mike

It's difficult as you can't properly assess lustre, hairlines and other attributes which make the CGS grade, but my guess would be: 78 45 78

Dave the 1st 1863 open 3, Fine (really VF) has a hunk out of the upper rim on the Obverse. That is probably the reason for the price difference. BTW lot 2441 is a really nice 1863 open 3, and lot 2439 is a 1862 small date in fair condition. Another reason for the price difference could be simply sellers reserve… As far as I know when consigning coins to auction you can usually choose between Auction House reserve and your own reserve (with higher commission).

Thanks Pies, don't you hate it when you discover scratches or other blemishes for the first time when you photograph the coin!This is exactly why i take hi-res images and post here, so that others may find something i have'nt seenCoin 5 is EF, digs on the OBV, Leaf veins worn, REV left hand thistle has wear along with part of the crown, could be GVF at this rate (sorry) you know how harsh they are Dave, you're only superficially correct. Remember you're looking at a photograph of a sixpence blown up to the same size as pictures of shillings, florins, and on up to crowns. Sixpences are never fully struck up compared to large silver simply due to the physics of getting a complex engraving that small in the first place. That's not say that CGS won't be harsh - they probably will - but we have to make allowances for pictures of small coins where the tiniest flaw is magnified ten times compared to the same size picture of e.g. a crown. I say it as i see it Peck. If its got digs and scratches then its not AUNC, if it has wear on the thistle and crown then its EF and less. Do you think CGS just eyeball a coin and give it a grade? I'm sure it will be done with microscopic Instruments that are much more magnified than a camera.So whats your grade for it Peck? I'll answer that, but first I want to draw your attention to the differences between the shilling and the sixpence, despite the pictures being the same size: 1. the shilling has more evidence of rubbing in the obverse fields - there's apparently none on the sixpence 2. there are fewer hair strands on the 6d, but they are bolder cut, to compensate for the reduced size 3. the laurel wreath leaves are equally unworn, but the raised ribs on the sixpence are less evident due to the smaller design 4. the rose leaves are less complex on the 6d, but equally unworn 5. the 6d crown is much simpler in design - e.g. 13 pearls each side rather than 16; this also applies to the jewels on the headband, almost a different design 6. the lions top left in the small central shield are equally poor, in fact everything is, except for the thing (?) right in the centre If you look closely, there are small differences all over the design, caused entirely by having to reduce them to the size of a sixpence. The one glaring thing is the left hand fleur de lys on the top crown, but that on its own is not enough to say "it's wear rather than die or design reduction". Based on all that, and a VERY close inspection, I would say the two coins are comparable in grade and that this would be most evident in hand, rather than the futile exercise of comparing two pictures that are not even nearly on the same scale. Here is my example in CGS UNC grade (85), so you can compare ...

Crown 1902, CGS 82, finest known - 550,- + BP Crown 1902, CGS 78 - 200,- + BP

It seems clear to me that the coin on the right is the sharper, better strike. The one on the left has lovelier tone certainly, but less detail. Am I alone in thinking that the coin on the right is acutally a matt proof and not a currency coin? The strike looks to me to be too good for normal currency (esp. in the area of St George's chest and strap). The grading would make more sense if that's the case. good point

In my experience it is not possible to compare CGS grades from photographs because of the principle of CGS grading - each of many components is separately measured against benchmark coins. Lot of these components you can not properly assess on photograph - such as lustre, number hairlines, cabinet friction, rim etc. It is possible (i have not seen the coins in hand) that coin graded 82 has got nearly full underlying lustre, no hairlines, no cabinet friction etc which can lead to higher CGS grade in spite of the blemishes you can see on the photograph. Coin graded 78 has got a small spot on horse's neck, possible stain at 6 o'clock and in "0" of date - all this can lower the final grade when computer algorithm calculates the final numerical grade. Obviously, there is always possibility that the grader had a bad day... Thats why I always do my best to see the coin in hand before buying.

Hi Azda, it is simple – I fell in love with YH Victorian Half crowns and New Coinage of George III. My personal challenge is to build up collection of these coins in high grades and my coin budget is limited... (as my wife kindly keeps reminding me :-) ). I aim for Crowns and half crowns in grade 80 or above, lower denominations in grades above 85. Not because of the number but because - in my personal experience - there is a consistent quality behind these grades. Saying that I am always buying the coin not the number on the slab, if I do not like the eye-appeal or anything else – I pass. My main reason for preferring to have my coins slabbed is mainly protection (as these are high grade, usually lustrous coins) and ease of viewing without worrying about possible damage (even my young children can have a look and handle UNC bronze pennies with full lustre). Also I know, that I can always remove them from slab in the future. I am not going after “finest known” just because it is “finest known” and I am not willing to pay premium for them (unless as a coincidence it is coin I am looking for) because what is finest known today may not be finest known tomorrow. Especially with their low population record. Mike

Neil, generally speaking it is very difficult to find a raw crown size currency coin which would grade CGS 80, not mentioning grades 82 or 85. This is because the CGS benchmark grading scale assesses a variety of grading components for each coin submitted some of which such as marks (small scratches, surface abrasions, bagmarks and all other contact marks) are likely to score higher (thus reducing the overall grade) on larger coins as they have a large area to be subjected to the marks than smaller coins. I have just check CGS population report and from 364 currency crowns (1887 – 1902) only 6 achieved grade 82 and only one grade 85. I think this is representative sample, especially as most of the crowns being submitted for grading are being considered to be UNC by their owners. However if you think that there is “many more of this common crowns that would reach better grade than 82”, please pick up one, send it for grading and if it grades 85 or higher I would happily pay well above the book price – you can make easy profit! I agree that estimate is high (and I am not going to bid on this one) but I appreciate that the seller is not keen to let it go cheaply for reasons mentioned above. Especially as quality (rather than rarity) is the buzzword at the moment.

Proof coin is treated by CGS as any other coin during grading process. (please see below If you are not familiar with their grading process). Unimpaired proof coin obviously scores very high in all areas, especially for strike. However if the proof coin has got any (even tiny) hairlines, nicks, stains, edge knocks, handling marks etc it will have effect on the final garde – so the impaired proof coin can be easily graded as 70, 50, 30... On the other hand if you have got choice currency coin with very good (early) strike, full lustre, no hairlines, no nicks, stains etc it would grade as 90 or even higher, however currency coins in this state of preservation are extremely rare. (CGS grading process: 2 graders have to refer to the extensive benchmark set of coins, each of which is allocated a unique number. When looking at such factors as striking, lustre, problems (for example, contact marks, stains), hairlines, haymarking, adjustment marks, cabinet friction etc, each grader compares the coin being graded to the relevant section of the benchmark set. When the benchmark coin that matches the aspect of the coin being graded is found, its unique number is fed into a computer. When all the factors have been entered, a programme that weights the numerous factors produces the numerical CGS UK grade. If there is a difference between two graders then the third grader comes into play)

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins). For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-. For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with. When you say that CGS updated their valuation from £1000 to £1600 based on the Lockdales sale price, was that based on the hammer price or the total price with premium? For most auctions that could make quite a difference. And when you are considering 'valuation' you also need to bear in mind the commission you pay when selling at auction - does the CGS valuation take this into account in some way? It was based on the total price with premium (hammer 1350,-). Their prices, as far as I know, includes what I would call dealers or buyers premium (my guess is around 30%). So if they value coin at 100,- pounds they believe that the coin might be worth to the dealer or auction buyer (without premium) around 65-70,- pounds. You can see it on their auction estimates and quite frequently on sales results. Obviously you can always find exemptions in both directions as mentioned by Sword or in my recent post. This is just generally speaking. M.

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins). For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-. For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with. CGS never (as far as I can tell) revise their valuations downward even though some of the figures are way over the top (i.e. more than two times out). For example they valued a grade 82 1900 LXIV crown at £900, and an example was sold in the august london coins auction at £380 hammer. A halfcrown was brought for £110 hammer from London coins and it got slabbed at grade 80 and has a CGS valuation of £350. There are many more examples I can give. I think the reason that some of the CGS prices have remained static for several years is that they were over the top in the first place and it will be many years before the market prices can catch up. I am sure there will be lot of examples on both sides of the spectrum and you may be right with "prices catching up" in some series. Their valuation by grade is great for insurance (valuation) purposes but otherwise it does not concern me at all. I always pay what I am happy to pay for particular coin. Some coins are sold even over their "over the top" prices some under their prices, it may depend how many buyers are interested in particular coin on the particular day. Raw shilling 1839 sold at their last auction at £200 hammer in spite of Spink valuation of £600. I do not think that because of this result we can say that Spink prices are "over the top". If the Crown 1900 is overpriced then it will remain on their website for sale for another 20 years until the price catch up (or until the price drops). It is not my problem, I am just not going to buy it for this price. FYI I'd like to confirm that CGS valuation of 6d 1879 dropped recently which is easily verifiable on their website.

They can't wash their hands quite so easily though as there are still hundreds (perhaps thousands) of CGS slabs out there labelled with grade qualifiers. I notice that they didn't offer to re-label all old slabs with the new style when they changed the nomenclature. I can only agree on this point. M.

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins). For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-. For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with. Mike, as far as you are aware then CGS updates its valuations 'as and when', as opposed to annually or soon after the autumn auctions and the new Spink? The values of my CGS coins have not budged an inch in either direction so far, allbeit my CGS 'experiment' is not quite 1 year old yet! Do you know when the next CGS forum meeting is, I think Bill Pugsley told me it was due to be early 2014? Thanks for any info. Yes, they update prices "as and when" not annually or regularly. Price of some of my coins has not changed for 3 or even 4 years now, on the other hand, for example , price of my 1844 Halfcrown in grade 80 has been updated upwards almost annually for the last four years (which I thing is in keeping with market trends and with raising SPINK prices for this series). It also depends on the grades of your coins, over the past year prices of VF and even EF coins hasn't changed much generally. If you go on "valuation by grade" on CGS website, on the top of the page you can change year back to I think 2008 and you can see for yourself how their prices has changed over the past few years. Bill was unable to attend last two LCA, but he is going to attend the March one - and as far as I know from him he is considering to arrange CGS forum meeting at that time. All the best, M.

That's a very interesting point Stuart. I'm not sure how we can find out, perhaps Bill Pugsley will know, if he is still reading the Forum posts. Or someone with a coin in the points score range in question might be monitoring their CGS valuation ... I don't suppose you made a note of the CGS value of your EF coin when you bought it, and what are they valuing it at now? Incidentally, the grade comparison guide I posted is also printed at the back of London Coins auction catalogues. And that raises a separate interesting point : CGS is now the standard for grading, but as Mike says, on a consistent numeric scale. Yet Spink is the standard for values, and they use the traditional grading not a numeric scale. That seems a dichotomy really, as someone could buy from CGS according to their grading, then value according to Spink by looking in a column that doesn't strictly accord to the coin they have. The thing is that Spink has got (understandably) only one price for UNC. On the other hand CGS UNC coins come in grades 78,80,82,85,88,90, ...100. And believe me there is a huge difference in quality (and therefore scarcity, desirability and subsequently price) of coin graded 80 or 88 or even higher. IMO. M.

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins). For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-. For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with.

Azda, my last attempt, I promise: The change of numerical garde would be if particular coin would have garded for example 75 three years ago and today would grade 80. But this is not the case. The coin would still be graded 75 today as assessed against benchmark set of coins which not going to change. All they did is that they abandoned grade riders for reasons I have mentioned in my original post. The CGS grading system itself arrives and has had always arrived at a numeric grade only !!! It express the state of coin preservation which is assessed against benchmark set of coins (separately for strike, marks, bagmarks, hairlines, spots etc). The comparative tables were and still are just rough guide for collectors who are not familiar with their system so that they have got idea how, for example, grade 65 is percieved on raw coins market or on Sheldon scale. It were collectors and dealers who disagreed and were unhappy that coins pereceived as EF were graded as VF55 and coins in dealers UNC were graded as EF and later AU75 or 78. So they only abandoned riders. Coin graded 75 is still coin graded 75 and you can call it VF, EF or UNC. Up to you, this is not their bussiness any more. It has nothing to do with their grading. All they say is that the state of coin preservation on the 1-100 scale is for example 75. And as the benchmark set of coins is not going to change – the coin with certain number of bagmarks, hairlines, strike etc will still be graded as 75 in 50 years as it was graded 6 years ago (unless they go out of business...). I can not put it more plainly and hope that at least some collectors will understand what I want to say. PS: the quotation from their website you've used is about 7 years old (when they set up CGS) and should be removed or changed so it is not confusing collectors anymore It was my last attempt on this topic, promise. M.

Thanks!

I really do not want to be involved in another grading discussion but I could not help myself when reading through this thread. As above mentioned conclusion (that CGS changed grading system from one day to the next) is not true and might be misleading to unaware collectors who just reading this forum as I do, I would like to comment: The mistake CGS made initially (when started the business) was attaching traditional grades AU, UNC , EF to the numeric scale incorrectly ( or more exactly too conservatively). The CGS grading system itself arrives at a numeric grade only. As far as I know they had strong arguments at the outset that no traditional grading nomenclature should be attached and the numeric grade should stand alone, that argument obviously lost. After grading 25000 coins the situation was reviewed based on collectors and dealers feedback (as well as on the feedback from this forum – even some of the members here complained that they can't live with grade 78 or even 75 described as AUNC and had the crack the coins out) and the grade riders were removed few months ago. One of the possible benefits is that traders, when they acquire a CGS 75 ot 78, they can describe the coin UNC and graded 78 by CGS and their second finest known rather than having to crack the coin out to describe it as UNC. The whole point I want to make is that CGS numeric grading system hasn't changed at all and it is not going to change. Benchmark sets of coins used for grading and grading proces itself hasn't changed. The only change is that the grade riders were removed. I personally think that this was very sensible move. IMO grading of raw coins is becoming softer and softer. What was Spink EF 40-50 years ago is now almost UNC. It is well posiible that CGS 70 wil be considered by dealers and collectors as UNC in 50 years... But CGS numeric grade will not change. Read across tables were put out only by way of education and marketing so that new or foreigner collectors would have an idea how particular CGS grade number would likely be raw UK grade or likely standard USA Sheldon grade. Finally I'd like to mention that I have no connection with CGS (but yes, for my own reasons, I prefer to collect CGS graded coins). By the way, it's a great forum, I enjoy reading it almost every day. So all the very best to all members for 2014! Mike, if you also read the post from Nick thats another example of CGS changing the numerical grade. How many years have they been in business? I'm not starting a grading debate, the OP is about the dipping of coins and if CGS accept this, but if i'm correct in saying, CGS have'nt been in business 50 years, perhaps 5. (not sure ) but thats twice they've moved the goalposts, just saying Once again, even on occasion mentioned by Nick they have not changed the numerical grade, they changed the grade rider - and this is something very very different from changing numerical grade. And once again this was done because collectors and dealers complained that grade 75 and 78 are not EF coins but UNC/AU on raw market. Now when grade riders were removed you do not need to worry about any further changes in grade riders. I think, but I am not sure, that they have been in business for 7-8 years and IMO it is a good sign that they are willing to listen and learn from their mistakes (without changing their strict grading).

I really do not want to be involved in another grading discussion but I could not help myself when reading through this thread. As above mentioned conclusion (that CGS changed grading system from one day to the next) is not true and might be misleading to unaware collectors who just reading this forum as I do, I would like to comment: The mistake CGS made initially (when started the business) was attaching traditional grades AU, UNC , EF to the numeric scale incorrectly ( or more exactly too conservatively). The CGS grading system itself arrives at a numeric grade only. As far as I know they had strong arguments at the outset that no traditional grading nomenclature should be attached and the numeric grade should stand alone, that argument obviously lost. After grading 25000 coins the situation was reviewed based on collectors and dealers feedback (as well as on the feedback from this forum – even some of the members here complained that they can't live with grade 78 or even 75 described as AUNC and had the crack the coins out) and the grade riders were removed few months ago. One of the possible benefits is that traders, when they acquire a CGS 75 ot 78, they can describe the coin UNC and graded 78 by CGS and their second finest known rather than having to crack the coin out to describe it as UNC. The whole point I want to make is that CGS numeric grading system hasn't changed at all and it is not going to change. Benchmark sets of coins used for grading and grading proces itself hasn't changed. The only change is that the grade riders were removed. I personally think that this was very sensible move. IMO grading of raw coins is becoming softer and softer. What was Spink EF 40-50 years ago is now almost UNC. It is well posiible that CGS 70 wil be considered by dealers and collectors as UNC in 50 years... But CGS numeric grade will not change. Read across tables were put out only by way of education and marketing so that new or foreigner collectors would have an idea how particular CGS grade number would likely be raw UK grade or likely standard USA Sheldon grade. Finally I'd like to mention that I have no connection with CGS (but yes, for my own reasons, I prefer to collect CGS graded coins). By the way, it's a great forum, I enjoy reading it almost every day. So all the very best to all members for 2014!

I don't think CGS will see them that way. I suspect that grades somewhere in the VF55-EF60 are more likely, but hope they rate a little higher. please advise where you have seen better. Here's one I purged from the collection in the great refocus 4 or 5 years ago. Around the EF mark. Here's my example - obverse: and reverse:

I don't think CGS will see them that way. I suspect that grades somewhere in the VF55-EF60 are more likely, but hope they rate a little higher. please advise where you have seen better. Here's one I purged from the collection in the great refocus 4 or 5 years ago. Around the EF mark. Here's my example - obverse:

Jaggy, if you are based in the UK - can you tell me how long did it take for the coins to arrive, how much was the postage and taxes (if any, %). I'd like to bid in Heritage auctions and I do wonder what would be the total cost (apart from BP). Hope you don't mind me asking. Thanks. M.

ARGENTUMANDCOINS I tell you why (IMO!) but you won't like it: 1, if the dealers send their coins for CGS grading, most (not all but most) of their UNC coins will be returned as EF, some as AUNC but some also as VF55. The same applies to EF, VF coins etc. Just ask Bill who already submitted around 2000 coins, or Divemaster. I have exactly the same experience. As NUMISMATIST said : quote "In fact I would say MOST Large Auctioneers and MOST large dealers, many being BNTA members seriously overgrade these days". I can confirm this from my own experience. Now when I am more familiar with CGS grading it takes me just few seconds on the coin show to see that the offered UNC coin would never ever make even a basic UNC80 grade... So instead of making vast profits they would suffer vast losses. 2, lot (not all) of coin dealers are not interested in a transparent coin market. With slabbed coin you can’t buy the coin as about EF and sell it as almost UNC and make large profit. As one of many examples – just recently I have noticed Victorian YH Halfcrown , sold in recent DNW auction (where described as GEF and sold for around 800,- pounds) on Coin Dealer website - described as choice mint state with price tag of 1500,- pounds. So either the vendor or new buyer was ripped off. DNW is happy with their profit, dealer is very happy with his profit and the buyer??? This is happening all the time and you have to realise that not all coin collectors are as experienced as lot of members on this forum and that it takes years to learn. In the meantime you rely on coin dealers and if you are not experienced enough you buy choice mint state halfcrown for 1500,- …. I wish CGS was around when I started collecting 20 years ago. 3, I do not understand your comment about “auction prices realized by the sister company of the slabbing firmâ€. Are you suggesting that London Coins is bidding against London Coins just to spend 500,- pounds on a coin worth 50, - pounds to show the public how good it is to have coin slabbed??? Yes they offer lot of slabbed coins in their auctions but if I want to sell slabbed coin I would certainly ask London Coins because I am sure that collectors who are interested in slabs are keeping eye on their auctions. Mike, I will keep it simple. I speak from experience as a dealer (many on here have bought from me and will vouch for my grading skills) and as an independent auction house consultant/cataloguer. Leaving aside points 1 and 2 in your reply I will go straight to 3. London Coins set the auction estimates that the sheep will follow for their bidding, just as CGS set "prices" on coins they slab. It is very easy to massage prices when you control the guide book and the auction. That is a fact not an accusation. Why not keep an eye on Lockdales as well because Dan quite often has a lot of Steves' unsolds or old stock in his catalogues. I am a longstanding LC customer with a bidding number in the 200's and I have no axe to grind with the company at all but I do object to people trying to influence opinions with weak one-sided arguments, "transparency in the market" it is quite simple BUY THE COIN NOT THE SLAB!!! One thing is plain in all of this, there is obviously a concerted effort by yourself, Bill and Divemaster to trumpet the virtues of slabbing to the detriment of collecting and the exhaltation of investing. I have just read old thread on Colin Cook forum (British Slabs...is there such an thing?) and this post from „Chris“ cought my eye – I think it nicely demostrates my point... Quote: "Chris Mar 17th 2010 I've had a dozen or so coins CGS graded and encapsulated. Some of the coins were bought from BNTA registered dealers. In all bar one case, all of the coins bought from these dealers came back graded well below what they were sold to me as. Perhaps the worst case was an 1889 Crown sold as AUNC, which came back as VF50! Another, from a very well known dealer (big glossy 'ads in Coin News,) was a "UNC 1931 Penny, good lustre." Came back in a body bag, rejected with the single word, Cleaned! „

Chatting to a well known dealer at the Midland Fair he was taking the pee out of finest known claims for UK coins when only a fraction are slabbed.The benchmark coins would be interesting to find out about and where they were sourced. Obviously this means Finest known from coins slabbed by CGS and not from all coins which exist... I find it really diffiuclt to believe that somebody does not understand such a simple thing. For those interested - quote from Londoncoins website: "Many collectors believe quite rightly that the higher the grade of their acquisitions the better, so what could be more appealing than Finest Known (also known as best extant) examples. It is not uncommon to see coins described on dealer's lists as "the best we have seen", or "surely the finest known", and although these items will certainly be nice coins a real Finest Known designation must be a comparative measurement rather than a matter of opinion. We believe the numeric third party grading systems supply the necessary comparative measurement by attaching a numeric grade. So where we have a coin type such as a 1903 6d where over 50 different examples of this date and denomination have been graded by CGS, the highest known grade so far is their UNC 85 of which there are 9 examples. If in future a 1903 6d was graded as UNC 88 or better this one therefore by statistical empirical fact would be the Finest Known and anyone else contending that they owned a superior example would need to prove it by submitting it for grading before they could ask a premium price for the piece."

I suspect you referring to the 1874 halfrown from the seller „goldguinea“, ex PCGS MS64, now CGS AU78, UIN 25124 (as I cannot see any YH Victoria halfcrown on AJW coins website or Ebay listing). IMO, based on my experience with CGS grading, this coin was marked down because of two spots in hair and some minor contact marks on the cheek and on the field in front of the bust (lustre cannot be assessed correctly prom the picture). I am fortunate to have this coin in CGS UNC 80 and for those interested I have attached a picture to show the quality needed to achieve basic UNC80 grade.