Very Pleasant Proof 1839 Halfcrown - GTG And A Dilemma of Sorts

OK, this is an Halfcrown from the famous "Baldwin's Basement" of the Good Ole Days. I will tell you it is as nice as I've seen and precisely why I bought it. This coin has no marks or scratches or hairlines - what appear to be some light scratches on the neck are in fact raised. The little disocolourations appear to be light oxidation of metal impurity or slight flan defect:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Amazing grade. In my 2004 Krause coin catalog it says it is worth $1,100. Probably worth more than that now ? Thanks for sharing.

 

Lovely, PR63?

 

Cool wide second punch on the 9.
This has got to be a PF65 or better.
Nice one Jags.

 

So what is the dilemma in the title?

 

Well, if it should come time to sell, the numerical grade is critical to price achieved. It is slabbed now in a grade that really does not make sense, and not simply to me since that would not be enough to make such a statement, but to a number of other advanced collectors and dealers. Should I resubmit this coin in pursuit of a higher grade? I have always been a bit equivocal about slabbing and only submitted as I was curious as to what it might achieve.
Even in its current grade, it is more than likely a 5k USD or greater coin with 10k not out of the question.
BTW, this appearance used to be described as "aluminum foil" by some because of the marked cameo (which is reflected in the grade) on a coin with what appear to be very original surfaces.

 

Ah - well that would be easy for me! I have never taken to slabbing so it would be out of there like a shot!

 

OK, this coin graded PCGS Proof63DC.
The lines are on the flans and in hand not seen. That adjacent to the crown on the reverse is a die and/or planchet issue and the crown is not touched nor affected.The marks to the right of the crown are stains or variable oxidation.
The line to the V is well observed on your part but there also is no incisive aspect to this one. IMO in hand this grade is a simple 65DC with aspersions to higher. The surfaces are really not improvable and better than the 67DC which I have also seen. IMO that one is OVERGRADED.

 

While I agree, the grade is inordinately low IMO. I have also seen them to variably grade proof and specimen coins of GB. Please check the picture on their pop site of the 1920 specimen Halfcrown (R6-R7 according to Bull) where this coin is graded Specimen 61. I have seen this coin in hand and similarly the grade does not match with others graded. Same for the wildly popular 1887 and 1893 gold issues - grade the coin and not the holder or necessarily the number grade. Or matte proofs of the 20th century, 1927-1953; or the 1965 specimen Churchill crown. The list goes on and on.
So I get your point, but my point is that their grading is variable, the explanations are only what we provide. Also, I have collected coins for more years than I care to share (LOL) and was the main cataloguer for Krause GB coins in the 2000-2015 years and saw more rare coins than I can count. So while your point is taken (again), my point is that this coin is likely undergraded by two points or so. These are extremely minor planchet issues that on coins of this vintage - 181 years old now - do not exclude a significantly higher grade.

 

Yes, I agree with that bit. However, would you appreciate the opinion of Mr. Steve Hill who has seen this in person? Or how about Mark Rasmussen?
Perhaps them agreeing with me might just sway opinions. Or possibly that this is my area of specialty as they would inform you no doubt.
We have jointly "busted out" this same TPG on a recent (ie early 20th Century) issue that I have to keep private.
Or that I had a disagreement on another very valuable Halfcrown to which they recanted with a FIVE POINT higher grade....

 

I think it should grade higher than 63, but then we don't know what day it was graded, nor from which direction the wind was blowing.

The fields are a bit bumpy and there's a bit of wear to a few high points, but I would say slightly less friction than on the 64 I purchased in Heritage last Friday.

Any lines arising from the die such as those on the neck should have absolutely no influence on the grade assigned, as it is the coin that is being graded and not the die. The 3 and 9 of the date being doubled could either be a double strike, or more likely the die is a refurbished 1839 with a wider date given the lack of any doubling elsewhere. You can eliminate rotational doubling because there is no sign of it anywhere in the legend. Again, being on the die, this should have no bearing on the grade.

These inconsistencies are the reason why I stopped worrying about the TPG's opinion long ago, and stuck to my two point grading system - acceptable and unacceptable.

 

Can't argue with Rob.

 

Perhaps you need to review PCGS's own definition of Proof [70] if you want to be perfect: "The PCGS 70 grading standard DOES ALLOW for "as minted" defects..."
So what you have stated is, by definition, is INCORRECT. Still, we are all here to learn.

Which is somewhat inoperative in that the IMO conservative grade is a putative "DCAM 65".

 

Because the actual number is likely incorrect, not the definition.

 

The TPGs are muddying the waters if they try to include die quality alongside wear on the coin. A coin's grade should be a measure of the amount of wear. End of. To then say the grade is dependent on the quality of the die is frankly silly.

The TPG wasn't in the mint when the dies were made, so can have no idea whether the die is as intended or not. Perish the thought that the engraver inadvertently added an extra hair strand that he didn't originally intend to and then compounded the mistake by not leaving a note for posterity to that effect, so hoodwinking the TPG grader. Are detail differences in nominally similar busts an intended variety or a mistake? On the above criteria that should make a huge difference.

Leaving aside the oxymoron of unc with wear that applies to virtually everything between 60 and 65 or 66, whether proof or currency, the level of wear should determine the grade. I think they've made a rod for their own backs by over complicating what should be a fairly easy exercise for many collectors. After all, they are only giving an opinion just as I or anyone else is doing, but crucially, they are more concerned with 'adding value' by tweaking the designations with an increasing number of micro grades.

Rhetorical question, but if you can manage with 50, 53, 55 & 58 for XF, then why do you need 60, 61, 62, 63..... up to 70, and then add +, Cameo, Deep Cameo etc for MS and proof. Whilst this is in their interest as it provides collectors with more reasons to submit coins in the hope of getting an uplift, it is also guaranteed to increase the number of contentious grades assigned. The best way to have a robust grading system which few could query is to keep it simple, with fewer levels.

It's just a triumph of marketing over common sense, and sadly, people lap it up.