First one I have seen for sale

[jwither 17]

1874 Burgess "pattern" crown in aluminum.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/south-africa/world-coins/au58-ngc-/p/3081-175001.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#

This is a coin I would be interested in owning at some point in the future but don't find this example appealing.  It is certainly still desirable (and actually rare) but in my opinion has been "net graded".  I don't see evidence of wear or even cabinet friction.

[Pierre_Henri 109]

On 11/7/2019 at 1:55 AM, jwither said:

1874 Burgess "pattern" crown in aluminum.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/south-africa/world-coins/au58-ngc-/p/3081-175001.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#

This is a coin I would be interested in owning at some point in the future but don't find this example appealing.  It is certainly still desirable (and actually rare) but in my opinion has been "net graded".  I don't see evidence of wear or even cabinet friction.

What does "net graded" mean?

[jwither 17]

It means that instead of assigning the dreaded "details" designation, NGC deducted grading points to account for how the coin looks.  (The visual appeal is not very good for the coin's condition going by the image.)  Measured by wear (I see none), the coin is uncirculated and its technical grade is at least MS-60.  However, since TPG's are actually pricing coins by "market grading" it, it's NGC's opinion of how the market views it.

This practice is a criticism of mine with coins where NGC and PCGS know little about it.  By this, I mean that neither really have a clue how the buyers of most non-US coins view a particular coin as "market acceptable" or not.  But since practically every single buyer of the more expensive coins in your country is buying the holder first and the coin second, it's "gospel" to most of them anyway.

This a general criticism of mine, not specific to this coin.  Given it's scarcity and stature, of course this coin should be "market acceptable" since there is nothing wrong with it.  I find it nonsensical when NGC or PCGS put coins like this one in a "details" holder unless the defect is really noticeable.  I believe DNW or Baldwins previously sold a corroded example of the Burgess 2/6 and it probably would have been correctly "details" graded if submitted.

 

[xsiandreas 11]

In my opinion it looks AU details. I think giving it an AU58 grade was generous of NGC

Edited November 10, 2019 by xsiandreas

[jwither 17]

4 hours ago, xsiandreas said:

In my opinion it looks AU details. I think giving it an AU58 grade was generous of NGC

You are correct but the reason for it (absent another one) is that this isn't just any coin and presumably NGC knows at least that.

Personal opinion but I'd rate it as one of the most desirable coins in the entire South African series, in equivalent quality or near it.  NGC and PCGS give some latitude with prominent coins and that's what I think they did here.  It's minor but remember that the 1898 Single 9 pond actually has minor graffiti on it.  On over 99% of all coins, that would warrant a "details" grade but obviously, it is "market acceptable" except to someone who ignores the reality of collector perception and takes a completely mechanical approach to grading.

To your point though, your observation is definitely going to negatively impact the price somewhat, regardless that NGC gave it a numerical grade.

[zarmaniac 10]

https://www.bidorbuy.co.za/item/442605477/1874_Burgers_5_Shilling_Pattern_Mintage_Estimated_at_5.html

[jwither 17]

12 hours ago, zarmaniac said:

https://www.bidorbuy.co.za/item/442605477/1874_Burgers_5_Shilling_Pattern_Mintage_Estimated_at_5.html

This coin is correctly in a 'details" holder, as corrosion is actual damage,

[jwither 17]

It sold a few weeks ago for just under $20,000.  Noticeably higher than I expected.