Coin Community Family of Web Sites
Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our Youtube Channel! Check out our Twitter! Check out our Pinterest!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some coins?
Our coin forum is completely free! Register Now!

Austrian Netherlands Kronenthaler - Which Would You Keep?

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 10 / Views: 354Next Topic  
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
4654 Posts
 Posted 04/11/2021  2:54 pm Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add tdziemia to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
Poll Question
I am thinking of keeping one and selling one of the two coins shown below.

Which would you keep just based on appeal to you?



*** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***

Poll Choices
  Left (1782)
  Right (1783)

Valued Member
United States
343 Posts
 Posted 04/11/2021  3:43 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add mrwhatisit to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
They are both nice coins in my opinion, and id personally keep the 1783 since its higher grade.
Bedrock of the Community
Learn More...
Canada
17297 Posts
 Posted 04/11/2021  4:46 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Dorado to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
appeal to you?

1783.
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
3161 Posts
 Posted 04/11/2021  4:53 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add keith12 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I say the 82. Are those file marks on the 83? Not sure but I dont think so
Moderator
Learn More...
United States
19186 Posts
 Posted 04/11/2021  4:57 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Spence to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
From where I am sitting, they are both really nice coins @tdz.
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb

"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz

Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
4654 Posts
 Posted 04/11/2021  5:15 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add tdziemia to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks for the replies thus far, which have at least confirmed that it's far from a no-brainer.

The 1782 has no real flaws other than more wear than the 1783. I am a sucker for a deep patina, and this one is quite nice, especially reverse where the devices have a lovely cameo effect.
The 1783 is considerably sharper, but yes (@keith's question) it has some adjustment marks at 1:00 ad 7:00 (the latter barely visible), and there is either a sizeable dig or a small delamination on the chin that looks somewhat worse in hand than in my photo. The reverse on the other hand, is superb.
Valued Member
United States
434 Posts
 Posted 04/11/2021  6:17 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add PNWType to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I voted for the 1782, the circ cameo is nice and it looks like a nice problem-free coin with good wear

The 1783 to me lacks the nice circulation color and has those rough marks noted on the obverse rim. However, there is the argument that it is a much higher grade. Still '82 for me
Moderator
Learn More...
United States
99395 Posts
 Posted 04/12/2021  10:19 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jbuck to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I prefer the worn circulation cameo over the higher grade with distracting rash.
Pillar of the Community
United States
5119 Posts
 Posted 04/12/2021  8:32 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add swamperbob to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
The "distracting rash" is a series of adjustment marks which actually speak toward the authenticity of this coin. They are pre-strike filing marks made to reduce the weight of the planchet to within the legal tolerance. They are very common on large silver coins of this period of time. They can be distracting, however, the 1782 has far greater wear from circulation.

I also believe both have been cleaned at some time in the past.
My book on Counterfeit Portrait 8Rs is available from Amazon http://ccfgo.com/TheUnrealReales or from me directly if you want it signed.
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
4654 Posts
 Posted 04/13/2021  08:21 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add tdziemia to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
@swamperbob, yes, and in the scheme of things, those adjustment marks are not bad at all. They don't hit the portrait, or the fields, where they would look a lot worse. The dig on the chin is more distracting with the coin in hand.
I agree the 1783 could have been cleaned in the past (it's not bright, but certainly pretty light colored for a coin of that age), but I wouldn't have thought that of the 1782?
Moderator
Learn More...
United States
99395 Posts
 Posted 04/13/2021  09:35 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jbuck to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
The "distracting rash" is a series of adjustment marks which actually speak toward the authenticity of this coin. They are pre-strike filing marks made to reduce the weight of the planchet to within the legal tolerance. They are very common on large silver coins of this period of time. They can be distracting, however, the 1782 has far greater wear from circulation
Ah! I did not know that. Thank you for sharing! It does change my impression somewhat, but I still prefer the cameo look.
  Previous TopicReplies: 10 / Views: 354Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.





Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2021 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2021 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.31 seconds to rattle this change. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05