I would say, Jean Elsen/ Belgium is the winner. Their FDC grade= MS-67/68. next in order.... Gallery 51/ Belgium CNG/ US Spink/ UK Morton & Eden/ UK Kunker/ Germany Cayon/ Spain
raw grading.... I won raw graded coins from these firms, had them slabbed to compare. Elsen coin graded "supberbe" =EF was slabbed as a MS-65/ a FDC ex. came back MS-68! Kunker recently sold a MS-66 Napoleon 1812-A AV 20 Francs as "Fast Stempelglanz" = about UNC.
German beer is excellent! I had my first taste, when I was five....in a local pub, sitting on my Dad's lap. When the waiter saw me have a drink from his bottle, he laughed and brought me a little sample of my own to taste. That was in Germany
Not at all surprising to me, in fact I would expect no less in today's world. But would it surprise you to learn that was not always the case ? Ya see 15-20 years ago European grading and US grading were roughly on par. They used different terminology than we did but they used roughly the same number of grades that we used, and still do today, they just have different names for them than we do. They use adjectival names instead of numbers. But wear was still wear on both sides of the ocean and no coin with wear was considered to be mint state. And the standards for the circulated grades were pretty much the same too. The one major difference between European grading and US grading that really stood out back then, and to a lesser extent does so today, was in regard to harsh cleaning. The Europeans, in general mind you, had no problem with it while the US did. It was quite common for harsh cleaning to not even be mentioned by the Europeans, rather it was simply dismissed as being the norm. And as a result a great many coins sold in or by the European dealers as mint state, when sent in for grading to the US TPGs, came back as harshly cleaned. In today's world that happens less often. But not because the Europeans have changed, to the contrary their grading standards have remained basically the same, because the TPGs have changed. Today the TPGs are much more lax, much more forgiving, when it comes to harsh cleaning. If you go back to the earliest years of this forum you can find many discussions on this very subject of US and European grading. And they will reflect what I have said here. Back then, to get a good correlation between US and European grading, and what their grade names mean in our grade numbers is pretty simple. All you need to do is write out 2 lists side by side, one for them and one for us. You can start at the top or the bottom and it all works out the same. You'll end up with about the same number grades on each side and they translate straight across. Today however that's not really the case any longer as the TPGs have loosened their standards so much, while the Europeans have not. And what you're relating here, with this particular post, is a perfect example of that.
Very true! A good example was a coin from Eric Newman collection. This was a Colombia AV Peso/ Condor 1872 Meddillin Mint/ Heritage Auction, slabbed MS-65/GEM UNC. Included was the original paper envelope from 1955/ the grade was EF! And the price was $5.00!!!!!! Hammer price was $700US in 2014.
I think the European auction houses still do not point out scratches and cleaning. I noticed that with Roma and also Elsen. Was just looking at a French coin listed by Elsen which was very badly scratched on the reverse and some scratches on the obverse but described as About Very Fine with no mention of the scratches. It could be disastrous for a beginner. I find it much safer to buy slabbed coins.
Roma, I would agree. However, I have never had issues with Elsens. I recently got a AV Basel 1/4 Dukat 1750 that was flawless, I had it slabbed....came out MS-68. Also had a coin that they graded "Supberbe=EF) it got slabbed as MS-63! Roma, has a AV Syracuse Dekadrahm graded mint state/ ex: Gorny&Mosch who graded it almost UNC./ rim flaws....
Don't know if its OK to post the link here but I'm sure the moderators will remove it if I'm breaking any rules. Description says about very fine Doesn't look about very fine to me....a definite problem coin.....and 'traces of adjustment' or deep scratches on both sides?? http://www.elsen.eu/List-282/TEMPS-...2-776/FRANCE-624-717/emodule/2428/eitem/56254
Posting a link like that is always allowed. Small problem though, your link takes you to the main page for Auction 136 - So we have no idea which specific coin you are talking about. And it would be interesting to see it.
I got on link, AV 20 Francs 1815-A Napoleon/ France They actually in French, state that there are adjustment marks, while coin is about very fine. To me, it seems that is a fair grade/ description.....
Now....here is a 1709-9 Rennes Mint/ Louis XIV Louis d'or graded as MS-64 (Finest graded) That coin in my eyes looks EF-40-AU-53
That's strange coz when I click on the link, I get the coin John described, a Napoleon 1815 gold 20 Francs.
Yes, for MS-64 it seems to lack eye appeal. They struck it over a shield Louis d'or, but they missed their shot, and that was the result The French seemed to have lots of mint flaws, adjustment marks/ bad strikes/ overstrikes/ etc.
Indeed ! I say that because you can see in the screenshot I posted that the url for that page matches your link. And I'm even more curious as to why it worked for panzerman - and not me. And the same result today. Now that I know hat coin to look for, I can also see in my screenshot that the link for the coin in question is set apart, center of the screenshot, top of the page. Weird ! edit - I figured it out. The coin is all the way down at the bottom of the page In any event, I'm inclined to agree with panzerman's opinion, and Elsen's opinion, of the coin - a high end Fine (F15 in other words) with lots of adjustment marks.
Now this coin, several things going on with it. It's an over-strike for one, quite weakly struck, struck using what appears to have been very rusty dies, and where the obv die was re-worked to the point that it was almost butchered. As for grade, looks MS to me but I wouldn't call it anything more than a 60 given its look. Question for you though, is that a typo or did you maybe post the wrong pic ? I mean, you said it was 1709-09 - but what I see in the pic sure looks like a plain 1702 to me.
