When does a coin become a fragment?

Following on from my previous post about cut coins and fragments, at what point would you consider that a coin has become a fragment. I have attached 2 examples of damaged coins, the first of which (Henry 1st type 15) has edge damage and the second (Henry 1st type 10) which is missing about a quarter of its content. I would consider the first a coin and the second a fragment. Do you agree?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You have broadly speaking nailed it. If the loss extends beyond the inner circle its a fragment, if not its a chip.

 

Instinctively I wanted to say less than 50% would be a fragment, but the relevant dictionary definition is "an isolated or incomplete part".
I have 3 coins missing parts in my own collection. The Harold I is a cut half, definitely a fragment I think. The other two are William I and William II. Both are substantially present, but were described as fragments by the auction house, a well known and reputed coin selling house.

 

Good point GDJSMP. I'm surprised there isn't already a standard set of definitions such that everyone's talking the same language to improve clarity and understanding.

 

PaddyB, I slightly disagree with you description of the Harold in that it was intentionally cut in half then sustained some edge damage. I would still consider that a coin. The second coin has significant edge damage but still retains much of its key detail so I would consider that a borderline case and similarly the third coin. Lovely coins by the way with good detail.

 

To me both are coins. The missing pieces are the fragments.

 

This is more like what I think is a fragment. The centre portion of a Cnut pointed helmet type where the whole of the outer has gone.