Opinions on grade 1929 Norway 50 Ore

Posted this on another thread. When I got it there was organic stuff on it so it had a rinse in distilled water and it all went away. If there are any of you out there confident enough to approximate a grade of this coin, your attention would be gratefully appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here's an uncirculated one for comparison (different year, same design). Since the crowns seem to be the devices with the most detail, I would have to guess VF25.

 

XF40

 

Thanks guys, The reason why I am asking is I picked it and another from LCS foreign bin for 5 Euros the pair. The 1929 at VF is a 5 Euro coin but at XF it is at least a 50 Euro piece.

 

As you're aware, I'm sure, this is a key date, so grading is going to tend a bit tighter.

This does not have what it takes to make EF-40 (I'm not seeing luster in your pictures).

I'd feel confident in a mid-VF grade, as yakpoo stated.

 

Appreciate your time looking over it, I am just glad to have it. Only need the 1939 for the 1926-1949 50 Ore Type 4 coins.
Here is one last set of images with natural not artificial light

 

VF ?

 

Nice looking coin.

 

I don’t think it is EF. In Norway it would grade “1” which is about a VG in our system.

To get a reference, you could go to Skanfil.no or Scandinavian Auction Systems for examples sold at auction.

Personally, I would not give 5 euros for it, alone, as most anything after the “teens” in Norwegian coins needs to be in a high grade.

Steve

 

Thanks for that great info. I have bookmarked those for future ref. I inherited my collection which has a vast amount of Norwegian coins and I am trying to get the key dates for various sections. Unfortunately I am not yet very knowledgeable about them although researching as time allows. But when a scarce issue shows itself, just got to grab it

 

VF

 

I should probably amend my characterization of the "1" grade from Norway:
Here is what some online information gives (and in bold in parentheses what a well-known dealer in Oslo, Roschberg, says):
3 Poor.
2 G
-1/2 (Fair/AG)
-1 VG (G).
1/-1 (VG)
1 F (VF)
1+ VF (XF)
01 XF (AU)
0/01. 50-63. (61-63)
0. 65-66. (64+)

It's plain to see that there is no universal translation from the Norwegian system to the 1-70 scale. The more collect Norwegian coins, the more conservative I've become. When I slab a coin, it is only NGC. I've seen too many over-graded Norwegian coins in PCGS slabs, which is fine if they are being sold in the USA, but not if they are being sold in Norway (unless a novice is buying the slab, not the coin).

And, as you can plainly see, there are gaps in both "translations."

@buckeye73, the coin, IMHO, is definitely not VF. It really needs to have detail in the crown for that grade. I would now call it F.

Steve

 

Thanks for that also. I am trying to catalogue everything as accurately as possible, so that there can be no misconceptions when the collection is passed on in the future. But it sure is nice when you stumble upon a key date regardless of it's condition.

 

Many of the European countries, including British Colonies have had monarchs with crowns or crowns alone on the coinage. The crowns with gems and other raised features are my focal points in evaluating grades of those coins. This Norwegian coin is such an example. Coins of other countries have designs with focal points, such as hair detail in which wear can be evaluated for purposes of grading.

Upon further review of the OP coin and disregarding the possibility of worn dies or week strikes, which often occurs with nickel and nickel alloys, I’m at F obverse and low end VF (VF20) reverse, net F12 or F15.

Over the more than 30 years of world coin type collecting I have noticed that a given country’s grading standards of their own coinage are generally more conservative than standards in the US. Great Britain is a prime example. PCGS is an example of US standards. I must admit that aside from Canada and Great Britain, I have not studied other country’s grading standards.

Stevearino, you have obviously researched Norwegian coinage grading enough to provide a knowledgeable opinion. Thanks for giving me a mulligan.
Dan

 

Here's something I found that might be of general use. It's a site where you can enter any book (e.g. Any Coin Book), enter your Zip Code, then you get a list of libraries near you that have that book. Nice! ...especially if the book is out of print and outrageously expensive to buy.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/hacienda-tokens-of-mexico/oclc/1229899045?referer=di&ht=edition

Edit: Ooops, wrong thread.

 

@buckeye73, thanks for your post. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. And life is too short not to get a mulligan.

Steve

 

If only we knew the grading standards for this coin(!)

 

You pose a good point. Language barriers make it difficult to understand the grading standards of a given country. Short of doing a thorough study of Norwegian grading standards in this case, the grading standards for this coin are apparently beyond the understanding of most CT responders. Steve described his basis of grading the OP coin and appeared to give a knowledgeable response.

I am by no means an expert in the grading of world coins. As a general US coin collector and world coin type collector, I choose to buy a few higher end TPG coins if I opine that the coins are conservatively graded. With the exception of a few select countries, I extrapolate US standards using PCGS Photograde to assign grades to the coins in my modest collection and judge that is satisfactory….just my humble opinion.

 

Later today I will translate and post the grading standards in a trusted catalog. It may not help as much as you would expect, but if you combine it with the equivalents in my previous post, it might help somewhat. Nap time right now

Steve

 

As promised earlier today, here's a translation of one book's explanations of the numerical Norwegian grading system:

1-/2 A circulated, extremely worn-out coin. Details are identifiable, but very little other than the outlines of designs and letters are visible. The edge of the coin is nearly worn away.
1- A circulated coin which is very worn. Worn details in designs and lettering. The rim is worn down to the level of the rest of the coin.
1 A circulated coin which clearly shows wear. Lacking many details in designs and lettering. No remnants of mint luster.
1+ A circulated coin with deep wear in designs, lettering and rim. Clear, but not complete, details. Letters and designs are rounded off. Could have traces of mint luster, especially in sheltered areas such as between letters and near the rim.
01 A circulated coin with wear on the highest points of letters and details. Several evidences of use in commerce. Good mint luster.
0/01 An uncirculated coin without evidence of wear, but there could be several, some large, marks from the minting process. Mint luster does not have to be perfect.
0 An uncirculated coin without evidence of wear. Has fewer, smaller marks from the minting process. Mint luster is perfect.
"Glorious" or "Spectacular" ["Prakt" in Norwegian]. Especially fine coins. They should have mirror-like fields and matte reliefs. Be careful, there are many coins called "prakt-coins" which are not. [Edit: we would likely call them MS70].

I hope this helps somewhat, friends.

Steve