Do you think this is a VF coin?

Papillon Numismatics/ auction 3 list this
AV 1/8 Stater Pella Mint
Philip II of Macedon
Condition VF

I would grade it as "Good" thats being kind....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yeah, that's far from a VF.

 

Agree. Far away from VF. Barely an F IMO.

 

It ended up selling for 150 Sfrcs+ fees/ Stacks sold a NGC MS* 5/5 5/5 for $3600US/ that would be a CNG EF!

 

It’s long way from Fine IMO.

 

I'd call it VG. Melt is 60 CHF.

 

I am thinking that coin is misattributed.

Consider, since they are finding Neanderthals were much smarter than originally thought, this coin is probably from the Great Neanderthal Kingdom of Blog. Uyock the III is probably more apt. And, for the age of this coin, I would give it a VF.

Pic of Uyock III, Uber-Lord, Blog Kingdom, Eurasia, ca. 46,057 BCE

 

Another post here praises a US dealer but fails to note they have many overgraded coins. Thirty years ago I complained that there were dealers who forced poor coins into VF but today we have sellers who will call anything EF. Grading has become a giant joke. Look at the photos and act accordingly.

Ed is not unreasonable calling it VG. Sellers know they can lie all they want and someone will believe them. They don't care if you don't believe them as long as someone does. When someone buys this coin and tries to resell it to an honest and knowledgeable dealer they will discover there is a problem but will probably accuse that second dealer of trying to steal their coin.

 

VF= Very Fuzzy ?

 

Here's another coin currently for sale, described as VF. Could someone explain to me how that's possible to justify? Would the argument be that the problems it has were all there from the time it was struck, and shouldn't count in evaluating the condition because they don't result from wear? It seems to me that a coin that looks like this shouldn't be called VF whatever the justification. Wear shouldn't be the only element that goes into evaluating a coin's condition.



Then again, I've seen coins far more unattractive than this one described as AU by dealers in a certain European country I won't name.

 

VF, what's that stand for? Very faint. No where near a VF coin in my book.

 

I prefer my ancient raw (uncertified), but NGC does try to address the surface and strike issues with its 1 through 5 scale that is included on its better slabs. A coin that only gets a “1” or a “2” for surface is obviously a problem piece.

I have generally found the NGC service to be accurate, in terms of applying “U.S. style” grading to ancient coins. The classic grading with its “Good VF” and similar wording nomenclature is more conservative when applied consistently, but for an American collector, it’s a bit like Early American Copper grading. It is too conservative to be used for pricing.

 

The surface and strike out of 5 ratings by NGC are the best thing ever, and supersede the grade of wear.

Recently bought an NGC graded VF,5,5 (ie perfect strikes and surfaces). In past catalogues, back to the 1930s, my coin had been graded EF / Vorzuglich but partly in response to its great strike and surfaces. To me it doesnt matter what the absolute grade is if strike and surfaces are great, its good for my collection. VF? EF? Don't care. This coin was owned by Perry Webb, the Carausius expert who wrote RICV and who sold it via Hess in 1932



Incidentally the OP Papillon auction coin is also graded VF. So to two different eyes, the coin above and below are exactly the same VF grade. Guess they ARE both VF.

 

VF is from a system used to describe modern coins. It describes only the amount of wear. So yes, technically that coin would grade VF if you wanted to use an inappropriate grading system to describe it. It would be like giving a Harlequin romance novel a merit score of 10 out of 10 based only on spelling accuracy.

But your example is very different from the OP. Even accounting for the fact that the grading system is not useful for this coin, it wouldn't merit anything close to a VF according the to criteria of that system.

I have noticed, however, many reputable ancient coins dealers using this system and than adding other descriptors, such as VF, rough surfaces. That's a little more helpful, but Doug is right: look at the photos. The VF, EX, etc., system was developed a long time ago, before the internet and photo sharings became easy and inexpensive. It has long since outlived its usefulness (other than as a tool for grading companies to get people to put coins in slabs).

 

Thanks CT... interesting posts...!

 

Forget and ignore the estimate of condition from others. You look at the coin and decide if it looks good enough for you to have in your collection. If so, it's a very fine coin for you to acquire. A handful of really beautiful coins is worth a lot more than an amphora full of "about fair" , "what are these things" coins.

 

All of those guys must have been boxers ...looking at their noses...and the oldest must have been on a paleo diet...very tight
musculature.

 

Not VF

 

My favorite auction house has this bad habit of overgrading (this is not the reason I like the house, of course).
Sometimes I nod seeing what they describe as "very fine" or "nearly very fine".
To be honest, I am not bothered, because I have some numismatic experience, I decide the grade of the coin I buy and I don't care how other people grade, or advertise, the coins they sell, unless I know they are skilled with this, from previous experience with them. What I need to see is good, decent, honest pictures, and I decide if I want that coin, if the condition and price are satisfactory for me.

In my opinion the OP coin is a VG.

 

Oh well, back to the drawing board. AG, G, F, etcetera. Good luck as in good luck! Thanks for the post, happy holidays.