1817 Half Crown - Toning and Grade Discussion

Hi All,

Just picked this up. .925 silver King George III Half Crown, 1st effigy 'bull head'. Attractive and well struck piece with some seriously dark and somewhat iridescent toning.

My question is do you think this toning is natural, or has been induced or artificially created? Ive heard of several tricks to create different types of toning and think one has been employed here on this coin... but I am not sure.

Also, what grade do you think this is? VF or EF?

Thanks!


----------------------------

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The image isn't quite sharp enough to define an absolute opinion but I have owned George III coins with similar toning. Put them in an old manilla coin pocket for a year and you will see similar toning.
If you look at the leaves in the coronet, unless there is a defined line down the middle of the leaves together with lateral veins in his garland, it isn't EF. Looks like yours is good VF bordering EF to me and an attractive coin.
Take a look at the Harp and other devices on the reverse as, for example, you should be able to see the bust on the Harp in EF.
The main reason for artificial toning is to try and hide cleaning. I have a couple of coins that are graded AU with dark tones but no mention of artificial toning.
This is a coin I have that is graded MS 61 in the UK we would say G/EF. If you look at the leaves you will see what I mean.

 

Thanks for the post here!

Some leaves show some wear and others look a bit more complete hence your appraisal of VF bordering EF. Again the woman on the harp as lost her definition slightly too fitting with your analysis.

I was toying with getting it graded but fear the dreaded 'details' grade applied if it has in fact been cleaned or artificially toned. My gut tells me that at one point this was cleaned/toned but as you say, this isnt an uncommon shade for coins of this era.

Lovely MS61 youve posted. Much lighter with more defined leaves, harp and lions.

 

I have been slabbing shipwreck coins for posterity as I'm conscious that on my passing bits of paper will go missing and the slab is verification of origin. I also go out of my way to buy detailed slabs as cleaned. Why?
Ancient to mid 19th century coins have so many potential differences, no two hammered coins are the same because of human error and coins tone differently because of storage and climate so I buy coins for their looks not some crazy points system to differentiate millions of other coins. I buy on aesthetics and personal taste.
I buy detailed coins because particularly in the UK a raw coin might be beyond my reach. As soon as it has the dreaded details stigma value falls away. Here is a coin in question out of a slab.



A couple of nicks on the cheek but a natural tone and I would say about EF.
Value in this state about $900.
Now pay $50 to slab it.
View attachment 1674881


No mention of artificial toning but the stigma of the details mention has dramatically reduced the value to probably $300.

Here is another "problem" coin which is a beautiful coin in the hand.



In the hand, unless you really scrutinise the coin with a loupe, you can't easily see the scratches on the reverse which are on the horses flank. The details comment intimate that the coin is a train crash which it isn't.
If we look at hammered coins then the details comments are often quite laughable because they mainly all came out of the ground.
It's a really interesting subject and other than for authenticity, I wouldn't really get hung up on slab grading with ancient and hammered coins. You should see the obvious anyway and will like the coin or not.

 

Here is a hammered sixpence graded as Details AU cleaned. I bought this at a bargain price from Stacks & Bowers.


Charles I 1638-39 S-2360 Anchor & Mullet/Anchor. Sixpence.

The tone is darker in hand than this image suggests and is uniform.
The reverse sticker states "Genuine not gradable" which again does nothing to enhance its value. For this issue, it is as good as it gets and, if it was sold as raw, it would command a hefty premium for its complete flan and quality of detail. No doubt is has been cleaned in antiquity. To me it is everything I would want from this issue and I wouldn't have considered buying it at six times the price.
I paid $160 for this coin plus premium.
The TPG didn't pick up on the fact that it one of Briot's milled issues. All of the better raw ones I have seen have an iridescent blue tone.
Here is a raw coin currently being sold on Ebay for $1450.00.
Baldwins have a similar one so they are all north of $1000.



So my answer @Coinismatics2000 is probably to leave it raw because of the TPG decide it has been artificially toned you will destroy the value of a decent looking coin.

 

This one is graded AU-55.



The photos of the coin in the OP are too dark to decide if the piece has artificial toning or not. You need to see the piece in person and look at it at various angles. From the photos, I would lean natural, but I'm not 100% sure. There are some dark "halos" around some of the letters.

Without proper storage, all old silver coins will turn black eventually. It's the terminal toning state for silver. Black is not a color most collectors want to see in silver coins. Grey in various shades or a natural billiance are more like it.

BTW, these coins are not hammer strikes. Quite the contrary, they were struck on steam powered presses. I view them as "almost modern."

 

Yes, I should have clarified that I was referring to Ancients and Hammered which doesn't apply post Matthew Boulton as the George III coins are.
My example of the Charles I sixpence is neither hammered nor steam press as it was produced on Briot's screw press. I should be more specific.
Yes Black is not a colour most would wish to see.