Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jwither

Assessing Quality

Recommended Posts

jwither    10
jwither

I have a specific reason for including these images but I will save my comments for later. I have seen neither coin in person but I know which one I think is better. Before I make my comments, I would like to obtain opinions on:

 

Which is the better coin?

 

Why is it better?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4622[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]4623[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]4624[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]4625[/ATTACH]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jicol    10
jicol

Hi

 

Was having a look to give my opinion but the picture of the slabbed coin is too small to see properly.Wonder if others have the same problem.

 

Jimmie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cold Sea    0
Cold Sea
Hi

 

Was having a look to give my opinion but the picture of the slabbed coin is too small to see properly.Wonder if others have the same problem.

 

Jimmie

 

Agree. A bigger picture would help :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither    10
jwither

I thought that would happen and though I tried to enlarge the picture, I could not do so.

 

The smaller image is lot 27081 from the recently completed Heritage CICF sale, 1738 Mexico NGC MS-63 1/2 real.

 

Mexico: Felipe V 1/2 Real 1738 Mo-MF,... Mexico | Lot #28071 | Heritage Auctions

 

The second coin is a 1736 Mexico 1/2 real which sold on eBay on March 6.

 

1736 MO MF 1 2 Real NGC MS65 3028 | eBay

Edited by jwither

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jicol    10
jicol

Still difficult to say but think I prefer the MS63.Seems to be sharper struck and I like the toning.

 

Jimmie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cold Sea    0
Cold Sea

The MS65 seems like a conserved coin (NCS). I prefer the MS63 based on the photo's.

 

Derick

Edited by Cold Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwither    10
jwither

I will go ahead and provide my opinion since the two of you are the ones to answer both before and now.

 

I agree with both of your assessments and used this example to illustrate what I have stated many times before. These two are Mexican coins and different dates but the principle still applies that lower graded coins can be and are frequently better than their higher graded counterparts.

 

I was the buyer of the 1738 and declined to buy the 1736, which was available for months and initially at an ask price of $900. In my opinion, the reason why the coin I bought is better is first because of the strike quality, especially on the reverse (and yes it is the reverse) where the two globes are located and second because of the color. The strike on my coin is full while on the other it is flat which is something I do not care for because it significantly reduces the eye appeal. Presumably, the reason for the difference in grade is because my coin has more contact marks. How NGC determined that there is no wear on the 1736 I do not know, given that there aren't exactly many of either date in high quality to use as a basis of comparison. But regardless of the grade, the market apparently agrees with me at least on this occassion because of the price. For the reasons that both of you gave, I would not expect this 1736 to perform better financially than my 1738 unless it turns out to actually be scarcer or a lot scarcer.

 

The coins are probably about equally scarce. I say "probably" because Gilboy lists both as a "C" or common in VF or above but nothing for any higher grade. Common in this instance to supposedly mean more than 1000 specimens known for the die variety, something I find impossible to believe because I have not seen that many of them even in this average circulated grade. The combined census lists five (5) for the 1738 and three (3) for the 1736 in MS at this time and yes, like most SA coins (even the scarcest), I also assume that additional ones exist.

 

For South African coins, I have not noticed a big difference in strike quality on most ZAR or KGV. For KGVI, the hair on the portrait is frequently not fully struck. In my opinion, lower MS grades also typically suffer from defective surface quality with what I call "granular" surfaces. QEII suffers from both a weak strike and excessive contact marks.

 

For the color, lack of toning (per the recent topic) is more noticeable to me on ZAR because the coins are older. I have seen many coins both toned and untoned that I like but I would prefer an attractively toned coin over one which is not. When i have some more time, I will attempt to dig up some examples to show what I mean. The main distinction that I see for KGV is MS coins with numerous contact marks in the fields (which is why they are MS-61 or MS-62) versus AU-58 or even AU-55 which frequently have better surfaces with little (AU-55) or even no readily apparent visible wear (AU-58). The primary difference that I see between KGV and other Union is that the portrait design better hides contact marks than KGVI or QEII.

 

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  

×