Grading standards in the UK appear to be different from the US. Auction cataloger is using a tougher standard than NGC or PCGS for these slabbed double eagles. See links. Cal https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=487&lot_id=42926 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=487&lot_id=42996 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=487&lot_id=42931 https://www.dnw.co.uk/auctions/catalogue/lot.php?auction_id=487&lot_id=42988
So NGC called the first an AU-55 and the auction company decided to call it a “good very fine” and you agree with the auction company? Good and very fine are two different grades and are both worlds apart from each other and the coin that they are describing.
In my post, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with NGC, PCGS or the auction company. I was simply pointing out that the grading system in the UK appears to be different from the US. I'm quite aware of the adjectival and numerical grade scales in the US. Cal
I’m hardly the expert on this, but in the UK don’t they use “good very fine” to mean something like VF+?
For ancient coins, that's about what it means. However, there is choice very fine terminology, which is a bit better than good very fine. So, dunno which corresponds to VF+. Cal
Yes, they are different but still quite simple, and very similar when you get right down to it, at least in one way. In essence the European system is adjectival and the US system is numerical. But those adjectives and numbers largely correspond to each other. Take VF for example. US ............ European VF20 ............About VF VF25.................VF VF30 ............Good VF VF35 ............Choice VF So in that regard there really isn't that much difference in them. And it's the same basic concept with the other grades. Where the real difference lies in the the grading standards used to determine which grade applies. In today's world, those are quite different. But they didn't used to be. Before the TPGs began loosening grading standards US and European grading standards were pretty much in line with each other. But once the changes began well the gap became wider and wider. And as a result much more easily noticeable.
The European grading standards are based on collecting ancient coins. Generally EF is used to describe a coin that is AU+/UNC by US grading standards. FDC, or Fleur De Coin, is used to describe a coin that would equate to an MS-65 or above. UNC is sometimes used to describe coins between EF and FDC, as well as coins from a hoard that is known to have never curculated. For example, both of these coins would grade VF by European standards, but certainly would be EF+/AU by US standards.
The other thing that is done in European grading is to grade the coin technically, them describe why. So a 1924-S Buffalo nickel without a full horn, but has full luster may be graded as "gVF, as struck" to identify the coin as uncirculated, but struck in VF grade due to the amount of details shown. Some Lincoln cents struck in the '20s, like a 1922-D or no D with a weak or worn die may be said to be in Fine for details, but as struck to describe that the weakness isn't from wear. Much easier to identify a correct grade and condition, and thus price.
One thing that I didn't mention above. While today's TPG grading standards usually result in coins being graded higher by the TPGs than they would be if graded by European dealers and or collectors, when it comes to things like harsh cleaning it's a different story. It is not all uncommon for coins sold and graded by European dealers and collectors, with no mention at all of harsh cleaning, if sent to a TPG come back in Detail slabs labeled as being harshly cleaned. This even happens with many of those graded as FDC by the Europeans, as well as those graded lower than FDC. I've seen it happen so many times that it seems as if they completely ignore the harsh cleaning or they simply find it acceptable and not worthy of mentioning. And to a degree that's kind of understandable because for literally centuries in Europe, harsh cleaning your coins with a cloth every now and then was considered to be what you were supposed to do with your coins. Granted, it was the same here in the US for many, many years. But then we got our ideas from the Europeans in the first place because when this country was young - they were Europeans ! However, it seems the practice of harshly cleaning one's coins is still alive and well in Europe and many simply don't think anything of it. And I'm not saying every single one does it or adheres to those practices when it comes to grading, but a lot of them sure do. Including some of the biggest names there are. So if buying coins from European dealers or collectors, that's something you should be aware of.
I think the tradition of cleaning coins in Europe came from centuries of collecting ancient coins. Virtually all ancient coins have been thoroughly cleaned, most multiple times. It was necessary for newly discovered pot hoards. They had been in the ground for centuries, and the contents were a near solid lump of coins, dirt and clay. In some cases, there was mineralization as well. It wasn't even possible to determine the coin types without considerable processing. This necessary initial cleaning was repeated when the coins toned or accumulated dust or the coating on them (yes, they varnished or waxed them) discolored. The habit of cleaning ancient coins carried over to more recently minted coins. When I actively collected ancient coins, I was appalled at the way some collectors treated their coins. It wasn't just the cleaning and polishing, but they were constantly handling them (and not just on the edges). Some would store and carry coins in groups in bags or boxes so they were rubbing and banging on each other. My thought was these coins survived millenia in the ground or underwater, but would be lucky to survive a century or two with collectors like this. Cal
All of that is true, but the last line, I think not so much. I could be wrong but I don't think most people in today's world realize just how old coin collecting is. Or how widespread it was even a thousand years ago. But to give you an idea, the very first book on coins that was ever printed, was printed in 1511. Perhaps even more surprising would be that it was written and published by a woman. And back then women weren't exactly seen in the same way they are today. The point that is that if women were that involved in coin collecting back then, it should give you an idea of how widespread it was. And the oldest known book on coins was written in China in 1149. And there is serious doubt that it was the first. As to the harsh cleaning of coins, and not just ancients, the reason it was primarily done is the very same reason we have today - toning, particularly unsightly toning. Coins always have and always will tone since the only thing that is required for this to happen is for them to be exposed to the air. And people back then liked it even less than they do today. So what did they do to combat it ? They'd pick up their coins and rub them with a cloth until they rubbed the toning away because that's all they knew how to do. This practice continues even today, and for the same reasons. Now eventually, the people who used to be called alchemist centuries ago came up with a way to chemically remove toning. And the fact that that even happened also expresses just how widespread coin collecting was. Granted, it was the nobility that did it, which is why and how the hobby got its very name - the hobby of Kings. But there was a LOT of nobility, men and women both ! The practice of using a cloth to clean your coins has been with us ever since. And its not just collectors who did it, museums also did it, and I suspect some still do. There are even published reports of the curators in the Smithsonian using cloths to wipe down all the coins in the national collection in fairly recent years. That's how widespread and accepted the practice is and always has been.
