Coin snobbery has three basic tenets, 1} my coins are better than yours, 2} I know more than you do, and 3} my grading skills are far superior! The first two can be easily proven or otherwise but the last one is more tricky and once you find out the truth you will never have to fear coin snobs again. So, listen up....
Today is my 60th birthday, I'm not real happy about that, I was quite content being 30 and wished to remain so but no..... Tempus Fugit and all that crap just had to spoil it. However it does mean that I'm now entering my 7th decade as a numismatist and as I'm a pretty savvy guy I've learned quite a lot during that time. One of the things I've learned is that whenever two or more coin collectors come into proximity, they are inevitably going to have a conversation about cleaning and grading coins. It's equally inevitable that roughly 92.74% of what is said will be complete bollocks. Of all the many and varied subjects these are the two that always bring out the most interesting theories and strong opinions. Coin cleaning has been adequately discussed at length elsewhere but there remains a whole lot of misinformation about grading, even among the more experienced collectors.
It's not going to be a grading guide, that's been tried and it was proven beyond the reach of a mere forum post (I have other plans), nor is it going to degenerate into one of my spectacular, entirely accurate and well informed rants against the Sheldon Scale and TPGs. It's going to be a gentle discussion during which we can explore together the many myths and fallacies surrounding the subject. OK, enough with the preamble, let's git down in the trenches....
If I said to you, "Your collection consists of mostly superficially graded coins." you would most likely assume it to be an insult. Well, it's true. My collection also consists of mostly superficially graded coins too. Apart from the highly specialized types who may have a tightly focused collection of a few dozen coins from series they are intimately familiar with, pretty much everyone else has hundreds or even thousands of coins from all over the globe. Anyone who thinks they have graded every one of those coins accurately is only fooling himself.
To grade coins with accuracy, and equally importantly consistency, you need to know a whole lot of things before you even pick up your loupe. To begin with you need to be familiar with what a genuine mint state coin should look like, otherwise how on earth do you expect to know how much wear has taken place? You need of know how that particular coin will wear, which are the first places and how the progressive degree of wear fits into the grading framework. You will need to be aware of each of the grade markers for that specific coin and how strong features balance the weaker features to arrive at the right grade. You will have to take into account the state of technology for the period / region and the quality standards of the mint. How long were worn dies allowed to serve, how common were weak strikes and impurities in the metal. Sounds complicated? That's because it is.
There are some very useful websites and guides available to help you but ultimately there is no substitute for experience. So it should be clear by now that it's not realistic for the average collector to become an expert in every series or even more than a handful of them. Anyone claiming otherwise is a charlatan and a mountebank.
So we rely on what I've described as superficial grading for the vast majority of the coins which pass through our hands. It doesn't mean making a wild, usually overoptimistic, guess. It means you are applying the knowledge you have picked up from other, more familiar series in an attempt to describe a coin as honestly and accurately as possible. It isn't a bad thing, it doesn't make you a crook or a noober, it's just the way things are. When you find a coin which you think might have been overgraded by another collector, don't start beating your chest and making threats, it just makes you look like an idiot. A simple polite message will usually fix the problem, if it doesn't move on and don't look back. We're all in the same boat here folks.
Other despicable canards, low tricks, falsehoods and outright idiocies -
"Grading is subjective...."
No, it isn't. It has immutable laws just like mathematics or gravity, you just don't feel like applying them. What you are basically saying is that you are grading your coins in a cynically careless manner and you will accept no responsibility for it. In my experience such a disclaimer typically precedes the receipt of a bunch of knowingly overgraded coins.
"American grading standards are much lower than European ones"
When applied to the silly Sheldon Scale there is some merit to this argument however most knowledgeable and experienced numismatists use the European system. There is no difference in standards, but there is a difference in how rigidly those standards are applied. It's a cultural thing but that shouldn't excuse it. There is a commonly held belief that US collectors routinely bump up their grades a notch or two. Well, not the ones I deal with. There is no reason to accept inflated grades and equally no reason to assume that an American collector will be guilty. Bad collectors are bad collectors wherever they were born, America has a vast population and coin collecting is very popular so it's obvious there will be more inaccuracies. Don't be an enabler!
"Grading is consistent and the same standards should be applied to all coins no matter their age or composition."
No. The expectations of "UNC" are very different for a 2016 coin compared with one from 100 years ago. A coin from the 1800's can be legitimately called UNC while the same condition for a current coin would be relegated to AU or even EF. This is especially true of coins made from softer or corrosion prone materials such as zinc or aluminium.
In conclusion, the message is this..... Yes, coin grading is a very difficult and complex subject but don't be afraid to jump in and give it your best shot. For the vast majority of coins an honest attempt as described above is perfectly adequate. Don't be intimidated and don't let anyone pull the wool over your eyes.
(Adapted from a much longer article written in 2013 which may or may not be published, possibly on my own numismatic themed blog, whenever I get around to it. All intellectual copyrights reserved and all that legal mumbo jumbo)
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Happy Birthday Phil, and thanks for your cogent post!
I think your points are quite valid. I think that "superficial grading" is the best that most of us can hope for coins outside of our specialty areas. I do think that after 40 years of collecting I have developed a better gut feeling for grading. This does not mean that I always get it right, but I hope that experience helps. I do not mean by this that new collectors can not or should not attempt to grade coins, just that I hope we get better with age, in this area anyway
HAPPY BIRTHDAY PHIL! (from an even older guy).... Being TOTALLY enamored with the Sheldon scale and TOTALLY involved with TPG coins (NGC Registry) I think that TPG coins are the best way to go for grading because they are graded by experienced group concensus and likely to be more accurate because of this.
If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything
I acknowledge that I do superficial grading, but I like to think it is close enough to the right ballpark that people have an idea of what they will be getting in a swap.
I guess I do something like this, in terms of the "thresholds" that I look for:
EF/XF: Almost perfect, with minor wear on things like mustaches, edges of eagle wings, etc. Minor elements of coats of arms should still be crisp. Usually as high as I will go with a 100+ year old coin with no known provenance. Seems dishonest to claim UNC, although maybe for coins where I know exactly what an uncirculated example looks like I will make an exception.
VF: Covers a wide ground. Worn but not excessively so. Hair can have strands blending together, minor details on shields might be worn away.
F: Coin has an overall "flat" look to it, with wreaths and hair showing numerous worn patches. Small inscriptions still legible.
VG: Obverse portrait is getting to the point of a silhouette, but major legends are still well-defined. The rim still exists.
G: The rim is worn away and major legends are blurring or faded in several places.
Fair/AG: Coin is identifiable, but barely.
Is that about right?
I would love to see a series of articles (maybe for the Numisdoc tab) discussing grading criteria for various series of world coins. For example, I know certain very helpful markers to look for on Edward VII and George V profiles, and on the Britannia reverse. Other common, recurring images include the eagles on the German Empire coins (with the "shield within a shield" details) and on the Reichspfennigs, the ornate designs on the holed French coins, the sower on higher denomination French coins, the looping arch motif on Belgian coins, etc. I'm sure from long experience, you begin to recognize where the high points are on these coins and you can establish thresholds that determine a grade. For a beginner, it's a bit daunting, though.
Happy birthday. I am 55 so I'm a few years behind you. I used to have a crush on Emma Peel (Diana Rigg to be more specific). I have posted a lot of coins of mine and asking other collectors to grade them-and I have found I do tend to overgrade my coins somewhat. So, I did pick up a few coins today so I'll post the pictures with the grading of them. They'll probably be the last I buy for a few weeks at least.
first is 1877 U.S. Seated Liberty Quarter-graded fine. Next is a 1937H Sarawak cent-graded unc. third is a 1917 Chile Peso-graded vf. And last is a 1993 50 Korun coin from the Czech Republic. I only bought the last one because I liked the design so much.
I’ve faced these same questions, and I still face these questions as I aim to keep improving as a collector. Everything I’ve learned has been self-taught from reading and listening to more experienced expert collectors (some were full of bull and some were full of knowledge and made sense). One of my favorite lessons: Don’t forget about “solved” problems. That time when you feel you have accomplished the ideal grade that feels right and fits to your collection criteria. - and you know it is right. This is Superficial Grading on my terms and at 68 that is probably the best I can hope for.
Your post was expertly done and I wish you a very happy 60th . Ed
Those who believe they can do something and those who believe they can't are both right.
- Henry Ford
As ever a fantastic read mate. I hope you had a great day..
My whole collection bar maybe the 4/5 graded coins I have are done this way. Hell I've even just let a graded VF Canadian token go because I got a raw specimen which I think is in better Nick !
I'm lucky I suppose with my area of "expertise" they all have very similar wear indicators with exception of a few.. maybe there should be a Numisdoc created where all members can submit the wear indicators of their expert areas and how to distinguish them to allow non-collectors of the areas to make a better judgement ?
Quote: "pnightingale""Grading is subjective...."
No, it isn't. It has immutable laws just like mathematics or gravity, you just don't feel like applying them. What you are basically saying is that you are grading your coins in a cynically careless manner and you will accept no responsibility for it. In my experience such a disclaimer typically precedes the receipt of a bunch of knowingly overgraded coins.
I completely disagree with this. Ballroom dancing, Boxing, Diving, Gymnastics, Ice skating and Surfing all also have rules governing how to judge a performance, but if you have seen any of these sports, you'll know that pretty much every time a panel of judges will give a wide range of scores, that's because the judging is subjective, they all interpret the performance differently. Most of them will be within cooee of each other when offering the score. So a dive might have scores ranging from 5.2 to 5.5, which is why they usually have a panel of 6 judges watching a dive and dismiss the highest and lowest scores.
Exactly the same principal applies to coins. There may be immutable laws governing how to judge a coin, but look at any of the threads asking for a grading and you'll find a range of answers, and send the exact same coin to several different grading services and you'll likely get a few different grades, because grading is subjective. But like diving, you'll find that all the grades will be within cooee of each other, you may submit a coin that comes back an average of MS63, but the grades range from MS61-MS65
Quote: "pnightingale""Grading is subjective...."
No, it isn't. It has immutable laws just like mathematics or gravity, you just don't feel like applying them. What you are basically saying is that you are grading your coins in a cynically careless manner and you will accept no responsibility for it. In my experience such a disclaimer typically precedes the receipt of a bunch of knowingly overgraded coins.
I completely disagree with this. Ballroom dancing, Boxing, Diving, Gymnastics, Ice skating and Surfing all also have rules governing how to judge a performance, but if you have seen any of these sports, you'll know that pretty much every time a panel of judges will give a wide range of scores, that's because the judging is subjective, they all interpret the performance differently. Most of them will be within cooee of each other when offering the score. So a dive might have scores ranging from 5.2 to 5.5, which is why they usually have a panel of 6 judges watching a dive and dismiss the highest and lowest scores.
Exactly the same principal applies to coins. There may be immutable laws governing how to judge a coin, but look at any of the threads asking for a grading and you'll find a range of answers, and send the exact same coin to several different grading services and you'll likely get a few different grades, because grading is subjective. But like diving, you'll find that all the grades will be within cooee of each other, you may submit a coin that comes back an average of MS63, but the grades range from MS61-MS65
I also agree. Grading is subjective to some extent, but there are some definite guidelines . It is sort of an art and skill built on experience.
Way back in the mists of time, numismatically speaking, there was a company called Compugrade which preceded the current gaggle of TPGs by a few years. Their business model was pretty simple. They created a huge database of coin images which measured the known markers against a scan of a coin to be graded. Their program would compare the candidate against millions of images and deliver a grade with machine-like precision. They even claimed that the program was so sophisticated and that it could assign grades with such precision that even the Sheldon Scale wasn't sufficient so they added a decimal point to all their grades! Now I don't know about you fellers but MS 67.4 sounds anything but subjective to me! In fact it goes beyond the merely objective and into the realm of definitive.
Sadly it didn't quite work out as intended as there is no way to replicate judgement. It takes an experienced human eye to tell the difference between details missing due to a poor strike and the signs of wear. You can still find coin rattling around in Compugrade slabs and if you do I'd very much advise you to keep them as found, they have far greater value as numismatic curios.
I wonder if such a venture might succeed this time around? There have been enormous strides in technology over the intervening two and a half decades or so. Just take a look at the facial recognition software in use by the intelligence agencies and imagine that applied to coin grading. As people have lost their initial reluctance to hand over cash in return for a slabbed and graded coin there is a real chance for someone to move TPGs into the next stage.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
I would ask a simple question. Once you assign a grade to a coin, how can you prove you're right? Generally by comparing it against other coins that have been graded the same, which is pretty much the same as asking for a second opinion. You check you coin against what someone else has decided are the characteristics of a coin in that grade. Do you think everyone agreed when deciding of the grades? I'm guessing no.
Well, yeah I could compare it to other known examples for sure. I could also refer you to the many published guides to support my claim. This is why I don't buy into the "subjective grading" line and I think it's either a cop out at best, at worst a cynical prelude to someone trying to set the stage for hustling some overgraded coins. Coin grading is predictable simply because of it's objective nature. If you send me a coin which you describe as VF, it's very likely that I will receive a coin which I also think is VF.
Now consider something truly subjective like fine art. You could send me what you think is a really nice Van Gogh and the chances are I'll think it's utter crap and use it to light the fire. Send me a Walter Sickert or a William Hogarth and I'll be delighted. How could you even begin to grade a painting? That's what having a subjective value means to me. Most artists die in miserable poverty because everyone thinks their work is crap. Sometimes a prominent dealer will decide that the crap actually has some merit and is now worth millions. Bunch of pretentious, degenerate commies if you ask me.
At some point, I'm guessing in the mid 1700's a bunch of antiquarians, as they were then known, gathered together in their frock coats and powdered wigs and decided to come up with a coin grading scale. As they were almost exclusively interested in antique coins they omitted the UNC grade and opted for Fair, Fine, Very Fine and Extremely Fine. What a pity that nobody had the foresight to record the discussion. Did they pull out coins from their waistcoat pockets and use a few examples to illustrate each grade? Maybe they got into a big ole argument and settled it with pistols at dawn. We'll never know I reckon but wouldn't it have been a bust if some bloke just got up and said "Well, look coin grading is entirely subjective so let's just pack it in and go watch a cockfight or a public flogging."
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
I certainly do superficial grading though, because personally I'm not too worried about grading. I like my coins to look nice so I try to get coins that are VF or above. It's usually pretty easy to tell when a coin is at least VF, after that I couldn't really care less whether it's VF, XF, AU, UNC or MS1,000,000. In fact there are many coins in my collection many would probably grade as UNC that I have put as XF, simply because I am reluctant to label a coin UNC and I don't really worry about it anyway.
Happy birthday Pnightingale. I very much enjoyed your article on grading. I couldnt help but notice your comment on Sickert. I recall you writing about your interest in Jack the Ripper as well. That is an article that if you ever wrote I would love to read. I read some years ago a book that named Sickert as the Ripper. I bet your thoughts on this would make for interesting reading. Again, happy birthday, and thanks for making Numista that much better.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I am with Neilthic on this. Grading coins has a very subjective element to it. There are guidelines for sure, but grading coins is both subjective but with some objective guidelines to follow.
My New Zealand Half crowns are great coins for grading.
Just before I go further, these coins are notorious for having stunning reverses from VF up.
This coin looks AU/UNC with its lustre and high rim, in reality its somewhere around gVF maybe EF to the kind.
How?
Obverse - clear flattening on high cheek, some flattening of hair on crown, and eyebrow
Reverse, due to a high rim - has practically no wear, but check pearls at top of crown and lines on cnetral saltaires and cross - EF these lines are sharp. Some wear is evident here.
These distinctions are important - as the price of Halfcrowns in EF to UNC go up exponentially, whereas VF examples are relatively cheap.
Now this coin is truly EF - notice no wear at all on George's hair or cheek and the saltaires are sharp. Maybe even AU
Now lets deal with some more worn halfcrowns
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
None of these coins are mine, but are good exemplars
A standard VF coin (Barely VF)
For George V you have complete band on crown and diamond in middle visible.
Face on left side of obverse is clear and will start to show wear on lip lines
A standard Fine coin (Closer to gVG - aFine and average condition of NZ halfcrowns)
George's hair mostly flat but hairline distinguishable, cheek and ear clear, lettering sharp
Obv both lips on carvings are worn, one on right is still clear, left one is flat. Slataires and ships have no detail
VG - George Obverse
Notice rim is still sharp but much flatter and hairline on the king is now indistinct, edge of lips visible.
Flat dull appearnace and copper leaching through, - a below average coin (The seller calls it stunning!)
The 1935 halfcrown is a standard VG one - notice both faces have flat lines, wear on eye sockets on left. Wheatsheaf has indistinct stalks, lettering still clear is much flatter (The 6d is much nice good Fine)
Good+ This is about as nasty as a silver NZ Halfcrown gets, most of the centre of the portrait is flat
and has little detail. The coins have also blackened and these are good for kids or the melting pot only
Good (Just) - I had to search for a coin this awful!!!
This would be one of the most worn I have seen and they don't get any worse than this, unless you have deliberately damaged coins. They only circulated for 30 years or so, so its the end of the line here!
George is a silhouette with only the outline of the crown, no detail beyond 1mm of silhouette, moustache indistinct.
The other side, slataires are flat, maori faces are flat including eyes, carving lines are worn, the wheatsheaf is a blob and the lettering is flat and daimond is wearing into design.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
I used to work for a coin website (CoinQuest) forum and help people grade their stuff and even after a year I am still not entirely accurate with my grading. Sadly it doesn't help me much now as we had a different grading scale and it is still entirely subjective.
I mainly posted all that stuff just to prove that my grading skills for circulated pieces are at least competent.
I generally grade hard (Meaning I am unlikely to overgrade).
However I find the difference between AU and UNC very hard on many coins as usually AU and Ef coins have good lustre and even at EF level the wear is not very obvious. gVF and down is much easier.
I would not even try on MS grades like 60 to 70, but would know a Proof coin or untouched one would be at least MS67 if in a packaged mint set.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
I don't like grading anything that is below EF, I usually let others grade for me when negotiating a trade as I find it easier to evaluate other peoples' opinions rather than my own.
I never include my personal opinion on a coin's grade in a sales listing unless it's clearly EF or above.
Grading is subjective, the international grading scale doesn't take small details such as the amount and consistency of patina or verdigris into consideration.
I grade based on the coin's details and amount of luster, ugly patina, polishing or verdigris doesn't affect the grade but I usually shave off 50% of the price the coin has a major fault.
I go with Neil on this in that grading is subjective-- I do not grade my coins that i enter into trades, and just supply good scans and let the other guy judge.
For my own coins to grade I am tough, and would always tend to drop to next grade- so if a coin is not quite XF it becomes VF.. The one grade that does annoy me is aUNC the coin is either pure or not pure ( like a virgin), so unless i take out of roll or year set, the coin is XF
UNC with bag marks is another that comes to mind, I would tend to attach a XF tab on any coin that has several bag marks even if out of new bag
Quote: "muzz0000"I go with Neil on this in that grading is subjective-- I do not grade my coins that i enter into trades, and just supply good scans and let the other guy judge.
For my own coins to grade I am tough, and would always tend to drop to next grade- so if a coin is not quite XF it becomes VF.. The one grade that does annoy me is aUNC the coin is either pure or not pure ( like a virgin), so unless i take out of roll or year set, the coin is XF
UNC with bag marks is another that comes to mind, I would tend to attach a XF tab on any coin that has several bag marks even if out of new bag
If that is the case, 90% of my coins will be VF, I seem to keep buying stuff that is described as aEF and gVF or its almost EF - seems to be a rubicon with silver coins EF and up and then gVF and down.
How did you feel about that dude stealing the Tongan coins off us on Trade Me tonight (Assuming it was you).
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Hi yeah i bid on them as well- bought 1000$ worth off guy in the last week, so i had to restrain myself
i think those in between grades are ok for all the lower grades but not UNC so aF , aVF and aXF or maybe F+ VF+ or XF+ but not aUNC
It has taken a long time to learn about grading, I looked at some of my efforts from 10 years ago and cannot believe i graded as hard
Mind you my eyes are not as good now, so must be a compromise, but at least if I do not grade them for trades i do not get into trouble. I like used coins esp VF- XF that have been used to purchase something by some kid and have a story behind them
Going back to one of the original parts of this Topic "grading is subjective" or not as the case maybe? My 2 cents is as follows;
A Grade is never subjective, it can only ever be VF25, AU58, UNC66 or any other grade when it falls into the criteria for that coin. That is a fact, the coin is in that state and fulfills the criteria for being one grade and not another.
I think where collectors find the Subjective sub category of coin grading confusing, is from the fact that a given grade to any coin is a Subjective opinion of the person grading the coin, where they do or do not apply the correct grading criteria to the coin.
All grades assigned to coins (including those from professional grading services)are just an opinion of the person or persons applying the criteria. This ranges from the utterly ridiculous, check out some coins on NumisCorner and see if you agree, to the professional opinions of experts grading day in day out, like NGC or PCGS. All grades are someone's opinion subjectively, but a grade is a grade. Whether the two match in perfect harmony is another question, and where the old adage 'buy the coin, not the grade' comes from.
On a personal note about grading, I am a big fan of learning from doing not just reading! My point here is that the whole grading scale is tailored to the American coin market, when literature states to be this grade "all letters of 'Liberty' must be visiable" as an example of wear, it is hardly helpful when trying to determine the wear on a Belgian coin of the 1940s! So buy, buy and buy more coins, eventually you will have a selection which can be put in order from F to AU, only then will you learn. Oh and also buy same new coins from the Mint as example of uncirculated coins.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
Here is my first attempt at a graduated grading scale.
The only coin I have multiple examples of in silver - New Zealand Halfcrowns 1933 - 1946
Basically most of my best coins and a few spares that make up the low conditions.
I have tried to make the pictures a little larger - but the cellphone camera limits detail. Click on them
The Obverses ranging from gEF down to Good (UNC coins of this era cost thousands)
It is not the best coin for obverses as lustre and sharp detail goes right down to VF and only under VF do you see visible wear.
Detail - you can really see the decline between good and fine, but the best 7 coins have barely any difference!
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
The grading is irrespective of stains and toning - sadly NZ is not the best market to get flawless clean coins and even my best pieces are a bit flawed.
However Obverses is where you can see differences.
4 Major KGV conditions (UNC and even EF KGV are very very expensive)
Basically the aEF coin shows full detail on hair and bust. Individual pearls on crown are flat and the whole portrait has light overrall wear.
Good Fine coin has a full crown line, some hair detail and robe detail - but diamond in middle is blurry.
The VG coin has incomplete crown line - but more detail than silhouette, blackening on these silver/copper/zinc coins is common in lower condition pieces.
The Good coin has a full rim and lettering - but George is a silhouette and flat 1mm in from the bust edge.
With George VI I can offer you 9 coins (Although 4 or 5 only cover the EF to VF spectrum)
The EF coins will have no hair flattening and all hairs should be distinct. Light wear on the hairs on the temple and cheekbones (However there should be no blackening or flattening)
Higher VF coins have light stains and light blackening on the hair and cheek lines. They should have a good amount of Lustre.
The lower, barely VF and near VF pieces have clear flattened patches on the temple hair, cheeks and edge of neck. However there should be at least 2/3 detail for VF and 50% for high Fine coins.
Fine coins will have extensive flattening on cheek and higher face parts, eyebrow, the hair vut ears are sharp and plenty of detail on edge hairs and eyes.
VG coins have the hair edge outlined, but virtually no detail - cheeks are completely flat. Ears indistinct.
G+ coins have an incomplete hairline, partial ear, cheek and mouth can be incomplete.
Good and below are just silhouettes (No coins this bad shown)
So I hope you guys like this and can do it with a coin set of your own!
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
I have a question: how do you grade a coin which would be XF/UNC but for the spots of oxidation due to poor alloy? Happens a lot with last decade Serbian Dinars but not only.
Quote: "Dejan"I have a question: how do you grade a coin which would be XF/UNC but for the spots of oxidation due to poor alloy? Happens a lot with last decade Serbian Dinars but not only.
Faults and errors should be noted separately unless it constitutes a known variety, in which case it would be an entirely different coin and most like have a different catalog reference number. That's not a very satisfactory or clear answer so let's unpack the question a little.
Changes to the coin which are not the result of circulation don't affect the grade but they do affect the value considerably. An extreme example is a holed coin. So it's catalogued as EF (holed). Many collectors try to account for the hole by dropping a grade or two, but a holed EF coin can't become a problem free VF coin! That's the road to a whole lotta problems.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
For George VI, the main marker is whether you can see the individual strands of hair on the back of his head and above the ear or whether they've worn smooth. On a smaller coin it can be a tough call but on a half crown it should be pretty obvious. It's a little hard to tell in these photos, but I think it looks worn enough that I'd call it VF (a nice VF, though).
New to collecting and new to grading. Looks pretty straight forward but rose tinted glasses are my problem.
I am looking at starting to grade my coins and would like the “expert” opinions of the forum.
I have these 2 coins and would like your grades. I think VF or XF?
My advice is make sure you read the literature attached to the grades, learn it and understand it, then make sure you apply the criteria correctly. Lots of people fixate on one aspect or another leading to under or over graded coins due to their subjective application of the criteria (this then gets turned wrongly into the notion of subjective grading).
VF is easiest and widest grade, the difference between VF on the low side and VF on the high side is very noticeable (so lots of wear can apply). XF is also quite wide (with some people adding XF+), but not as wide as VF. AU is pretty easy to establish and UNC the hardest and most complicated.
I like to start at an often underrated element of coin grading, easily accessible to determine a starting Point of the grade, which doesn’t need visual attention, the edge and the rim, here you can easily run your fingers around the edge and on to the rim, if they is any sharpness you are immediately at AU and above. No sharpness XF and below.
Then the cartwheel effect, then high point wear, then the amount of PMD, then cleaning issues, then field wear. All of theses must of course be considered against an Uncirculated version (or an image thereof) to establish the strike of the coin, it’s high points, its fields and the details within. Having examples is the best way to compare.
As for your coins IMO (from the images supplied) the first is somewhere between high VF to low/mid XF. The second is F to low VF.
I hope this helps, and good luck.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
For George VI, the main marker is whether you can see the individual strands of hair on the back of his head and above the ear or whether they've worn smooth. On a smaller coin it can be a tough call but on a half crown it should be pretty obvious. It's a little hard to tell in these photos, but I think it looks worn enough that I'd call it VF (a nice VF, though).
Thanks Jesse, I know I have a lot to learn, but at least I am not miles off.
New to collecting and new to grading. Looks pretty straight forward but rose tinted glasses are my problem.
I am looking at starting to grade my coins and would like the “expert” opinions of the forum.
I have these 2 coins and would like your grades. I think VF or XF?
My advice is make sure you read the literature attached to the grades, learn it and understand it, then make sure you apply the criteria correctly. Lots of people fixate on one aspect or another leading to under or over graded coins due to their subjective application of the criteria (this then gets turned wrongly into the notion of subjective grading).
VF is easiest and widest grade, the difference between VF on the low side and VF on the high side is very noticeable (so lots of wear can apply). XF is also quite wide (with some people adding XF+), but not as wide as VF. AU is pretty easy to establish and UNC the hardest and most complicated.
I like to start at an often underrated element of coin grading, easily accessible to determine a starting Point of the grade, which doesn’t need visual attention, the edge and the rim, here you can easily run your fingers around the edge and on to the rim, if they is any sharpness you are immediately at AU and above. No sharpness XF and below.
Then the cartwheel effect, then high point wear, then the amount of PMD, then cleaning issues, then field wear. All of theses must of course be considered against an Uncirculated version (or an image thereof) to establish the strike of the coin, it’s high points, its fields and the details within. Having examples is the best way to compare.
As for your coins IMO (from the images supplied) the first is somewhere between high VF to low/mid XF. The second is F to low VF.
I hope this helps, and good luck.
Thank you King for the detailed explanation. If I am asking others to grade I need better quality photos. Lookin for to mo grading as a novice.
I'm really happy that @IanB26resuscitated this old thread. I have been guilty of spuerficial grading & believe that grading is deifnitely subjective (though I suspect @pnightingale wastongue-in-cheek when he started this thread a decade ago. For me, I really feel grading is an ACTION (not something visual) though I was guilty of looking at notes eyeballing a grade (instead of actually grading & practicing the art to grade notes myself).
If there's one take-away I see from re-reading everyone's reply I would say this: forget “good luck” & get busy practicing the analysis of your coin (note's) grade. Take the time to really analyze each item you have. Do the leg work until you get good at it.
I myself, was a terrible grader for years & years b/c I thought I could just go along & eyeball what others were seeing. I did not become a better grader until I took several stacks of banknotes & started committing myself to a grade. What made me even better was grading around other collectors & stating “I think this is a ____ grade.” And being contradicted by a better (older/wiser) collector who could point out what I missed.
Believe me when I say, there's no luck involved in grading. You will only improve if you continue to do it & be open to others' opinions!
1960-2, my mother cataloged and sold a major collection for a widowed friend. At the time, she knew nothing about coins or grading. So she acquired several books including this one:
She contacted several dealers in Boston and New York with a detailed list. I was 10 and more interested in stamps so don't remember many details.
One thing I do remember is that in selling to dealers, under estimating grade will more often result in a fair offer.
I also remember she maintained a friendship with one of the Boston dealers and started her own contemporary (60's) world collection.
Ian - For GVI coins and EF, you need individual hair details and only present wear on his cheeks and above his eyebrow. Coin generally has at least some lustre for Cupronickel (1947 - 1952) and Silver (1937 - 1946).
Bare EF Good EF (Coin is NZ, but same portrait as British coins)
For VF - the coin must have a fully visible hairline all around, and the ear must be fully visible, rim is high and all lettering is sharp. However the coin can be dull with no lustre, but higher VF's must be recessed lustre.
VF - note dullness, flatness of cheek and head but ear and hair line distinct
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Ian - For GVI coins and EF, you need individual hair details and only present wear on his cheeks and above his eyebrow. Coin generally has at least some lustre for Cupronickel (1947 - 1952) and Silver (1937 - 1946).
Bare EF Good EF (Coin is NZ, but same portrait as British coins)
For VF - the coin must have a fully visible hairline all around, and the ear must be fully visible, rim is high and all lettering is sharp. However the coin can be dull with no lustre, but higher VF's must be recessed lustre.
VF - note dullness, flatness of cheek and head but ear and hair line distinct
Thank you moneytane. It’s a minefield, I have quite a few coins that I can look at, so I will bare this in mind. 👌
In stamp collecting, perhaps the most common grade is F-VF. With coins, this grade doesn't seem to exist. But yet, the majority of my coins fall into this catagory; that is high fine and low very fine (numbers 13-19). There is no clear grade difference, but the price difference can sometimes be substantial.
I have a few slabbed coins, which I have closely examined. I honestly can't tell the difference between MS 63-64.; Likewise 64-65.
So these grades are entirely up to whoever is grading them.
For myself, I will no longer buy into this system. All further purchases will be raw with good photos.
I've learned a lot from this thread, and am reviving it because members seem willing to help out. The more one does it, the more proficient one becomes.
I grade this as VF. There is an issue of it having been whacked out of plane; that is, centers on both obverse and reverse have been pushed above or below the rim. I don't know if this has any bearing on grade, but doubt it. Two bad strikes: one below George's ear, and “0” in 1920.
I realize that specific grade here makes little difference in value. Just trying to learn. Many thanks.
Yes I would say American VF absolutely, but British/NZ VF no. Its a good fine in my book. For VF I would expect full crown bands with both bands sepearte from Jewels and middle diamond fully visible.
With grading American VF20 equates to British Fine, and American XF40 is slight better than British VF. AU50 is almost but not quite British EF and AU53 is EF, British AU is AU58. MS60 and up to MS63 in Uncirculated.
The Canadian fish scale is easily a VF25 or British good Fine.
PS My post from early 2020 was a good read, my collection back then was much smaller and simpler.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Interesting post !!! From my perspective, I have very little contact with other collectors, appart from occasional comments on Numista. For me, Numista has provided an opportunity to learn more about my coins and catalogue my somewhat disparate collection more accurately. I love that there are so many varieties and variations of individual types and I'm keen to improve the quality of each coin I have whenever possible. I also love to see new discoveries, which is probably why I contribute to the Exonumia pages more frequently than other parts of the forum.
So, it appears that i use this wonderful forum and catalogue slightly differently to many other collectors. When I grade a coin it is so that I can have a relatively accurate means of comparing the coins I find that are still roaming around in the wild to those in my collection. I have little jnterest in whether they are better than other people's coins. All I want to know is if the coins I find in the shops I visit are better than mine, as well as whether I can afford them or not of course.
Thanks, Moneytane, this is one long post! I should have read them all before posting mine.
One thing apparent is that the American standards seem a bit less strict than British Commonwealth standards. I'll try to regrade the few BC I have.
You are welcome, its a great coin, the only commonly available 80% silver 5 cent piece of Canada, as the 1921 was mostly melted and 1922 saw the nickels. 1919 and earlier are all 92.5% silver. I have a 1920 5 cent coin too, a bit less worn than yours, but this coin is likely cleaned and yours isn't. If I had a choice between mine and yours, I would choose yours - cleaned coins are the bain of my life!
Most of my Canadian gems are VG or Good and as they are not that common here, I take what I can get. Any pre 1937 Canadian silver is always popular I find!
Here's some Canadian coin grading
VF condition with some lustre, the tails is nice than heads 66 - 75% detail
Fine to a bit better, most of crown band visible, nearly full ear and moustache, around 50% detail
Very Good - Clear outline of all design elements, leaves have slight detail (Coin is toned/cleaned). Some detail on king, slight crown detail. About 25 - 33% clear details
Good to Good+ - Outline and complete rim and very little detail, basically silhouettes and flat centre writing, common on badly struck coins. This is as bad as I will buy, but mainly as iits a very scarce coin. 10% detail
Heading in the other direction
Extremely fine or almost so, one of my best peices, little lustre but almost complete detail with jewels and hair strands. All details on leaves, lips and eyes have very sharp detail, easily 80 - 90% detail is there.
AU (Cleaned) but a weak strike, all detail on king, crown and details are there, only light rubbing in parts. Tails side has a weak strike but no real wear - 95 - 98% detail. Rubbing on cheeks, Voyageurs chest, canoe prow.
UNC to Choice UNC (Sorry I don't have any UNC Canadian coins before 1937), full lustre (Lower UNC/MS coins can be less shiny), no wear - check high cheek bones, eye brows and pearls on Crowns. Coin will have a natural cart wheel lustre tha spins around coin. Notice no rubbing or flattening and often such coins will have sharp edges. This coin is good for those looking at my KGVI coins from EF to Good.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Thanks again, this is appreciated. I will use your post (and the earlier ones) as guide lines.
Quite a few years ago, I bought a bunch of Canadian junk from a coin shop. Even with my inflated grading, none of these would rate as Good. For the ones with readable dates; Fair, or maybe an optimistic AG. Still, there is some interesting stuff, which should not go into the pot. My inclination is to enter the better ones, even if they're below collectable grade.
These are all .925; there was a lesser amount in .800, but in way better condition.
Not a big photo, but some of those look Good or even VG to me. Your grading is not overinflated, its just difference. Whereas VF may vary between UK and USA - Good and VG are pretty much similar.
Also any Victorian quarter or half dollar is a great coin regardless of condition!
Love to see some close up, early Canada has always fascinated me. Its a perfect marriage of British and American currency.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
My grading (Assuming there are no holes - with holes coins are junk silver).
Top row - Fair2, AG 3, Holed but VG8, Holed but G6, Almost G4
Bottom row
Fair2, AG3, G6 but holed, Fair 2
Pretty much have to be good with no holes or damaged for less common dates and VG8 for common ones, but still a very interesting and old lot.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Yes, there's a good reason these were all in the junk tray. Still, I'm glad I saved them from the pot. I ended up putting several in my collection.
All but three or four had readable dates. Ideally, I'd like these to go to young collectors, especially if silver reaches the $1,000 one pundit staked his ‘reputation’ on. And they become even more unaffordable than they already are.
I agree, especially as silver is climbing back up again - $86 the latest reading ($147 NZ). I just love Victorian coins and coins from the 1800s full stop, so much history. The only really decent Canadian coin of that era I had was the 1890H quarter I showed graded EF. That quarter cost me something like $225 2 years ago, probably cost a bit more now.
The other decent 2 I have are an 1858 20 cents, which is probably Fine or aVF18
This was $100 and something last year
Its badly cleaned, but the 1870 5 cents is a nice coin too (VF).
Coins that old are just so hard to find in nice condition. The only 1800s coin that is easy to find in high grade are Morgan dollars and thats mainly as most did not see much use.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Moneytane, I also share a fascination for Victoria. I had a few stamps until I consolidated. But I couldn't bring myself to part with this pair. Both are NH, which is not at all common for this period.
I'm not a book collector, but can't help picking up something interesting. This is by far my favorite. I paid too much, but then found a letter written by the author tucked in the pages.
I'm thinking this belongs in a museum archive instead of an old guy's collection.
For the junk lot, this is by far the best, and I'm supprised it was included. But it was 40 years ago.
Those things looks great, the Victoria volume and those stamps. I have a zillion photos of stamps I own, but all are on hard drives. The British Somaliland overprints are very nice on the 1892 Indian series high values. That set was overprinted heavily for British Middle Eastern colonies.
The 1962 Half Dollar has alot of detail. I find it hard to grade those Canadian later coins, I would say if its not fully UNC, its very high AU. The tails side is definitely UNC, but that portrait of Elizabeth could be UNC or AU, its hard to tell as the strike was weak on the heads side. Either way a nice coin and it looks good. 1962 is a fairly easy date to get UNC, so should be a shoe in. I can't see any real wear on that coin and AU is mostly rubbing rather than visible wear. If its not full UNC, its the highest AU (AU58).
Even I find true distinction between AU and UNC hard, one catalogue I have suggest that people use microscopes. Any coin up to EF is easy for me, but above it, its hard and I don't even try with grades of UNC like choice, gem etc and MS63, 65 etc.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
I find the QEII cameo head the hardest to grade as it seems to be the one where they had the weakest strikes and least detail to help you judge. I would never grade a coin as UNC though. The highest grade I would put on any coin is AU, unless it was sold to be as UNC and has been graded as such. I like to err on the cautious side of grading.
I'm learning that grading is subjective, with many variables. Another one hard to grade is the US peace dollar. I have eight of the 1922's; three of which could qualify as UNC, in that I can find no visible wear. The problem is that this year had the largest mintage of any US silver dollar. Dies become worn, and even a normal strike can look like it's been circulated.
This is one such:
With so many out there, grade doesn't matter that much. My grade on this one is AU.
I agree, actually a bit of rubbing on Liberty's hair and the neck and breast of the eagle. But that could be bad strike too, all 1921 Morgans and 1922 - 25 Peace dollars suffer from that weak strike. 1921 Morgans are the worst with some 80 million plus coins from all 3 mints.
89% of my Morgan Dollars are easily AU coins, yet the occasional one may look better. Same with Walking Liberty Halves, I bought one as base UNC off a major dealer here (It was cheap) and the coin was a text book AU 58 on PCGS - yet it still looked nice, had that high AU lustre and you would need eagle eyes to pick out the actual wear (Called “friction” at this stage). Many guides like the blue book say these high AU “slider” coins often have better lustre than the usual MS60 - 63 coins and many a MS65 or MS64 coin becomes an AU58 instantly.
“Virtually UNC” AU58 Walker half, fortunately the photo is only Fine!
I have a great grade for many shiny big silver coins, that look UNC but really could be the highest AU under bad light. I call this grade “Virtually Uncirculated” meaning - it looks unc but could have some niggly wear somewhere.
1928 Cyprus Crown, another Virtually Uncirculated coin, actually sold to me in that grade, looks like the full quid, cartwhel lustre and natural finish but some may say that central diamond looks a bit “rubby” and there's some noise on those lion bodies, yet it could be weak strike. I grade it AU59 for you Americans.
Virtually UNC/Truly UNC Aussie Canberra Florin, it looks UNC and maybe but some would say the maces have a rub and that shell above the house has defined stems but a bit of rubba rubba on the high points and the King in his forsted glory again suffers from dull central diamond syndrome. I actually this is the real thing - true UNC.
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
Don't put yourself down. British can be very nitpicky graders and plus AU in many ways you are not even looking for wear, more rubbing and friction. But I know there is a big group of collectors, mostly British or Commonwealth who seem to think gEF is the best you can get for an old coin unless its been verified by some authority as UNC.
I don't agree with this, UNC means no wear, but it does not mean absolutely perfect. That is FDC (Fleur de coin) and reserved for something basically never touched by human or mechanical hands. Basically your MS70. Many UNC and even Choice UNC coins will have bag marks, dings, edge bumps and milk spots/haze on the fields, especially big coins like Dollars and half crowns that have clanked in bags, hoppers, tills etc and truly perfect coins are a rare beast. As great as those coins I showed above look, they would have all been clanked with other coins or been touched in their lives (I know my clumsy paws on a coin before it goes into a flip don't help).
The only truly UNC NZ florin I own before 1953 and this was in a year end sale and cost me nearly $200 (From $400). Its UNC yes, but perfect no way. Then again, its easily my nicest old NZ Florin.
The only time I would object with a AU coin being called UNC, is when a seller is charging an UNC for a clearly AU (But not slider AU/Virt UNC coin) and especially if there is a massive differential in price. Some early NZ silvers honestly are like $20 VF, $100EF, $250 AU and then like $500 UNC.
If it was UNC, it would be a $10,000 coin, in this condition it's a $200 one. You can see the wear even on this VF plus coin is not that much heavier than the UNC coin. In American grading, this coin would be an easy XF45 or more.
The worst are 1936 Florins which catalogue at $3,000 AU and $10,000 UNC, so no way am I paying $8k for an AU or even EF looking coin (EF - $1k), then again my is only VF. Having $10k to buy the UNC is fine, but the coin comes into a big time auction maybe once every 5 years, whereas AU are more common and a VF one can be picked up for a song.
Looking at the first posts, I noticed those 2 would be MS70's now - meanwhile I have just changed from the Extra Fines to the About Uncirculateds, although a bare AU!
I love coins. Especially silver, gold and anything really old.
Member of the Royal Numismatic Society of New Zealand and the Auckland Numismatic Society
I find the QEII cameo head the hardest to grade as it seems to be the one where they had the weakest strikes and least detail to help you judge. I would never grade a coin as UNC though. The highest grade I would put on any coin is AU, unless it was sold to be as UNC and has been graded as such. I like to err on the cautious side of grading.
I very much agree with this. “Uncirculated” should mean uncirculated! If it went from the mint to the bank to a cash register and then to me in change, it has circulated! Unless a coin comes to me in special set packaging (and I try not to buy that sort of coin, as I'm interested in historical circulating coins and banknotes), I won't go above AU.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY PHIL! (from an even older guy).... Being TOTALLY enamored with the Sheldon scale and TOTALLY involved with TPG coins (NGC Registry) I think that TPG coins are the best way to go for grading because they are graded by experienced group concensus and likely to be more accurate because of this. 
I have a question: how do you grade a coin which would be XF/UNC but for the spots of oxidation due to poor alloy? Happens a lot with last decade Serbian Dinars but not only. I have a question: how do you grade a coin which would be XF/UNC but for the spots of oxidation due to poor alloy? Happens a lot with last decade Serbian Dinars but not only.
