Is Grading of Mughal & Princely State coins trustworthy?

[asm]

I know that people swear by grading and very often graded coins command a substantial premium - both in auctions as well as in direct sales.

However, questions have always been raised about grading of Hand struck medieval coins - often struck using dies substantially bigger than the flan of the coin being struck. This causes a lot of important information (important for attribution) to be lost as it is outside the area of the flan. We find often that the Mint name or the rulers name or the AH and or RY are off the flan.

My understanding is that grading was developed for machine struck coins and I agree that it has its benefits. However, in the case of medieval coins, the coin may be in pristine condition but missing crucial information required for attribution. How would such a coin be graded? However, I have seen more and more graded medieval coins offered in auctions being graded. The prices fetched by such coins, even though they may not have all information required for full attribution on the flan, is fairly higher than coins which are not graded but have all required information. How justified is that?

One thought is that a new breed of investors (as different from collectors), having no interest in coins or coin collecting, have entered the market and are investing in 'trusted' coins.

Other than some seller trying to fetch a higher price, is there any benefit in grading common coins which are available at metal cost + basis?

Now this leads to a big question. How much can one trust a grading agency for attribution? Besides grading on the surface finish, can we trust that the agency has done a metal analysis and guarantees that the coin is a genuine product of the mint, minted at that point in time? Can we trust that the attribution is 100% correct?

I have penned this note after seeing these two examples, offered in a recent Indian auction.

Amit

[asm]

A rupee of Muhammad Shah, minted at Surat attributed by NGC as being minted in the name of Shah Alam I.

Amit

[asm]

A rupee of Muhammad Shah, minted at Ahmedabad. The coin seems to only show 2 digits of the AH date as 11 and the RY as 8. NGC, probably using some divine powers, graded it as AH 1138 / RY 8. I would like to understand as to how they read the date which is not on the flan. It could be 1138 but could well be 1139 as both dates are known for RY 8.

Amit

[capnbirdseye]

I absolutely agree that the encapsulation of hand struck coins is beyond a joke, I hate the whole thing personally.  I keep spotting errors such as you pointed out and wonder that although the coin may be genuine the capsule is somehow faked even though the number can be checked? If the encapsulation is genuine then you have to wonder who these presumed "experts" are that are cashing in on gullible collectors. I like to be able to pick up and actually handle my coins just as countless traders would have done centuries ago.

I've also seen very dubious NGC grading to AU55 on Indian machine struck coins such as a rare Gwalior sunface 1/4 anna where the sunface features were clearly well worn away. The seller claimed is was not wear but a weak strike!

Last year I decided to sell via Heritage auction USA a south Korean machine struck coin I bought in the 1960's which I more recently discovered (on WoC) has an extremely rare date, they estimated it as 7000-14000 USD depending on NGC grading and encapsulating which I had to pay for in advance.
Even though Heritage told me they had only ever recorded one of this date and it sold for 14,000 USD ( I had also spotted one sold for 22,000USD in Hong Kong auction) I then spotted NGC actually listed another date as the rarest, a date that every Korean coin collector can more easily obtain! so I wrote and told them and got a reply saying they base rarity on auction results    so basically I lost interest and didn't go ahead with the sale.

[THCoins]

In my humble opinion, grading and entombing purely has financial reasons. It has very little to do with numismatics and coin collecting.
Grading by NGC does not guaranty that antique coins are genuine. Outside modern US coins i think they very often lack the expertise needed to be taken seriously. They make money thanks to buyers who do not want, or are not able, to do the neccessary homework involved in serious collecting.

[Figleaf]

ditto @ capnbirdseye & THCoins

I'd even go one step further. Grading is an invention that was useful pre-internet. People wanted to have some idea of what the coin looked like before they bought it sight unseen. Even in those prehistoric times, there was wide agreement that eye appeal was very important, though.

Today, I am offered a photo even of common coins and even when it is graded. I note that on online auction sites, it is extremely unusual to find coins offered without a picture (which may or may not be the coin you receive, but on those sites you pays your money and you takes your chances).

While pre-internet, I used a cut-off grade of VF with exceptions, I note that today, I go purely by eye appeal. This results both in purchases of coins I would otherwise have rejected and rejection of coins I would otherwise have bought.

If the cost of making a picture approaches zero (I think serious grading is more labour intensive than making a picture) and sending a picture is virtually free and instantaneous, grading is at best superfluous, at worst misleading.

For the sake of completeness, yes, pictures can be doctored, but coins can be overgraded, not to mention grade inflation.

As for TPGs, they have commercial interests that will always trump the interest of their clients. Also, they promise a whole lot more than they can deliver. As their cases multiply the space requirement of each coin by hundreds of percents, they are an impediment on collecting.

Peter

[capnbirdseye]

I spotted that Amit had also added a post on Fb re the subject which attracted lots of replies inc several eminent collectors who all more or less said they abhor the whole practice of putting coins in ugly plastic holders, coins that cannot be liberated from their prison because much of their commercial value resides in fact in the holder.
one of the quotes:- what really puzzles me is that *why* would anyone pay a premium for what evidently is a subjective opinion of a few people around a table.

[1rupee]

The subject matter of this thread is something I would love to discuss. There are so many points here that I have opinions on, so this will likely take several posts. This placeholder reply will keep me in the loop.

So, where should I start? Here are some examples:

• A Mulraj 1/15 Rupee: I preferred to purchase it slabbed (due to its price) and will continue to keep it slabbed.
• A Burma Kyat: I preferred to purchase it slabbed, which I've discussed in another thread, but I'd love to crack it open.
• A Mohur: I purchased this one raw and am very likely to send it to NGC once I understand how the process works.

What can we conclude from the above? $100 raw, $1k slabbed.

How do the big 3 graders attribute? They have made mistakes in the past as already pointed out. But then (as I would like to believe) top auctioneers have also made mistakes and have some gems slip out. They have also made mistakes on the opposite side too, at more frequent rate.

Yup

[krishna]

I spotted that Amit had also added a post on Fb re the subject which attracted lots of replies inc several eminent collectors who all more or less said they abhor the whole practice of putting coins in ugly plastic holders, coins that cannot be liberated from their prison because much of their commercial value resides in fact in the holder.
one of the quotes:- what really puzzles me is that *why* would anyone pay a premium for what evidently is a subjective opinion of a few people around a table.

Tell that to the DeBeers Company, the natural diamond industry is based on subjectivity

[1rupee]

Tell that to the DeBeers Company, the natural diamond industry is based on subjectivity

Here I agree with you.

we, as a general public, or at least I, go with the $$

[THCoins]

@1rupee, Although i have a very different standpoint than you, i applaud that you openly think about this and put the subject for discussion !

First i would like to make a subdivision in the activities of the grading companies:
- Firstly, they are used to certify coins. Are they real or not ?
- Secondly, they asign a quantitative number which should reflect the quality of the coin.

Regarding authentification: For me to be of value, the company should put their money where their mouth is.
If they ask money to judge wheter a coin is real, they should also take the risk of being financially liable when they are later proven to be wrong. No certification company dares this for non-western ancient coins. So in judicial sense, they do not releave you of any risk when buying a coin.

I have a medical scientific background. In medical and other academic sciences, there is some consensus about what the requirements are for a test or classification to be usefull. The theory of testing is a scientific field in itself. This is not the place to really go in-depth on this, but i will adress just some points:

Validity. Does the grading accurately reflect what we want it to measure ? People tend to confuse grade with desirability or prettyness.
Gold standard: What is the definition of a "perfect coin" ? Is there an agreed highest authority which gives its judgement ? In the diamond industry that is approached by the virtual monopoly of deBeers. In numismatics people rely on "expert opinion". In science, expert opinion is considered the lowest level of proof.
Internal consistency: Can the same definitions be applied over different categories of coins ? There were some ancient coin types which all left the mint in an absolutly crappy state. Can we grade a mintfresh coin which looks like a trainwreck still as FDC ?
Numerical consistency: This extends on the previous point. Does the difference between 45 and 50 mean the same as the difference between 50 and 55 ? In a compound scale, the end number is made up from different elements. How should these elements be weighed relative to each other in the end number ? In addition, are these elements really independent of each other (orthogonality of metrics) ?
Bias: That is a tricky one. How do preconceptions affect your valuation ? Unconciously, the terms we use may cloud objective judgement. There is a reason grading companies promote the use of "raw" as opposed to "graded". The word raw in itself already is a demeaning label signifying inferiority.
Another type of bias is caused by financial interest. If a company is very strict in applying grading rules, they result in lower grades. Customers will not be to happy with that. This already has led to a phenomenon called "Gradeflation". People send in coins graded > 10 years ago for regrading because they know there is a high chance the coin will come back with a higher grade.
The gradeflation is one of the factors which affect reproducibility. If the assessment is produced twice it should give the same result.

In short; commercial grading of coins is the numismatic equivalent of quackery, and preys in a similar manner on the insecurity of people.
This being said, it is not my decision how you spend your money. And i think everyone has the right to do their own evaluation to make decisions they are comfortable with.

[1rupee]

In short; commercial grading of coins is the numismatic equivalent of quackery, and preys in a similar manner on the insecurity of people.

That is true.

But, I would still like to know how they attribute hand struck coins where crucial information is partly present or missing, as in the case of Indian coins where dies are larger than flan. I guess they first look at standard reference material. If item is not present there, do they look at Zeno or forums?

Given they don't guarantee correctness of attribution, say traces of mint or year are visible, do they extrapolate to provide full attribution, or go the conservative route and say unknown mint or ND?

[asm]

Grading of machine struck, modern coins is, in my opinion, not a problem. One can easily find all data and also be able to grade it on the quality / appearance.
Over a few centuries back (and longer), coins were struck by hand held hammers, with hand engraved dies and using hand cut dies. A tired worker by evening would have had less force to strike the flan than he would have had when he came in, fresh from a nights rest. If my memory serves me right, I believe that one pair of dies would last at most 8000 or 9000 strikes..... So for larger mints, a number of dies would have been used. A number of workers would have been used to strike coins....... with weather and illness playing a crucial role. The placement of the flan to be struck on the die was also manual with the die being substantially bigger than the flan to be struck.....With so many possible variations and no 2 coins being similar (if two coins are exactly similar, I will immediately flag them as modern day productions)  who can one compare the coins? If the coins can not be compared - apple to apple or orange to orange, how can the grading company give the coins a grade?
A general mistake made by many is relating a Hijri date and the Regnal year of the ruler. Or relying on catalogues to find the combinations and assuming that the other combination, not listed in catalogues does not exist.......... (I have, in my collection, over a 100 unlisted date combination coins - for only 4 Mughal and a few IPS Mints which form my collection).
When the Grading agencies authenticate the coins, do they test metal purity? That was the base of all monetary exchange in India in the past, till the British came and changed the equation...If not, how do they vouch for the authenticity?
I have seen coins with mint name of one mint (for example - Surat), being minted at various places.... and also have coins with mint name Surat, with fine Silver, but not minted at the official Surat mint..... How would these be graded?
All this is based on my experience of Indian coins - struck over the period 1400 - 1900's. The coins struck in these times were basically meant for circulation and no one cared for their accuracy as long as the metal content and weight were correct........ So should not the grading companies use these parameters rather then how pretty the coin looks and whether there are test marks and also extrapolating unseen information as a base for grading, if at all there is a need?

Amit

[1rupee]

All agreed.

With so many possible variations and no 2 coins being similar (if two coins are exactly similar, I will immediately flag them as modern day productions)

Hahaha. That is indeed true.

Yes, my Q would be if graders test metal purity. Exactly what I trying myself through technology available to me as of date. I would think - yes, top graders are in the business and can invest in the instruements. Would like substantiation though.

I will call NGC and try to ascertain how they could attribute my Baji Rao Ballal Mohur, before I send it over

[capnbirdseye]

I fully agree with ThCoins and ASM re paying for someone to give their presumed  "expert" classification of a hand struck coin.

I have been following and posting in a very long thread on Numista which involves gold Mohurs with Bahawalpur mint that the owner says his family have owned for 100+ years . Thought by the family to be Bengal Presidency I pointed out various unusual things about the coin, no rulers name, sana is written but no RY,all die identical etc.
As the thread went on he sent them off to an offline expert who clearly had no idea about hand struck coins and how they vary etc and points out inconsistencies of thickness and size. He denies paying for this service but I am not sure. The coin owner has shown assay certificate for gold content however.

Then very strangely the offline expert also has some of these gold mohurs as well 
The thread is long but take a look here:- NUMISTA and tell me what you think, one coin, looks like silver to me has Alamgir II on it but also Bahawalpur mint, all these coins are die identical, just varied position on the flan. Are they suspect?? I think some things don't quite add up