Recently acquired a French 1928 2-franc piefort (double thick) coin in an auction. Coin has Oscar Roty’s beautiful semeuse (female sower) design. It was in a NGC holder, graded MS63. See pics below. NGC considers these coins to have a regular finish; hence, the “MS” grade. But PCGS considers them to have a special finish and gives them a “SP” grade. So, I sent the coin to PCGS for crossover. Today, I received an email from PCGS asking if it was OK to assign the coin a grade of SP63. Are you kidding?!! Of course! It was nice of them to ask. I suppose there might be a person somewhere that might reply, “No. I don’t want no stinkin’ SP grade! Keep it in the NGC holder and send it back.” I guess they’re just being careful. Cal
In my observation, and speaking only generally, many SP and PR coins are not worth as much as the same coin in the same MS grade. That might be why they asked. But a piefort - were any of those ever intended for circulation? Seems odd that NGC would call it as such. They're normally struck that way for presentation purposes so any judgement about finish is irrelevant.
I can't cite any references at the moment, but I think all pieforts were intended as presentation or collector coins. Cal
What is on the label? Did NGC completely miss that it's twice as thick? Numista calls it a pattern. https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces447804.html I can't find much on it either. The circulation 2 francs with the same design ended in 1920 (you probably knew that already).
The label is pictured below. Although Mazur is an excellent reference on French coins, Essais Monetaires & Pieforts Française by Taillard and Arnaud is better for patterns (essais) and pieforts. The book is abbreviated GEM because Gadoury is the publisher. This coin is MAZ-2573 and GEM-111.P3. Neither Mazur or Taillard & Arnaud lists the coin as a proof (flan bruni). In their world, a coin is either a proof or a circulation strike. If you go to the NGC Census and look under France - Essais & Pieforts, you’ll see that all of them are considered MS coins. NGC is probably following the lead of Mazur and Taillard & Arnaud. NGC lists only two of these coins, this one and one graded MS62. PCGS lists 5 graded (all SP). So, it’s quite a rare coin. Cal
I think because of the change from MS to SP they asked to be safe. Even if the SP is the correct designation, they don't want to assume the submitter is ready to lose the MS.
Where the NGC slab says Piefort, that means it's a special strike - not a business strike, (coins meant for circulation), nor a Proof. PCGS - A PCGS SP grade indicates that a coin is a specimen or special-strike coin. The Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) uses the prefix "SP" to designate these coins. So essentially both slabs are saying the same thing (that it's a special strike) - just in a different way. When a TPG uses designations other than MS and PF, it depends on which TPG it is as to what those designations mean. When it comes to the SP designation for NGC - NGC SP is a coin grade that indicates a coin is a specimen, meaning it's higher quality than regular currency but not a proof coin. NGC uses the SP grade for coins with finishes that are different from circulation coins but don't fit into the proof categories. But a Piefort coin, even though it is a special strike, it does not have a different finish, it has the same finish that MS coins have. That's why it does not use the SP designation for Piefort coins.
This may be a case of distinction without a difference. The SP designation lies in a big gray area between MS and PR as defined by the individual grading service. If we define MS coins as those made strictly for circulation. Proof coins are the opposite, with every opportunity to make the coin special taken -- specially prepared dies, specially prepared planchets, special handling, special press configuration, intent to manufacture as a special coin. Having named 5 attributes, there are 32 total configurations of those attributes, 30 of which are neither strictly business strike nor strictly proof. The Piedfort (NGC can't spell) has some of these attributes, but not all. So what should it be called and how should a grading scale be applied? There's no numismatic standard for naming coins produced within this gray area which includes circulation strikes make with proof dies, proof planchets struck in the business strike production line, ceremonial strikes on the regular production line, and clandestine production of high-quality souvenirs. The Piedfort was made at least with special handling and intent to manufacture as a special coin. The double-thick planchets may or may not have been prepared differently from business strike planchets. The dies are the same as a business strike die. Neither MS nor PR. The question of what to call it is unfortunately also related to how to grade it. A specially handled coin does not develop the same surface issues that a mass-produced coin clunking around with other coins in a hopper, bag, or barrel does. Proof coins are typically downgraded for mishandling that could result in a no-grade on a business strike coin. Coins in the gray area are graded like proofs or like business strikes depending on whether there was or was expected to be special handling. I would expect a 20th century coin graded MS63 to have a good number of contact marks from other coins, while a 20th century PR63 would have other types of issues, like hairlines. A proof coin with the surface preservation of an MS63 would be graded lower or even called damaged. A business strike with the hairlines of a PR63 may be called cleaned. Using the SP designation for this coin seems the correct thing to do here, since it indicates the coin is neither being graded based on the business strike nor proof grading guidelines. Saying the finish is not different and not considering the special handling would result in a disparity in coins designated the same but produced differently. Mint sets made from normal production coins intercepted before they could incur the trauma of their post-strike journey into commerce had special handling and super high grades that were unrealistic for the other business strikes.
Piefort (or piedfort) simply means a double-thick coin. It can have any type of finish: circulation, special or proof. However, because they are produced as presentation or collector pieces or as patterns, most have a special (which is between circulation and proof) or proof finish. “Piefort” is not synonymous with “special strike”. A pic of a proof piefort is below. Folks, including grading services, will disagree over whether a particular issue is a special strike or not. Some may put it in the circulation bin because they consider the finish to be far from proof and/or the mintage may be huge. If the mintage is small and the finish is proofy, then the coin may fall into the gray area of proof versus special. There is an unfortunate tendency to rely on mint statements in this regard rather than letting just the coin speak regarding its method of manufacture. Complicating the issue is that grading services have extended PL suffixes to grades for coins other than Morgan dollars. So, looking only at the coins themselves what’s the difference between MS63PL and SP63? Cal
A brief history of the misspelling is in this wiki article. It goes back to at least 1893. The correct spelling, but as two words "pied fort" appeared in a French dictionary in 1774. Literally translated it means "heavy foot." Formal rules about who could obtain one date back to at least 1355. Very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedfort
As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, “piedfort” is the preferred English spelling, but “piefort” can be used. “Piefort” is the correct French spelling. So, if we’re discussing French coins in English and mentioning French references (some of which have “piefort” in the title), which should be used? Take your pick. Cal
An MS63PL would have the surface issues of an MS63 that acquired marks falling into a hopper, being sorted, counted, bagged, and transported. A SP63 would have none of these, but would have other issues such as handling hairlines, minor incidental contact marks from mishandling, perhaps luster and eye appeal issues.
SP would indicate it was never intended for circulation and specially struck Lets compare two Ottawa Sovereign both 62s First we have a 1908 in SP Strong strike buttery fields a wonderful coin every muscle of St. George and his horse is defined Next a 1911 in MS The strike is much weak the fields aren't that nice smooth butter the coin is simply not comparable even though it has the same numerial grade
