The grades are in!!!!

Up next is an 1806 Great Britain Soho proof 1/2 Penny (P-1371)

This coin was also conserved, so I am not sure how accurate my images are now. I have included the pictures I took as well as the ones provided by NGC.

My images:


NGC images:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

PF-65
I oughta stay out of copper threads but I need distractions.

 

Thank you for this contest! I love it. I get excited. I wasn't as close in the second one but hey half is better than I could have done 6 months ago. Thanks cointalk friends.

 

Quick question are the disturbances in the obverse field planchet or die characteristics or are they post strike?

 

My guess Ms 66 on the half penny.

 

Excellent question, I do not have the coin back in hand, but if memory serves, I would say that most (if not all) are not post-strike.

 

This is my second example of the same variety (i.e., P-1371). The first is housed in an old PCGS holder graded PR-65 BN (I think this coin is conservatively graded, but that is beside the point). I compared the two before submitting, and my initial thought was that the PCGS example was superior. I graded this coin as a PF-64 BN and felt confident in my assessment. As it turns out, I was off by a couple of points.

1806 Great Britain proof 1/2 Penny (P-1371)

My grade: PF-64 BN

 

Up next is a 1928 Ireland proof Penny

 

PF-65 feels about right on the penny.

 

Proof 67 on the Ireland. I was at 64 on the 1806 one too

 

There weren't nearly as many participants this time around, but both of you were reasonably close. I had this listed as a PF-65 RB in the spreadsheet, but now that I have it back in hand, I see why it warranted the grade NGC assigned it.

1928 Ireland proof Penny

My grade PF-65 RB

 

Up next is a 1775 Ireland proof 1/2 Penny

 

Baggy. Au 50

 

I am always tough on proof coins their surfaces are so delicate that any and most all contact shows thru. 45 on the Hibernia.

 

I'll go with 50

 

Yeah, maybe a 50

 

I’ll lowball it a bit with 45. I’m surprised they didn’t BB it for that rim damage, but I guess the rules are different with older coinage sometimes.

Given your pictures (which I love by the way, what is your setup?), I would’ve never guessed it was a proof strike either.

 

If it isn't Details, Damaged, then I'll guess 45.

How do you know its a proof? Is this a proof only type, or date?

 

I unexpectedly won this coin at an auction last year, and although it is not as nice as most examples I have been offered since, I paid relatively little for this coin, and I have a weakness for early circulated proofs. This coin, as expected, came back in a details holder. I had this down as XF details, and it appears NGC agreed because of the rim damage.

@physics-fan3.14 you asked an excellent question. The proof strikes of this series are distinct in that the denticles are long, and flan extends beyond them. The denticles on the business strikes almost invariably run into the edges of the coin and negate the possibility of the flan extending beyond them. This is also prevalent with the English proof coppers struck at the Royal Mint during the same time period, which is well documented.

It seems as though both NGC and PCGS have issues getting this designation correct, and this coin, like many others, will be making its way back to the TPG for them to correct the "Mechanical" error of not listing it as "Proof XF details".

1775 Ireland proof 1/2 Penny

My grade: XF details

 

Up next is a 1797 Great Britain Soho Penny.

This is a pretty low-grade example of an otherwise common coin, can anyone guess why I submitted it? I have been known to submit coins of little monetary value but great sentimental value, but this is not the case with this piece. (The holder came back fresh from NGC with those scratches )