Hello all!

A friend of mine, collector and researcher, wrote recently, after seeing one coin in my auctions:

Hello Francisco,

I have always appreciated learning from you. I specialize in Portuguese colonial coins dated 1690-1970 and have about 1,000 of them, including 100 from Brazil. You know my fascination with the history of these coins and tokens. We both know many of these coins in high grade are excellent long-term investments.

Thus, my interest in the coin noted in the above subject line. I am not at all questioning your expertise on grading; to the contrary, I highly respect you. I studied the scans on this coin and agree the obverse is excellent. However, I was puzzled about the reverse side. As you well know many Portuguese colonial coins world wide have the traditional coat of arms. On the 1820 reis I saw heavy wear on the shields and castles. Numismatists in Portugal and the USA say these details must be clearly sharp to grade the coin as Extra Fine. However, I realize that the older the coin, the more liberal the grading standards due to refinements and advances in production over time.

I was wondering if this was the way the 1820 reis was minted or was the wear on these high points related to circulation?

Answering the very pertinent doubts, I wrote:

In my opinion, doesn't care if a coin was manufactured through hammering or in the most modern and sophisticated machines. If was coined BC or yesterday. If it is made of gold or wood. The conservation grade will always follow the same standards.

But to classify coins, is a very subjective matter.

A same person, can and WILL classify the same coin, in differently grades in different days. This will depend on the illumination, inclination degree that he looks at the coin, hour of the day because the eyes become tired, state of mind, if was classified before a beautiful or ugly group of coins, and other unimaginable details.

And, a point of vital importance, is to know the coin and the period in subject, to have the details of the situation (were they surrounded? there was qualified people's lack, there were the necessary metals, etc).

In general lines, this is my point of view in such divergent subject, and I believe without solution, in the numismatic world.

But now, answering your email, whit the specific coin in the hand (is more beautiful than in the picture), at least your doubts are curious, and I will try to transmit what I see:
 
The 3rd castle of the left seems to be crumpled, but in the same point on the other side, it is virtually intact.

The castle of the middle (on top, the one of the middle), it is deformed, seemingly it was consumed. But the castles, at right and at left, and the small shield below, are perfect.

Among other details, it takes me to think that although it seems wear and tear in the coin, in the reality it is wear on the dies! In this date, of this value, 4,871,966 coins were minted, and probably the dies were used to the maximum, in function of the great amount of coins.

I am not owner of the truth, but I believe to be these reasons the responsible for the aspect that you interestingly pointed.

Below to illustrate better the differences in this same coin, details of the obverse side:

And reverse side:

Obviously it is my opinion and not a rule!     
   
Being an opinion, I would like that those who agree, found this guide interesting or useful, please spare two seconds to vote "Yes" by clicking the button below.   
   
And those who DOESN'T agree, or become disappointed, please think about contacting, to let us know what else we could have included to make it more helpful.

Any question, I am all ways happy to help.

Francisco Partos
E&P Numismatica.

You may be interested in viewing ours others guides, click here.