When I first got this 6 kreuzer (KM#2128) I had a quick look, graded it roughly as VF (UK grading) and put it away. But I've had another look at it again today and I think it's actually a higher grade than I first thought. There is very little discernible wear, but there are a number of reverse die cracks and weak areas around the 6, the left leg and tail feather. I think this is a really decent coin, albeit let down by a die on its last legs. There are lamination issues (I think) with the obverse too.
There are 3 things that will diminish the details on a coin, as compared to perfection: 1. Wear 2. Die State 3. Strike Unfortunately, I think all three are conspiring here. The lack of detail on the tail feathers could be die wear, but I'm more inclined to believe that it is a strike issue. There do appear to be some planchet issues as well (notice especially on his cheek). I'm not sure what effect the planchet quality might have on this particular issue, but I know that harder/softer planchets made a difference for example on New Orleans mint Morgan Dollars in the US series. I'm not familiar with the series shown here, so I can only judge by what I see on the coin, but I'd probably call that an EF-40 by US standards. I'd need to see more luster to call it a higher grade, I think. It does appear to be an attractive and original color.
My feeling is the TPG's would give XF details due to the corrosion/environmental damage that appears to be on it. I really like the die cracks. Below is one of my coins struck from virtually destroyed dies. In hand, it appears to have virtually no circulation wear. It's pretty much as-struck.
Can you explain where you see corrosion or env. damage on this piece? I don't see it myself, but I might have missed it.
To me, it looks like a greenish tint above the ear on the obverse and circling the denomination on the reverse. It may just be me.
Ok, thanks. On a closer look, I do see a bit of verdigris around some of the devices. Not enough to be a major concern, but something I'd address if it were mine.
You're absolutely right, there is some powdery verdigris forming which should come away easily enough with luck. I was looking at it last night under a USB 'scope to see which areas I need to get into, and found an overstruck letter I'd not previously noticed: The C is definitely struck over another letter, but what I'm not sure.
Personally I think you were correct with your original grade of VF. Sure, there are strike issues, die issues, and planchet issues as well, all of which impact and detract from the grade. Granted, with circulated examples these 3 things count less and detract less than they do with MS issues, but they still count. But there is also significant wear on both sides of the coin, particularly on the bust itself and the obv fields. The rev has wear on all the high points and in the fields themselves as evidenced by the complete lack of luster in even the most protected areas. For the sake of comparison, take this coin - https://www.numisbids.com/sales/hosted/karamitsos/644/image08701.jpg The slab says that coin is a 62 but it isn't. There's obvious wear on the bust and in the obv fields, proven by the complete lack of luster there while obvious luster remains in the outer and more protected areas of the coin. And light wear on the high points of rev as well. Personally I'd grade this coin a 55, but that's neither here nor there. My point is using this coin as a comparison. It has strike issues, obviously weakly struck in several areas. It has die issues, die wear flow lines (from a worn die) on portions of the obv and rev. Both of those things would detract from the grade even if the coin were MS, they would limit grade and hold it down. But they would not prevent the coin from still being graded MS. It is the wear, and the amount of it, that makes the coin AU55. But even if one wished to agree with the grade of 62, or 55, by comparing this coin to yours it would be kinda hard to grade yours above high VF. And it seems that you yourself agreed with that originally.
Thanks for the comparison photos - very useful. I've removed most of the clag in the design on mine, and rephotographed. Have a look at these - the coin you posted on the left versus mine on the right. Mine has a little more wear to the highest points, particularly the crown, but there really isn't much in it. There is a degree of lustre in the reverse legends that doesn't come across in the photos (but not much else).
Boy ! To say there is a night and day difference between what you're showing us now, and what you showed us originally - would be a huge understatement ! And I gotta admit, I have no idea what you mean by this - But how'd you get a copper coin to look silver in the pics ? Lastly, please post pics of the full coin as it is now.
Clag = crud / dirt / debris. It's a proper numismatic term and everything: "It's a nice piece but a bit claggy". It looks silver because the close ups were taken with a USB microscope, so there's a barrage of LED light on it. I took these yesterday but have removed a little more dirt since then:
That's a fabulous coin. Whenever I see something like that I always wonder what happened to the coins struck directly before, and after if the die continued to be used. They would have been very similar and equally collectable. Where are they?
Haha, I had to google the word when you first used it. Apparently it is British slang, hence the Yankees being confused.
I can see the difference between those and the original pics, but I still wouldn't grade it any different than I originally did.
This topic comes up on later milled coins of Vicky through George V. There are coins that are softly struck, and when there is not much wear it is a bit easier to discern. I have found rims to often help, although they too may have striking issues. One thing that I have noticed is that in areas not struck up that the original flans may have hairlines, nicks and dings that show up if the area is not struck through; this is a bit difficult to explain but you will know if you know...LOL
That's the first time I've heard of that, but I understand what you mean. Of course, now I'm going to ask you if you have a picture please? One summer's day when I was about 14 me and my mate decided we'd go down the beach and dig the biggest hole we could. Normally when the tide comes in it obliterates whatever's been done to the sand while it was out, but this hole was deep enough to survive. What was left was like a smoothed out crater. That's what I envisage when you say the marks show up in weakly struck areas. Am I thinking right? You're obviously looking at high grade coins very closely.
Yes, that's more or less it. I'm not at home for a couple of days but will look and see. One example that is mine is on PCGS pop reports if you look under Mauritius, 1977 1/2 and 1 rupee. These are specimen coins grading 65 and 66 and yet there looks to be "wear" that is some of these marks. Also, on blank planchets that are sometimes sold you can see this and also on the "MODEL" patter obverse or reverse coins that the Royal Mint struck.
