French Piastre 1896 - A

According to this page, I have 2 questions:

- How/why is this coin graded AU ? 

- How the following coin in the picture would fare, if not fake ?
 

many thanks.

Grading is subjective, and when it comes to third-party grading services people do not usually mess with them. I am not an expert in grading but the details on that coin are fully visible, even though it has lost much of its original mint luster and has some circulation marks. Remember that it was graded AU50, it's on the lower end of AU, very close to XF.

Regarding the authenticity, you need to provide us the diameter and weight of your coin and check if it is magnetic. This is a highly faked coin so the chances that your piece is real are very slim.

Grading by a professional grading company should at least give a feeling of objectivity. I'm also often baffled by the grades given to Officially Graded Coins. I see this as another ax to the trunk of a nice hobby (together with the flood of fakes). It upsets me as it is coming from people whose interest in numismatics should be more fair.

I'm a long time hobbyist, not a professional numismatist, and conservative grader. To me the linked coin is at the low end of VF or the high end of F. All details are visible, but higher relief is worn off. No way that this is a AU50. If one would try to sell it to me saying it is AU50 graded, I'd reply: Yeah, sure.

The coin on the images in the thread is fake. It is not worn, but the lower crevices are filled with material. Bad copy of a worn coin.

For more details, its diameter is around 40mm, and weight is 21g (which is off).

As for the crevices filled with materials, could you illustrate it, I'm not sure I understand/see what you are referring to.

Thanks.

OSS-117

According to this page, I have 2 questions:

- How/why is this coin graded AU ? 

Isn't it obvious? It's almost “uncirculated”:

And people pay a lot of money for such answers!

I have to agree with ArnoV, low VF at best.

OSS-117

For more details, its diameter is around 40mm, and weight is 21g (which is off).

As for the crevices filled with materials, could you illustrate it, I'm not sure I understand/see what you are referring to.

 

Thanks.

The design of a coin is a relief image made of raised and sunken parts. In circulation, the raised parts tend to wear off, gradually reducing the difference between high and low. Eventually, the difference will become zero, i.e. the design will have completely disappeared.

If you compare your coin to an original one, you will see that the lower parts of the design, the cavities, are filled with metal, so that the design becomes more or less blobs on the surface of the coin. Circulation will not cause lower parts of the design to fill up with material, that is caused by worn dies, or in this case - badly made dies.

The weight discrepancy which you signal is clearest evidence that this is not an authentic coin.

I agree HA has over graded the piece on the linked page.

To me , even the low end of AU should mean barely detectable wear.

There is a large website in France I buy coins from quite often, no need to name names,

but in many cases the grades they put on pieces are laughable.

Yes well what a complete mess of a question! Some points;

- the images in the post are not that of the coin on Heritage Auctions that was AU50. This coin isn’t that coin, why link the 2?

- the coin imaged is no way near AU50, and the only person who said it is, is the post originator.

- the coin on HA was graded by NGC at AU50, is it AU50? Probably not, but I suspect their 3 graders are better qualified than us. However I also don’t believe it is AU50, why because;

- grading isn’t subjective, it is based on criteria clearly defined on the sheldon scale Per grade and number. How people interpret this is subjective.

- straight off the bat, the coin graded by NGC on the HA site, or the coin photographed in this post don’t have any Luster what so ever, which immediately pushes it below XF45/40.

- after that it is a case of determining how much detail has been removed from the high points, Ware and tear on the details.

If I was purchasing the legitimate coin graded by NGC, I would 100% question the grade, but who is going to push NGC for an obvious lower grade. I wouldn’t look at the fake photographed in this post.

King

Yes well what a complete mess of a question! Some points;

 

- the images in the post are not that of the coin on Heritage Auctions that was AU50. This coin isn’t that coin, why link the 2?

- the coin imaged is no way near AU50, and the only person who said it is, is the post originator.

- the coin on HA was graded by NGC at AU50, is it AU50? Probably not, but I suspect their 3 graders are better qualified than us. However I also don’t believe it is AU50, why because;

- grading isn’t subjective, it is based on criteria clearly defined on the sheldon scale Per grade and number. How people interpret this is subjective.

- straight off the bat, the coin graded by NGC on the HA site, or the coin photographed in this post don’t have any Luster what so ever, which immediately pushes it below XF45/40.

- after that it is a case of determining how much detail has been removed from the high points, Ware and tear on the details.

 

If I was purchasing the legitimate coin graded by NGC, I would 100% question the grade, but who is going to push NGC for an obvious lower grade. I wouldn’t look at the fake photographed in this post.

Sorry but all informations provided with the picture linked is directly from HA and the title of their own page.
So I am not saying anything else that is provided directly by HA.
Just in case you didn't click the provided link, here are the pictures from HA website for the coin graded AU50.

OSS-117

King

Yes well what a complete mess of a question! Some points;

 

- the images in the post are not that of the coin on Heritage Auctions that was AU50. This coin isn’t that coin, why link the 2?

- the coin imaged is no way near AU50, and the only person who said it is, is the post originator.

- the coin on HA was graded by NGC at AU50, is it AU50? Probably not, but I suspect their 3 graders are better qualified than us. However I also don’t believe it is AU50, why because;

- grading isn’t subjective, it is based on criteria clearly defined on the sheldon scale Per grade and number. How people interpret this is subjective.

- straight off the bat, the coin graded by NGC on the HA site, or the coin photographed in this post don’t have any Luster what so ever, which immediately pushes it below XF45/40.

- after that it is a case of determining how much detail has been removed from the high points, Ware and tear on the details.

 

If I was purchasing the legitimate coin graded by NGC, I would 100% question the grade, but who is going to push NGC for an obvious lower grade. I wouldn’t look at the fake photographed in this post.

Sorry but all informations provided with the picture linked is directly from HA and the title of their own page.
So I am not saying anything else that is provided directly by HA.
Just in case you didn't click the provided link, here are the pictures from HA website for the coin graded AU50.

Yes, I looked at HA website and saw the the coin graded AU50. The two images in your original question are clearly not of the coin on the HA website (the ones posted in this response) - it is not the same coin.

I also checked the NGC holder, genuine graded by NGC. Which as I stated, I do not agree with - I agree with you, it is not AU50. 

The images you posted originally are of a counterfeit coin that has no relevance to the coin on the HA website.

The OP asked two questions.

1. Does the coin on HA graded AU50 look like it's correctly graded?

2. If it is correctly graded how would my coin (pictures shown) compare relative to the AU50 coin on HA.

Ah yes, it seems I confused the original question. However I did answer, in my opinion - one on HA doesn’t meet criteria of AU50 and one photographed on original question probably fake.

rsirian1

The OP asked two questions.

1. Does the coin on HA graded AU50 look like it's correctly graded?

2. If it is correctly graded how would my coin (pictures shown) compare relative to the AU50 coin on HA.

 

 

This. As a non english native, my sentence's formulation could be not perfect. 
Thanks for reformulating properly.

King

Ah yes, it seems I confused the original question. However I did answer, in my opinion - one on HA doesn’t meet criteria of AU50 and one photographed on original question probably fake.

Yes, both seem to be the consensus of the other posters.

ArnoV

OSS-117

For more details, its diameter is around 40mm, and weight is 21g (which is off).

As for the crevices filled with materials, could you illustrate it, I'm not sure I understand/see what you are referring to.

 

Thanks.

The design of a coin is a relief image made of raised and sunken parts. In circulation, the raised parts tend to wear off, gradually reducing the difference between high and low. Eventually, the difference will become zero, i.e. the design will have completely disappeared.

If you compare your coin to an original one, you will see that the lower parts of the design, the cavities, are filled with metal, so that the design becomes more or less blobs on the surface of the coin. Circulation will not cause lower parts of the design to fill up with material, that is caused by worn dies, or in this case - badly made dies.

 

The weight discrepancy which you signal is clearest evidence that this is not an authentic coin.

Thanks for the provided explanation. Beside those design flaws, and weight discrepancy, is there a way to determine what material other than silver it is made of ? using magnets, anything else ?

Some tests to assess whether a coin is silver or not are given in this post:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic152895.html

ArnoV

Some tests to assess whether a coin is silver or not are given in this post:
https://en.numista.com/forum/topic152895.html

 

thank you.