One of my favorites: 1732 Bohemia 15 K

[JamminJ]

Hello everyone,

 

I thought I'd share a picture of one of my top two favorite coins, a 1732 Bohemia Prague mint 15 Kreuzer, KM 1483:

 

This coin was recently sent to NGC (thanks Greg!) and I miss it. Grades are in and the coin should be back in hand soon, not a moment too soon in my opinion. Note two planchet flaws, one hidden in Charles' hair and the other in his shoulder.

 

Bohemia was and elective kingdom and additionally one of the seven original electors of the Holy Roman Empire. It came into possession of the Hapsburgs in 1526 and was ruled almost continuously by the family until the final demise of the Austrian empire in 1918 when Bohemia became part of Czechoslovakia.

 

The marriage of Bohemia to the Empire was an unhappy one ever since the Battle of the White Mountain. This battle occured during the opening stages of the 30 Years' War in 1620 when Bohemia chose a non Hapsburg, the Count Palatine of the Rhine Frederick V, to be their King. Emperor Ferdinand II's Bavarian allies absolutely crushed a rebelious Kingdom under the upstart "Winter King" Frederick and a "victor's peace" imposed. Bohemia was unhappy but impotent.

 

Charles VI, the guy on my coin, came about 100 years after White Mountain and was a hapless emperor at best. His main concern was, having no sons, that his daughter Maria Theresa should be recognized as his heir despite being female. To secure all his neighbor's acquiesence he bought them off with land. Upon his death they all promptly went to war (the war of Austrian Succession) to grab even more goodies form the empire. Maria turned out to be a pretty good ruler and the war was ended on favorable terms for the empire.

 

Charles VI coinage is among my favorites as it stikes a nice balance: not quite as crude as the older coinage but not looking as contemporary as the latter.

 

Anyone except Greg care to play guess NGC's grade?

 

-JamminJ

 

[GDJMSP]

There ya go again JJ - you gonna get me hooked on these things yet

 

As for guessing the grade - sure why not - though I usually don't. I'm far from familiar with these but I'll try a 64 perhaps 65.

[gmarguli]

Anyone except Greg care to play guess NGC's grade?

 

That's not fair. OK, I'll guess: Questionable Authentiity

 

OK, I won't reveal what NGC said, but I will reveal my grade - which may or may not be what NGC said. Before the coins were sent in to NGC James and I graded the coins how we thought they should grade. My grade was AU55. Light wear on the high points (AU58) with a 1 point downgrade for a light old cleaning. That's what I figured.

[kuhli-migration]

Definitely a nice looking coin!!!!!

[JamminJ]

Here's the opinion of the pros:

 

Personally, I agree more with Greg. There's a little rub or cleaning in the fields so officially this coin is AU. However, it's quite appealing and I wouldn't have been overwhelmingly surprized by a lower MS market grade, say a 62, and think 64 a bit kind. Not complaining, though, and I ahven't seen too many of these so maybe it is an appropriate grade.

 

Thanks for looking,

-JamminJ

 

 

[Hoot]

Very informative post JJ. Thanks. I was going to guess AU58 due to what appears to be some wear on the high points (break in lustre). Congrats on the high score.

 

Hoot

[JamminJ]

That's not fair. OK, I'll guess: Questionable Authentiity

 

Just to let everyone in on the inside joke, when the grades first came in Greg PMed me a bunch of fake grades. Supposedly lots of bodybags for "questionable authenticity" and "cleaning" and very, very low grades.

 

He had me going alternately sad and angry until he got to my now MS66RD heller which was called AU58. That was just too far off so I figured something was up.

 

Thanks a lot, Greg.

 

-JamminJ

 

 

 

[GDJMSP]

JJ -

 

I gotta ask - can you or anybody else " see " this rub in the fields or the effects of the cleaning in the pics ? "Cause I sure can't. I can understand Hoot's comments about the high points - I considered that myself. But discounted it because even the highest graded examples of similar coins I have seen have a very similar appearance.

 

But I based my grade on what I have seen the grading companies grade other coins of this period and what my opinion would be based on what I know of them. Which isn't much by the way as I don't yet collect them.

 

So I guess my question to you is this since you know these coins much better than I - based on the pic alone - how would you have graded the coin and why ?

[JamminJ]

Thanks for the interest!

 

I agree it's very tough to use the hair to determine wear as the detail may or may not have been there when struck.

 

Usually I try to find the high points on each coin and look for wear or luster breaks on those points. Keep in mind that these coins are all bent like a Pringles potato chip due to being manufactured with roller dies so what looks like the high point in a scan may not really be it. For this coin I didn't see any breaks on the high points so I moved onto the fields. It's not apparent in the photo but they do have a luster break either from rub or cleaning. Either way, that would drop the coin to a super-duper AU IMO.

 

However, since there is rarely a catalog value above XF for these coins its more a question of figuring value directly rather than figuring grade and then looking up value. Judging by the scan alone I would probably offer a bit above XF catalog value for this coin, say $130-$140 against the XF value of $120. If I remember correctly, I paid about 33% over XF catolog for this one.

 

In person for a problem free uncirculated coin I would offer about double XF catalog and perhaps 3-4 XF catalog for a really, really nice uncirculated gem.

 

It tough to grade form scans and even tougher for a coin that you don't see very often. I've been looking at this coin often enough that I know what it truly looks like so I may be a bit biased when pretending to jusge by the scan alone. Maybe someone else (Greg?) will chime in about how they would judge the coin by the scan against how it looks in person.

 

-JamminJ

 

 

 

 

[gmarguli]

The hair curls above the forehead appeared to me to show minor wear. It had a different look than the flat hair curls of the lower hair. The upper bend of the wings on the reverse also looked a little discolored to me. However, these aren't coins I deal with often.

 

Having said all that, I tried to grade the coin like I would a weakly struck US coin. Maybe that was a mistake - especially seeing how I did on his other coins.

 

If the coin is actually uncirculated, and I have no doubt that the guys at NGC are monumentally better at grading these coins than me, then I don't think MS64 is out of line. Assuming the coin is unc I thought MS63 would be a good grade for it - again taking into account the light cleaning. The cleaning was a very hard thing for me to gauge. How much of a light old cleaning will affect the grade. The coin is almost 300 years old, so it probably should hurt the grade too much. Maybe they were of the opinion that it shouldn't hurt the grade at all? Maybe they thought the coin was a gem without the cleaning and MS64 is a good grade for it?

 

I was kind of surprised how off I was on my grading of the coins James sent in. On most of them I WAY undergraded the coins including a completely embarrassing coin that NGC graded AU55 and I thought F-15. These were coins I'd love to sit down with the NGC grader and ask why they gave the coin a certain grade.

 

[GDJMSP]

Good points from both of you. Now I'll add my two cents worth.

 

When I first began to get serious about collecting older coins or coins several hundred years old - columnarios in my case - I always found myself undergrading them. It took me a while to understand why but then it came to me that I was trying to grade them in the same way that I would a much more modern US coin. This is a mistake. One I came to find out many collectors make.

 

These coins were not made with the same methods or the precission instruments that came to be used in later years - later centuries. So there is no way that they can be graded the same way or by using the same standards. A similar explanation would be the differences in grading a 1926-S Buffalo and a 1938-P Buffalo - just examples as I may be wrong on the years. They cannot be graded under the same standards.

 

Once I began to take this into account and started to grade this type of coin with that understanding then I began to be able to arrive at or nearly at the same grade as recognized experts for these older coins. It has served me well since.

 

Ok - now go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong

 

 

[gmarguli]

Ok - now go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong

 

You are wrong because there are no 1938-P Buffalos! Only 1938-D Buffalos.

 

Seriously, I agree with what you wrote. However, for now I will have a hard time buying coins at grades that I do not agree with. If I look at the coin and see XF40 - even if that is wrong, it will be hard to pay AU58 money - even if that is right. It's the fear of getting burned. You pay AU58 money because that is the "new" way you think of grading and then the coin comes back XF40 from the services.

 

Looking at some of the grades James got, I would have a hard time buying those coins at that grade - even in the slab. Maybe it will take a lot more looking at these coins before I accept those grades. Maybe I never will. Still, I'd love to sit down with the NGC grader for 5 minutes and try to figure out how they came up with those grades.

[truthteller]

"Just to let everyone in on the inside joke, when the grades first came in Greg PMed me a bunch of fake grades. Supposedly lots of bodybags for "questionable authenticity" and "cleaning" and very, very low grades."

 

 

 

Greg, naughty, naughty.

 

 

 

 

TRUTH

[gmarguli]

"Just to let everyone in on the inside joke, when the grades first came in Greg PMed me a bunch of fake grades. Supposedly lots of bodybags for "questionable authenticity" and "cleaning" and very, very low grades."

 

 

 

Greg, naughty, naughty.

 

......

[JamminJ]

Good points from both of you. Now I'll add my two cents worth.

 

When I first began to get serious about collecting older coins or coins several hundred years old - columnarios in my case - I always found myself undergrading them. It took me a while to understand why but then it came to me that I was trying to grade them in the same way that I would a much more modern US coin. This is a mistake. One I came to find out many collectors make.

 

These coins were not made with the same methods or the precission instruments that came to be used in later years - later centuries. So there is no way that they can be graded the same way or by using the same standards. A similar explanation would be the differences in grading a 1926-S Buffalo and a 1938-P Buffalo - just examples as I may be wrong on the years. They cannot be graded under the same standards.

 

Once I began to take this into account and started to grade this type of coin with that understanding then I began to be able to arrive at or nearly at the same grade as recognized experts for these older coins. It has served me well since.

 

Ok - now go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong

 

I can't say you're wrong. If fact, I seem to be traveling down the same path that you did, consistently undergrading all these older coins, at least with respect to NGC. In fact, one of the main reasons to submit my coins was to see how a pro would grade them and learn from the experiance. In that respect I certainly got my monye's worth!

 

Hopefully with my next go around we'll see if I received gift grades this time or I'm just off. As far as certification goes to me it's more important to be consistent than to get a grade absolutely correct.

 

-JamminJ

[JamminJ]

Greg, naughty, naughty.

 

Looking back it seems pretty funny. However, I wasn't laughing when first reading the grades!

 

-JamminJ

[JamminJ]

Seriously, I agree with what you wrote. However, for now I will have a hard time buying coins at grades that I do not agree with. If I look at the coin and see XF40 - even if that is wrong, it will be hard to pay AU58 money - even if that is right. It's the fear of getting burned. You pay AU58 money because that is the "new" way you think of grading and then the coin comes back XF40 from the services.

 

Looking at some of the grades James got, I would have a hard time buying those coins at that grade - even in the slab. Maybe it will take a lot more looking at these coins before I accept those grades. Maybe I never will. Still, I'd love to sit down with the NGC grader for 5 minutes and try to figure out how they came up with those grades.

 

I agree for many of my coins I wouild not pay the money commensurate with their new grades. Maybe the way to go is thinking along the lines of "I think NGC will call this an AU55, but I'm only willing to pay XF40 money for it" and make your bid or offer accordingly. Or perhaps use the certified grade as a starting point for negotiation, "Maybe it's an AU50 but it is ugly, I'll go VF35 money." One of the fortunate thing about these being tough to grade is that many dealers also don't seem to know.

 

I bought most my newly slabbed MS coins at a bit over XF+ prices and the AUs at VF+ prices. A few others I ovepaid for but don't care as I like the coin.

 

Geez, soon I'll be saying "buy the coin not the slab" like all the litesiders.

 

Anyway, I think this was a top notch thread, thanks to Greg and GDJMSP for contributing!

 

-JamminJ

[1jester]

Yes, this is an outstanding thread!

 

Beautiful coin, JJ. As for the grade, I think I see discoloration on the high points and in the fields, so from the scans I'd give it a 55 or so. Maybe it's uncirculated, but I can't seem to tell that from the scans.