Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pierre_Henri

A second MS 1936 Farthing discovered (and graded)

Recommended Posts

Pierre_Henri    14
Pierre_Henri

The almost impossible has happened - a second 1936 SA Union MS Farthing was recently discovered and graded by NGC - there are two now graded (of the rumoured 3 in existence)

One MSBN62 and the other MSRB64.

Christmas pudding or humble pie anyone?

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rare NotesCoins    11
Rare NotesCoins

All I will say is watch this space

 

:angel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coinoisseur    10
coinoisseur

DO NGC Know What They Are Doing

 

Do NGC really know what they are doing when it comes to grading early South African Copper coins. As numismatists, we are quick to accept what they say on the slab without questioning mistakes. This new so called find of a 1936 1/4d MS64 RB comes from a very prominent collection in South Africa and I had the pleasure of having breakfast with the owner in Sandton on Saturday morning. A complete 1936 Short Proof Set was sent in for grading to NGC. Guess what ???? All the coppers were graded and slabbed MS and the silver coins graded PROOF.

 

What a load of Hog Wash when a coin cannot be diffrenciated between PROOF and MINT STATE.

 

Like I stated in previous posts, I had a 1931s 1/2d graded as MS when quite clearly there were no MS coins minted for the S variety. Only on my third re-submission and with proper documentation, the grade was changed to PROOF.

Edited by Coinoisseur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algreco    10
Algreco

1936 MS62BN on Heritage

 

What a load of Hog Wash when a coin cannot be diffrenciated between PROOF and MINT STATE.
Agreed. The other graded specimen is up for auction on Heritage; the one I think we all remember:

An impaired proof in my opinion, however, I dont think the future buyer will give a damn about its controversial pre-slab historics.

Edited by qball
No external links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coinoisseur    10
coinoisseur

There are also FIVE known 1930 PROOF sets where the coppers are graded as MINT STATE and the silvers as PROOF.

 

NGC stats =

 

1/4d = 0

1/2d = 1

1d = 1

3d = 5

6d = 5

1s = 5

2s = 5

2.5s = 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geejay50    10
geejay50

Hello all,

 

We need NGC - ( Anthony's listings are all slabbed by NGC) so lets accept their observations as done by human beings who are better trained than most but not without faults.

 

At least they are not motivated by the disgusting self interest and naked jealousy that bedevilled the postings around the 1936 1/4 d MS62BN discussion before. Heritage has given a fairly decent description of this coin. It is not an Impaired proof as the lettering has flaws in their view and that does not usually happen with impaired Proofs.

 

This coin is getting a lot of interest. There are over 150 views already. Good luck to the present owner - I wish him a handsome profit !!

 

lf?source=url%5bfile%3aimages%2finetpub%2fnewnames%2f300%2f6%2f0%2f4%2f3%2f6043549.jpg%5d%2ccontinueonerror%5btrue%5d&scale=size%5b220x350%5d%2coptions%5blimit%5d&source=url%5bfile%3aimages%2finetpub%2fwebuse%2fno_image_available.gif%5d%2cif%5b%28%27global.source.error%27%29%5d&sink=preservemd%5btrue%5dlf?source=url%5bfile%3aimages%2finetpub%2fnewnames%2f300%2f6%2f0%2f4%2f3%2f6043550.jpg%5d%2ccontinueonerror%5btrue%5d&scale=size%5b220x350%5d%2coptions%5blimit%5d&source=url%5bfile%3aimages%2finetpub%2fwebuse%2fno_image_available.gif%5d%2cif%5b%28%27global.source.error%27%29%5d&sink=preservemd%5btrue%5d

 

Geejay

Edited by geejay50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

Logic

 

Hi Georg

 

I have to say that the example Anthony gave confirms my earlier thoughts. Just because NGC states it is something does not make it that.

 

For someone who is long in the tooth in this hobby I have to say that if it looks like a pup it is a pup. And I have NO DOUBT in my mind that the other 1936 "business" strike being sold on Heritage is a badly graded proof.

 

Even Heritage say in their listing:

This specimen was reputedly discovered not long ago in a 1936 Proof Set which had been lacquered, which had masked the real texture of this particular bronze coin. Once the lacquer was removed, it became evident that this coin does not bear the qualities of a Pretoria Mint proof. It looks like a business strike, but it could not be, because no such coins were made in 1936.

 

The tragedy is that, because of NGC's inability to correctly grade this coin, even if a genuine coin fitting this criteria is found, it will not be recognised.

 

Let us remember there was a Sammy Marks Penny... forgotten how many of them now...

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4kids    10
4kids

The following two links takes you to supper-sized images of the 1936 MS62 Coin on Heritage.

 

I would like to assist in putting this argument to bed once and for all. In my opinion the 1936 MS62 under discussion here is far from a proof and does not even border on a proof-like coin. This coin was graded for what it is and that is without doubt a Business strike specimen.

 

I would be nice if the experts in South African Coinage could indicate or identify any features on the coin that indicate it being a proof coin.

 

%2Ccontinueonerror[true]%26source%3Durl[file%3Aimages%2Finetpub%2Fwebuse%2Fno_image_available.gif]%2Cif[%28%27global.source.error%27%29]%26sink%3Dpreservemd[true]"]OBVERSE SUPER IMAGE

 

%2Ccontinueonerror[true]%26source%3Durl[file%3Aimages%2Finetpub%2Fwebuse%2Fno_image_available.gif]%2Cif[%28%27global.source.error%27%29]%26sink%3Dpreservemd[true]"]REVERSE SUPER IMAGE

 

In contrast to this coin, how about looking at another Farthing a 1933 PF64

 

%2Ccontinueonerror[true]%26source%3Durl[file%3Aimages%2Finetpub%2Fwebuse%2Fno_image_available.gif]%2Cif[%28%27global.source.error%27%29]%26sink%3Dpreservemd[true]"]OBVERSE SUPER SIZE

 

%2Ccontinueonerror[true]%26source%3Durl[file%3Aimages%2Finetpub%2Fwebuse%2Fno_image_available.gif]%2Cif[%28%27global.source.error%27%29]%26sink%3Dpreservemd[true]"]REVERSE SUPER SIZE

 

In my opinion NGC at least got it right on this coin.

Edited by 4kids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algreco    10
Algreco
In my opinion NGC at least got it right on this coin.

 

On the contrary, NGC got it wrong as a result of NCS mucking up the coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kyle2    10
kyle2
The following two links takes you to supper-sized images of the 1936 MS62 Coin on Heritage.

 

I would like to assist in putting this argument to bed once and for all. In my opinion the 1936 MS62 under discussion here is far from a proof and does not even border on a proof-like coin. This coin was graded for what it is and that is without doubt a Business strike specimen.

 

In my opinion NGC at least got it right on this coin.

 

When you look at both coins and compare them, its chalk and cheese, the 1936 does not even look like a 'Mint State' coin, there are so many imperfections compared with the 1933 coin.

very odd indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coinoisseur    10
coinoisseur

Chalk and Cheese

 

The difference between the two coins is "Chalk and Cheese". The so called MS coin is "Impaired" by this I mean, tampered with, surfaces affected by the removal of the lacquer. The second coin which is PF has not been tampered with and is in its original state. We all know that in some cases, people enhance coins, and more especially copper coins to get better grades. In this case a PF coins surface was affected by tampering.

 

This debate is not about ulterior motives as one poster puts it, but it is all about setting the record straight and doing the right thing.

 

When are mistakes, done by NGC, acceptable ??

 

Then please explain, how a second coin taken out of a proof box ends up being graded as MS ?

 

Have you read the description Heritage have given the coin. They are even unsure about what the coin is. In one breath the say no business strikes were minted (which I believe is the case) and in another it is described as a trial strike and only 39 genuine proof sets were made with this one being a trial. Well this theory is thrown out the window because of the second MS coin thats graded. All of the reasoning are just speculation and opinions.

 

George V "Trial Strike" bronze Farthing 1936, KM12.3, Hern-S16, MS62 BN NGC, handsome brown surfaces with blue iridescence. One of the major rarities of the ZAR, with a reported mintage in proof of 40 pieces and possibly an additional 3 pieces long considered to have been struck as trials, or set-up pieces, for the proofing process. Forty-three pieces were logged in official mint records as having been struck, including the 40 proofs. No farthings intended for circulation, or commerce, were planned for this year; only the proofs for collectors in the 40 sets. The 3 mystery pieces were never accounted for after the fact, and for decades were only rumored to exist. This specimen was reputedly discovered not long ago in a 1936 Proof Set which had been lacquered, which had masked the real texture of this particular bronze coin. Once the lacquer was removed, it became evident that this coin does not bear the qualities of a Pretoria Mint proof. It looks like a business strike, but it could not be, because no such coins were made in 1936. It is now thought that one of the trial pieces was mistakenly placed in one of the 40 proof sets. That begs the question: whatever became of the other 3 coins? Were they melted, including one of the proofs? Or were they just tossed into a coin hopper to be placed into commercial use along with 1935 farthings? Or were they secretly kept by someone close to, or employed by, the mint? We will likely never know. What we do know is that this coin does not have any of the qualities of a proof. Rather, its surfaces are mottled and show some small marks and even several faint scuffs. The strike is not that of a twice-struck proof. The rims and edge are not those of a proof. If it were viewed as a commercial coin, it is well made, with fine details, although no commercial pieces of this date, in the farthing, are known to exist. The consignor believes, as we do, that this was a trial piece, that once inspected it was seen not to have the proper sharpness nor the surfaces of a proof, probably because the dies used to make it were not sufficiently polished to create perfectly smooth surfaces. Perhaps another two trials were struck off that were finer. Nobody knows for certain, but this coin, in this lot, may well be the first 1936 farthing that was struck, followed by the other two and then the 40 proof pieces. One other possibility exists: that 43 Proof Sets were planned but the first 3 farthings were not up to snuff, so that when the sets were assembled it was seen that only 40 could be made in all; the other coins intended for the sets might then have been melted. If this is in fact the case, it means that only 40 1936 farthings exist in toto, 39 proofs and this one trial piece, which resembles a business strike, accounting for the "MS62" grade given to it.

 

Do you think its possible that a 3rd MS coin will surface? Only time will tell so watch this space

Edited by Coinoisseur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri    14
Pierre_Henri

In sensitive arguments and cases like this, there is only one single way to settle the matter.

 

Call in the Numismatic 911 experts and ask them...

 

In my view the ultimate expert on the Union of South Africa copper coins is Jan Kleynhans (a.k.a. 4 kids here on Bid-or-Buy). I have NEVER met Jan in person and have only spoken to him maybe 3 or 4 times by telephone if that much in the last three years.

 

So if the (in my view) number one expert in South Africa says the following...

 

I would like to assist in putting this argument to bed once and for all. In my opinion the 1936 MS62 under discussion here is far from a proof and does not even border on a proof-like coin. This coin was graded for what it is and that is without doubt a Business strike specimen

.

 

That is the opinion of THE expert on SA Union copper/ bronze coinage – so really, one must be humble and give thumbs up to the truth being that the coin is NOT a proof...

 

Pierre

 

NB: If I must be very truthful, I also have a question regarding the fact that both coins (and the 1930 examples Anthony mentioned) were discovered in proof sets – why? What are the chances that they were exchanged with the proofs in the sets? Only a fool will exchange an almost unique coin with a not so unique coin – why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algreco    10
Algreco
In my view the ultimate expert on the Union of South Africa copper coins is Jan Kleynhans (a.k.a. 4 kids here on Bid-or-Buy). I have NEVER met Jan in person and have only spoken to him maybe 3 or 4 times by telephone if that much in the last three years.

 

If you have never met the guy in real life and you hardly speak to him then how can you make such a statement? Where is the substantiating evidence to back this "view"?

 

In my "view", Alex Urizzi is the leading authority when it comes to Union coins. This numismatist has done thousands of hours of research, and has published a handful of journals detailing his findings. The unfortunate part is that Alex has explained the reasoning behind why the coin in question is an impaired proof and not a true uncirculated specimen (and quite comprehesively I might add).

 

It has become the norm in South African numismatics that people buy the slab and not the coin, and this is yet another perfect example. How SAD!

Edited by Algreco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eZethu Coins    10
eZethu Coins
If you have never met the guy in real life and you hardly speak to him then how can you make such a statement? Where is the substantiating evidence to back this "view"?

 

In my "view", Alex Urizzi is the leading authority when it comes to Union coins. This numismatist has done thousands of hours of research, and has published a handful of journals detailing his findings. The unfortunate part is that Alex has explained the reasoning behind why the coin in question is an impaired proof and not a true uncirculated specimen (and quite comprehesively I might add).

 

It has become the norm in South African numismatics that people buy the slab and not the coin, and this is yet another perfect example. How SAD!

 

I have never met either of the gentlemen in question personally and thereby do not doubt their expertise - maybe they share the "top spot". Irrelevant to me however - they both know a lot more than I do and I am happy to take note of their opinions and learn.

 

I had the privilege to speak to Jan a few times however and that was enough to realize that he is definitely an expert in our field. I don't need to see him in person to determine that - besides, maybe he is short, fat and ugly and then I might just change my mind :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coinoisseur    10
coinoisseur

Sticking To The Topic

 

Morning Gentlemen

The debate is not about who is an authority in Union Coins, but rather the 1936 1/4d in question. It is about setting the record straight or better still, as Jan put it, putting this to bed. I know both Jan and Alex very well, and both have an excellent knowledge in Union coins.

There is no need to call in the Numismatic 911 Pierre (LOL).

It is quite evident from just looking at both the coins, they have different characteristics. One cannot also make a conclusive observation, by just looking at a picture, no matter how good the resolution is. But based on what we have to work with, the first coin does NOT have PROOF qualities, and yes Pierre I agree 100%, it is not PROOF anymore. It could have had PROOF qualities before it was tampered with, but it certainly does not now. My debate is on NGC's knowledge on early South African copper coins. In my opinion, they do not have all the experience in grading these coins and hence, mistakes made by them have cost submitters dearly, and in this case benefited.

Questions to ask:

  1. Why would the mint put two Mint state coins in proof boxes? (We now have two mint state farthings found in proof boxes)
  2. Why would the mint only strike 3 mint state farthings for circulation?
  3. Why have so many copper coins sent in for grading from proof sets, been graded Mint State? (example the 1930 coins)
  4. Do NGC like accepting the fact that they have made a mistake and correct the situation when questioned about it?
  5. Do we as numismatists accept what is written on the slab, or do we question it only when it suites us and it is not in our favour?

This debate is not about shooting the coin down, but merely setting the record straight as there are many things against this coin being a genuine Mint State coin

We can all speculate, give our opinions, give our views etc....... but at the end of the day, we need to make sure that the integrity of numismatics lives on forever for those people that will be taking over from us.

Numismatics is not about, maybe, I think, it could be etc..... It either is, or it is not

I agree that NGC are human, but who will forget the costly mistake of grading "PROOF-LIKE MANDELA" R5's as PROOF's. What a loss this has been to the buyer's because of the mistake? I questioned this with NGC and wrote them a formal letter with facts from the S.A Mint. Now, they do not grade theses coins as PROOF.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

Exactly

 

I agree with Anthony's post above and the common sense questions he raises.

 

The true value for serious numismatists on this forum is the quality and depth of public discussion and debate.

 

As Anthony says...

This debate is not about shooting the coin down, but merely setting the record straight as there are many things against this coin being a genuine Mint State coin

 

We can all speculate, give our opinions, give our views etc....... but at the end of the day, we need to make sure that the integrity of numismatics lives on forever for those people that will be taking over from us.

 

Numismatics is not about, maybe, I think, it could be etc..... It either is, or it is not

 

Sadly, the pooled knowledge shared here in threads is all too often disregarded, ignored or forgotten. Just like the recording of prices achieved by coins on auction many of these threads are an invaluable source of future reference for serious collectors. I believe this forum would be a really valuable numismatic archive if BoB brought out an annual CD or downloadable PDF of the most informative threads on this category (Coins and Notes) and offered that for free distribution to coin collectors. This could easily be done in PDF form with each thread being a chapter, and each post being displayed as it appeared here.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson (in Sydney)

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geejay50    10
geejay50

Hello all,

 

As one of the very few people who has had this coin in his hand and had it sent twice to NGC , I feel I need to put this mater to rest.

 

I have phoned Heritage and asked them whether they have investigated the status of this coin. They have assured me that as their name as an auction house is at stake, they have contacted a wide variety of collectors and dealers and made an initial aggreement with the present owner that only if they are satisfied that this coin is Business strike will they proceed with the listing.

 

All their investigations have led to their final decision that it IS IN FACT A BUSINESS STRIKE.

 

Now most of the people who have been critical of this coin in particular and NGC's grading in general must please take note that as long as they have not held this coin in their hand and inspected it, all their comments are invalid !!

 

I find it highly hypocritical that as long as Alex or Anthony have an NGC graded coin for sale, the grading thereof is beyond doubt.

 

Now we have a true rarity in our midst, the knives are out even though none of them have actually seen it.

 

It is even less likely that NGC has made a mistake with this coin now that Heritage has made this ruling with an extensive explanation of the mintings thereof. They are after all the biggest Rare Coin Auction House in the world.

 

I again wish the owner all the success with the auction that he deserves. May the future buyers not be put off by the petty gallery of uninformed so called experts.

 

Geejay

Edited by geejay50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

The Jury is still out

 

I remember the debate (not so long ago) over the Griquatown token coins. I recall clearly at how their worn (often NGC graded) appearance was, to some, proof positive that they had not only circulated BUT that they had circulated widely for several years. Following a more recent debate over these self-same coins it was generally agreed that, at best, the Griquatown token coins had extremely limited circulation (if at all). This supported my view that the worn nature of some resulted from poor storage over many years.

 

See: http://forum.bidorbuy.co.za/coins-notes-numismatist/11057-griquatown-1-4p-first-coins-used-sa.html

 

Heritage still suggest that the Griquatown token coins circulated in 1815-16 as per Parson and Hern (both wrong as per Karel Schoeman and his direct transcripts taken from London Missionary Society letters and documents from that time and common sense research).

 

The fact remains that the Jury is still out on the coin being discussed in this thread and, like the debate on the Griquatown tokens, it is only right that this issue is discussed. And that potential buyers be aware of this debate - so they can make an informed decision. However, I doubt that Heritage will link that coin to this thread to ensure that is the case.

 

You do not have to hold a coin in your hand to have the answer. I still stand by Anthony's common-sense points at the bottom of the previous page. I personally believe that the coin being offered on the Heritage auction is an impaired proof.

 

Heritage are an auction house with an enviable reputation for setting new record prices thanks to their enormous mailing list (the power of the Internet).

 

That does not make them experts in all things South African; neither do dissenting views reflect some form of "paranoid envy" - open debate is healthy and good... look at how much we are learning about what the US really thinks from the WikiLeaks revelations :) In fact the dissenting expert views from Anthony and Alex reflect a serious issue that remains unresolved.

 

On a personal level I have to say my experience with Heritage is less than satisfactory. Their marketing drive is great and they send out personal calling cards with email addresses to me on a regular basis pleading with me to sell my collection through them but when I try to contact them on other issues they do not even have the good manners to reply to my emails. This is not an isolated instance.

 

In closing Georg says..

All their investigations have led to their final decision that it IS IN FACT A BUSINESS STRIKE.
So why do Heritage say in their current auction listing:

This specimen was reputedly discovered not long ago in a 1936 Proof Set which had been lacquered, which had masked the real texture of this particular bronze coin. Once the lacquer was removed, it became evident that this coin does not bear the qualities of a Pretoria Mint proof. It looks like a business strike, but it could not be, because no such coins were made in 1936.

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Edited by ndoa18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qball    11
qball

I would like to ask that all posts remain on topic and remember to argue the topic, not the poster...

 

Thank you

Cuan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pierre_Henri    14
Pierre_Henri

What about the low mintage MS strikes for 1933 and 1934?

 

Why would the mint only strike 3 mint state farthings for circulation (in 1936)?

 

 

 

 

I have no idea, but why would they (the Mint) only strike an approximate 56 mint state farthings for 1933 and 28 mint state farthings for 1934?

 

Only a single reference in the history of numismatic publications on SA coinage, deny the existence of business strike farthings for 1933, 1934 and 1936, that being V.J.P. Nicholas (1979: 10)

 

So bar this author (Nicholas), every single source that I know of that refers to this subject, agree on the exceptional low business strike numbers for that three dates.

 

So even if no business strikes were issued in 1936, why did the mint indeed struck a few dozen business strike farthings for 1933 and 1934? And if nobody knows the answer to this, why would one question the 1936 date but not the other two dates?

 

Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ATA STAMP CENTRE    10
ATA STAMP CENTRE

After reading all these comments about this coin,there is one fact that stands out!!whoever buys this coin is still not going to be sure what he has bought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geejay50    10
geejay50

Hi Stamp centre,

 

 

This coin represents an opportunity for a buyer who looks for such a unique coin at a price that may well become an excellent investment for the future.

 

Geejay

Edited by qball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qball    11
qball

Hi geejay50

 

Please take heed of my earlier post, stick to the topic and do not make personal posts.

 

Thank you

Cuan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest   
Guest Guest

1936 "Business Strike" Farthing fails to shine

 

The coin which sold for ZAR100,000 last year only attracted one bid of US$10,000 or under ZAR70,000. The cost including Buyers Premium was US$12,650. The only bid was an early one - apparently made through the Internet.

 

Heritage: South Africa: George V "Trial Strike" bronze Farthing 1936,... South Africa

 

Kind regards

 

Scott Balson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geejay50    10
geejay50

Hello All,

The truth is that there was another bid that came during the live session and the coin was sold for $12,650 inclusive of Buyers Premium - see Heritage Auction results. So there were two bids in fact.Great investment for the lucky winner.

Please get your facts straight Mr Balson.

Geejay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×