A Rare 1718 One Shilling

My Seaby "Standard catalogue of British coins" lists a shilling from 1718, and it is not rare.

First bust, Roses and Plumes in angles, KM 539.1, S3645
XF-40 or 45 (US)
The portrait seems weakly struck, perhaps due to a rusted die.
Light hay marking on both sides.

Not rare, 1718 is one of the common dates, I think its because of the varieties - SSC, roses and plumes etc that some get confused.

Also many still confuse the first 2 Georges and assume its the 2nd as his coins are more common.

A very nice coin, clean and with a light weak striking in the centre of the tails. Coin is the Roses and Plumes type indicating silver from the Pit and "seacoale (sic medievalistic spelling) company".

Grade would be a high VF (British grading) - getting close to EF but well short. It is a less common ruler and coin and miles ahead of my George I shillings!

If this has come back to you as AU55, which I believe equates to UK AEF, then, in my opinion they have overgraded. The obverse is very fine, maybe, at a push, good very fine, the reverse is near very fine, plus you have all that hay marking which knocks the eye appeal down a notch or two.
Still though a nice coin, but I do often despair at the grading these third party businesses assign.

Wouldn't that be net grading? I understand many want the grade to cover eye appeal and other problems, but the Sheldon grading scale refers solely to wear and damage through circulation.

If the problems with this coin are a weak strike, Die Deterioration and haymarking (i.e. they were introduced during production), its 'grade' (level of wear) is AU every day of the week.

I agree, looking at my 1660s to 1760s coins, I think the quality of the striking and shape was extremely high in the Cromwell/Charles era and got progressively worse.

My James II and William and Mary Halfcrowns are not very round and despite all the wear look poorly finished next to Charles II coins.

By the time of William's recoinage (1696 - 1701), some of the striking by the provincial mints (Like my 1697 Exeter half crown) was quite sloppy, yet it picked up during Queen Anne and stayed quite good through G1, but the G2 and G3 early coins are quite sloppy, bad strikes, off centre like that 2nd coin above and die wear. The 1718 coin in the centre has a weak strike, but otherwise is a quality made product. Yet my 2 G1 shillings, despite their wear are poorly struck, uneven planchets etc

I think by the time of Croker (Who was in the mint in the 1720s - 1740s), they had got sloppy and many of the Lima pieces were good - but it got sloppy afterwards. Have you noticed the 1757/58 shillings and sixpences are quite ovoid and uneven and its not suprising most are worn badly despite their long use. Some of the other later 1730s,40s and the 1750/51 coins are pretty badly done too.

The 1763 Northumberland shillings and 1787 coins almost looked phoned in next to the quality strikings under Old Rowley the Merry Monarch (The British amongst us will get that reference).

Seriously, some of those Cromwell coins/patterns almost look 19th century, they are so well done - perfectly round planchets and well struck (I mean the later ones, not the Breeches money).

Finally I think in 1816/17 when people saw the new coinage - they would have nearly fainted as those coins were 100000% improvement on what came before and the quality in my opinion only dropped during the industrial outputs of Queen Victoria coins by the 1850s.