Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

The Coinery

Penny 1912 - UNC

Recommended Posts

Penny 1912

Grade: UNC   (CGS 80)

Dies 1+A

Freeman 172

UIN: 9285

£70 - Free Delivery

Will remove from slab if requested

img-1.jpg

img-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Peter.

Appreciated !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Coinery said:

Thank you Peter.

Appreciated !!!

will shout this time.........EIGHTY EIGHTY EIGHTY :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's saying the grade for 9285 is CGS 80, not that you shouldn't have put CHOICE UNC

;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

He's saying the grade for 9285 is CGS 80, not that you shouldn't have put CHOICE UNC

;) 

Hi Matt. It was a typo which I appreciate Pete pointing out. It was a simple mistake and nothing else. I will ensure all is accurate in future. Sincere Apologies !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Coinery said:

Hi Matt. It was a typo which I appreciate Pete pointing out. It was a simple mistake and nothing else. I will ensure all is accurate in future. Sincere Apologies !

 

Guy, look up the grade for 9285, is it CGS 78 or is it CGS 80? Pete's confusing me now haha

I'm not berating you for a mistake I'm just confused why Pete commented again after (unless you hadn't changed it already)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Nordle11 said:

Guy, look up the grade for 9285, is it CGS 78 or is it CGS 80? Pete's confusing me now haha

I'm not berating you for a mistake I'm just confused why Pete commented again after (unless you hadn't changed it already)

Yes its graded 80 Matt.

I only mentioned it as some people cant access the site  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PWA 1967 said:

Yes its graded 80 Matt.

I only mentioned it as some people cant access the site  :)

OK so I wasn't confused then - I think Guy does need a minute :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

OK so I wasn't confused then - I think Guy does need a minute :D 

Stop picking on me . . . .X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Coinery said:

Stop picking on me . . . .X

:lol:

I changed it for you now, you're doing yourself an injustice by downgrading it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When this coin was graded, CGS 80 was described as UNC - it may well say this on the slab - they changed their descriptions a few years ago so that 78 became UNC, 70 aUNC etc

I have just bought an 1861 shilling which is CGS 78 and described on the slab as AU

 

Edited by Paulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Paulus said:

When this coin was graded, CGS 80 was described as UNC - it may well say this on the slab - they changed their descriptions a few years ago so that 78 became UNC, 70 aUNC etc

I have just bought an 1861 shilling which is CGS 78 and described on the slab as AU

 

I think any coin with a UIN of less than 25000 would have the traditional grade  (e.g. EF70, AU75, AU78, (or EF75 & EF78 for early slabs)) stated on the slab unless it has been re-slabbed later on. CGS dropped the prefix grading letters after march 2013. Hence UIN of 9285 would certainly have UNC 80 stated on the slab unless it has been reholdered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The confusion was brought about only by the number not its description .

Guy had put 78 instead of 80 thats all :)

 

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2 February 2017 at 8:20 PM, PWA 1967 said:

The confusion was brought about only by the number not its description .

Guy had put 78 instead of 80 thats all :)

 

I am starting to feel VICTIMISED by the "OLD GUYS" on here . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why. All that is being discussed is a selection of numbers. Whether the poster puts up an inconsistent number or the TPG gives an inconsistent grade - who cares? Of far greater use is the knowledge that the number may or may not be an accurate reflection of a supposedly consistent set of criteria, irrespective of what is written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×