNC, but obviously with some strike problems etc. Weak strikes are not as attractive and I understand people that class weak strikes the same as wear, but if that has full lustre, then technically it's UNC!

We'd all have to see it in the flesh. I personally can't see anything on it that I could say was definitely wear and not weakness.