What would PCGS grade this as?

I think I have seen this grade on this one and will not tell you.
==<> with colors is a hint??

Pcgs answered if it the one I seen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So it's not a counterfeit?...XF?

 

I agree on one thing for sure the 1839 with scratches in fields and wear on ears and hair does look like Bill Clinton...Amazing

 

Sure does look like "Slick Willy" to me also.....

 

To funny i was gonna call him that did"nt know if people that were not from the south would be familiar with the term.

 

The biggest problem first is the scratch. Next is the almost whizzed looking appearance of the fields. The fields are too flat and polished looking, almost porous though. In other words, the fields should have more random abrasions, nicks, and off color toning, but instead the fields are uniform looking. Could have been retoned to mask heavy cleaning, but this kind of rework is hard to tell alone from a few pics. Is this a silver crown or a close up of a gold sovereign? Not too familiar with GB coins, but I've seen enough cleaned, toned, or other problem coins to know this one is a problem. Id say it has AU50 details, but you can't just say it's worth an xf. Someone might pay more or less because there are so many factors: eg the price disparity between xf and au grades, the rarity, mintage, demand, eye appeal, etc.

 

It's silver. For the XF guess, I was answering jello that maybe it was the same one he saw. I'm wondering if it is a counterfeit, some details would be off. If it's not a counterfeit, then I'd have to verify if it's been retoned, cleaned, etc. Looks like you're saying it's possibly cleaned and re-toned. Both condition problems and counterfeit are bad, but hopefully it's neither or just the former at worst.

 

I don't get the feeling it's counterfeit, but these days you can't rule anything out. The details don't look mushy as with other counterfeits. I think the best bet is it was whizzed. Au's are usually the grade that are whizzed to make it look mint state. And you see whizzed features like smooth fields with no imperfections (other that artificial looking toning and slight porosity. An AU would have luster or dirtiness that impairs the luster, but the coin lacks both. It is too clean and lacks luster, therefore it was cleaned. Mechanically polished is more like it, ie whizzed. But the ultimate guess depends on more pictures or to see it in handhand

 

Look at the rim, if the reeding is off it may be a counterfeit. The reeding is always the most difficult part to get.

 

Well this coin weighs in at 28.32 grams.

The standard weight is 28.2759 grams, so this coin is .0441 grams above standard.

Anything to be concerned about?

 

I think that difference is minuscule. If it was more or less than a gram, that's something to worry about.

 

No plus or minus 7 -10% is a normal standard.

 

ok that sounds good. I just find weights above standard strange on old coins. If it's been over 125 years, I'd think there would be an aggregate weight loss from the standard unless the coin was in storage the whole time. But, something that small might be due to crud or foreign particles, or I guess it could have started up to 10% above standard and lost that much weight since, so maybe it's not that strange after all.

 

I'm sure that standard been infect since. 1780 .I was also surprised it was that old I believe Great Britain was first to use it as a standard.

 

For circulated coins, is there a rule of thumb for the expected wear shown as a percentage of weight loss over X years? So, say, a coin will lose 1-2% in weight due to wear every 25 years in circulation.

I only ask about circulated coin because I'm sure coins kept in collector's care don't lose that much weight if any due to wear from whatever source (though I'm sure the environment the coin is in can cause wear).

 

Does anyone know if the reverse of this coin, when flipped vertically, should be upside down? In other words, the exact opposite (180 degree rotation difference) of how US coins are? I noticed this while putting it in a Morgan air-tite (which fits it almost exactly by the way).

 

Well iPen, you seem very suspicious of this poor lil' coin ... that is never a good sign (you'll always have doubts, so if I was you I'd move-on to the next potential target)

=> Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt

 

I don't think it's a counterfeit anymore.

I should have mentioned that I'm wondering if it's a rotated error coin if Victoria crowns were not positioned that way.