Guess the Grade: 1902 and 1928 Shilling

58/62

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would have called them 55/58 but...

It's probably easier to see in hand - especially the luster.

64/65

 

Well, interesting results.

Both of these came from Heritage, both of them are graded by NGC, and both of them are very attractive (and accurately graded).

The 1902 grades MS-64
The 1928 grades MS-65

 

I see that on the 1928, but I see both that and slight wear on the 1902 specifically on the reverse. I think the grade it got is an example of market grading versus technical grading. Again, a perfect example of why some collectors prefer raw coins

 

In hand, you would clearly see that there is no wear on either of these coins.

 

If there is anything to learn from this thread, it is that people buying that coin would not pay MS-64 money for an AU regardless what the slab says. At least not the knowledgeable people that have commented here.

I'm sure it looks like a nice MS coin in hand, but the zoomed in pictures say otherwise.

 

Disagree, I think the thing I've learned is that most who posted to the thread don't know how to grade, at least not from a photo. I'm not saying there aren't coins out there that are over or under graded, but these two coins are graded about where their supposed to be graded.

 

Going by these photos I would have thought they are AU. Having them in hand you could see if there are any luster breaks and see the weakness from the strike. I don't know the series so I don't know about strike issues these coins may have. I'm sure physically seeing them would clear things up.

 

What looks like wear on the sideburns, ear, mustache and beard is weakness of strike, I get that. But on the reverse what you get on the high points of the lions body contours, the Maltese cross and fleur-de-lis in the crown, those are touches of wear. It is very slight, which is why AU-58 a.k.a. a slider. It wouldn't be visible in hand of course.

 

Exactly; definitely agree with all that was mentioned. It's not unusual for the TPG's to do this though on world coins. I've seen examples graded as high as 66 with light wear

 

I'll not comment on the weird US numbers game played with the native coins, but I have spent a long time with British coins (as a child I could collect silver 3d bits by going into shops and asking for them, the same applied to farthings, and Victorian pennies were common in pocket change, occasionally you'd find Victorian silver in change, very rarely well worn William IV and George IV shillings or sixpences) and I have been collecting and buying and selling coins, off and on, since then.

Just about every oldish coin I have ever seen has had some circulation, however light. Only in the most unusual circumstances have coins come straight from being new at the bank to being tucked away in a coin cabinet. More usually they'd be around for while, however short, before being snapped up by a collector and squirreled away.

I am of course not speaking of modern stuff, concocted to extract money from the more gullible collector, but proper real live circulating coins of the 50's and earlier.

 

That's not the conclusion I would draw from this thread at all.

And I will say that the price I paid at Heritage (competing with bidders who, I assume, viewed the coin in hand), reflect the actual grade of these coins.

 

While there might be some tiny sliver of room for debate about the first coin, the second coin is hands-down every bit an MS65. The fields are flawless, not a single mark or hit and no breaks to the luster, something that simply does not occur on about-Uncirculated coins. Maybe the tone on the high-points of the first coin might be misinterpreted as wear, but looking at the fields should give any seasoned numismatist all the evidence he needs to call it UNC even if the tone on the hair looks a wee but funky.

 

I agree the 1928 is UNC. I guessed 62 due to some weakly struck areas on the high points and my generally being conservative on point grades, but no argument on it generally being uncirculated. The first coin is market acceptable as MS I suppose, but if you want to be 100% technical then it's not.

 

"Uncirculated" means no signs of wear. Either there is or there isn't - there is no in-between. On this particular coin, there is no wear - so it is uncirculated.

 

That is a logical way of thinking about it, and would be great if it were as clear cut with slabs as it is to the trained eye. It's not how the TPGs think though. If all grading was purely technical there would be a shortage of truly UNC coins. "Market acceptable UNC" has filled the void. These are coins with very minor touches of wear that are apparently acceptable as MS to the TPGs, like your 1902.
The "in-between" here is not about the coin at all, it's about the policies and practices of the third party grading services.

 

I'm fully aware of market grading, and all of its implications, Numismat. However, I personally do not grade that way. If there is wear, I'll call it AU-58.

 

Good to know, that is the way it should be, but unfortunately not always the way it is with slabs.

 

My guesses would have been 63 and 65, respectively.

I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by posting such large images. Resize your images to more reasonable dimensions so that people have more of an idea of what the coin looks like in hand. Anything larger than 500 or 600 pixels square for each side of the coin is going to show even the smallest hit as a gaping gash.

I can see how people might perceive the first coin as being AU, but the 1928 shilling is clearly MS, and gem at that. I wouldn't even be surprised to see that coin in an MS66 holder - it's very nice!