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.

Sign in to follow this  
Paulus

Very different grading of 1746 LIMA HC by (L)CGS

Recommended Posts

I often support LCGS when they grade a coin, for their strictness and consistency. However this example seems hard to explain, consistency-wise (well on both counts really):

My CGS 70 (aUNC)

1746_hc_lima_02_06_cgs_70_uin_39477_2400

Another CGS 70 for sale on eBay:

1746_hc_cgs_uin_13112_01.jpg?w=882

Edited by Paulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too.

I thought the LIMA crowns in the last sale were inferior to the one I have too, despite one being graded 80. Mine gets an unambiguous EF for the wear around the ear with brownie points for the toning. Reverse is better, but you can't call it unc with wear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rob said:

Me too.

I thought the LIMA crowns in the last sale were inferior to the one I have too, despite one being graded 80. Mine gets an unambiguous EF for the wear around the ear with brownie points for the toning. Reverse is better, but you can't call it unc with wear.

UNC with wear strikes me as an oxymoron, if the cap fits, wear it, you know who you are!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is ironic that the seller used the CGS conversion table and graded it  as AUNC and MS60-61.

The coin is an ex NGC AU58 and LC itself graded it as GEF when it was "sold" in 2016. (I am inclined to think it might not have made the reserve on that occasion)

Few can argue that Paulus' example has much better eye appeal. To be honest, I prefer the example I brought recently (which was also not as good as Paulus')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sword said:

It is ironic that the seller used the CGS conversion table and graded it  as AUNC and MS60-61.

The coin is an ex NGC AU58 and LC itself graded it as GEF when it was "sold" in 2016. (I am inclined to think it might not have made the reserve on that occasion)

Few can argue that Paulus' example has much better eye appeal. To be honest, I prefer the example I brought recently (which was also not as good as Paulus')

It doesn't help that AU58 doesn't usually translate to a gEF. You have to be in the 61-64 to have any chance of making good EF, and then (somewhat ironically) it isn't guaranteed.

It's just one of those coins which gets overgraded on occasion and consequently will never get taken out of the slab. This phenomenon is a contributor to grade inflation as each overgraded coin bulks out the populations at whatever level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2017 at 0:17 AM, Sword said:

It is ironic that the seller used the CGS conversion table and graded it  as AUNC and MS60-61.

The coin is an ex NGC AU58 and LC itself graded it as GEF when it was "sold" in 2016. (I am inclined to think it might not have made the reserve on that occasion)

Few can argue that Paulus' example has much better eye appeal. To be honest, I prefer the example I brought recently (which was also not as good as Paulus')

Grading is not an exact science, however, I have broken out three CGS coins from their slabs and sent them to NGC. In two cases, they were graded one level lower than the CGS conversion table would suggest. In the third case, it was two grades lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, similar to my experience as well - I think the conversions are a bit optimistic in favor of the CGS by a couple of points, sometimes more. I think I trotted out the 1935 specimen Jub crown graded CGS85 that was vastly inferior to the PCGS65 specimen. Others as well....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2017 at 9:39 AM, Rob said:

It doesn't help that AU58 doesn't usually translate to a gEF. You have to be in the 61-64 to have any chance of making good EF, and then (somewhat ironically) it isn't guaranteed.

It's just one of those coins which gets overgraded on occasion and consequently will never get taken out of the slab. This phenomenon is a contributor to grade inflation as each overgraded coin bulks out the populations at whatever level.

AU58 translates to only EF, only when you get to MS are you into the GEF region. One thing good about grading is that it's consistently inconsistent, but goldguinea (the seller) is a good customer of LCGS, so perhaps a little hand tickle was made

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the first coin is superior and has a very compelling strike with decent surfaces. I suppose what I find the most disappointing is that this coin was graded a 70 on a 100 point scale with the AU range (and please correct me if I am wrong) that can go to 78 if the Uncirculated  range starts at 80. Seriously... How can it be a 70 which is not at the higher end of the AU spectrum? Seems a 75 is warranted or possibly 78 unless there are concerns not adequately captured in the image.

While I would like to offer a plausible explanation such as the state of the dies with the first coin and that coin being struck early in the production and the second coin was likely struck from either separate dies or die parings altogether but still likely struck later in the life cycle of those dies which accounts for weakness and not actual wear from circulation. While the explanation might make some sense, the grade of 70 for both coins really fails to pass the straight face test. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, coinkat said:

Clearly the first coin is superior and has a very compelling strike with decent surfaces. I suppose what I find the most disappointing is that this coin was graded a 70 on a 100 point scale with the AU range (and please correct me if I am wrong) that can go to 78 if the Uncirculated  range starts at 80. Seriously... How can it be a 70 which is not at the higher end of the AU spectrum? Seems a 75 is warranted or possibly 78 unless there are concerns not adequately captured in the image.

While I would like to offer a plausible explanation such as the state of the dies with the first coin and that coin being struck early in the production and the second coin was likely struck from either separate dies or die parings altogether but still likely struck later in the life cycle of those dies which accounts for weakness and not actual wear from circulation. While the explanation might make some sense, the grade of 70 for both coins really fails to pass the straight face test. 

Hence the discussion, why such a diversity? Such a common coin too! Happy with GEF for mine, but when coins clearly inferior grade-wise have a bigger or the same number then I question what is going on

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why my lifestyle is much simpler. I only have to worry whether the coin is attractive or ticks a Hobson's Choice box, and if it suitable for either the collection or for resale, is the price right.

There is a huge sense of deja vu with these circular arguments. People seem to fall into one of three camps. 1. Those that blindly follow the TPG view. 2. Those that recognise the system has its shortcomings, but accept them for what they are, and 3. Those that recognise the system has its shortcomings and don't accept the TPG view has any validity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The coins in the slabs go round and round, round and round, round and round; the coins in the slabs go round and round, all day long!" 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is in the current LCA auction catalogue. Supposedly graded at CGS65 and GEF. Lacks eye appeal for me and the obverse has many hairlines. Estimate of £500-£600 is completely OTT in my view. 

img - Copy.jpgimg - Copy (2).jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy the coin not the slab!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if it is one of their own coins. Must be nice to be the grader and the auctioneer. Surely there must be some law on things like that. Jesus talk about licence to print money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zookeeperz said:

Wonder if it is one of their own coins. Must be nice to be the grader and the auctioneer. Surely there must be some law on things like that. Jesus talk about licence to print money.

That is my big criticism of LCGS. The lack of independence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous, here is my best, that I had graded by LCGS

1746_hc_lima_02_06_cgs_70_uin_39477_2400

I could display the coins side by side, but the many differences are glaringly obvious (at least to me!). My coins was graded 1 notch better than the one for sale in the forthcoming auction (CGS 70 vs CGS 65).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1ST coin at max is a GVF.Bit of a lottery and one company who will never get my business.I saw them put a 1865 farthing in a slab which conveniently covered up a massive  edge knock.They can do one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What grade do you think this one was given?

img.jpg

It isn't even VF in my view. LCGS graded it as 55 or GVF.

No, I can't see myself slabbing another coin with CGS. It's unlikely that I would now want to buy one either. 

Edited by Sword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duplicate post

Edited by Sword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing someone pay £9000 for a aVF ansell sovereign i realise there's always someone willing to throw their money away

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

After seeing someone pay £9000 for a aVF ansell sovereign i realise there's always someone willing to throw their money away

 

1 hour ago, Unwilling Numismatist said:

A fool and their money... never a truer saying.

TBH, as long as the person concerned isn't causing financial grief to themselves or their family, it doesn't really matter how much is paid for something. Clearly, if a purchaser is pleased with the acquisition then that should be a box ticked. After all, this country is full of houses with a couple cars on the front pavement that have cost something approaching the market value of the house. Apparent frittering of hard earned wealth isn't the prerogative of buyers at coin auctions - some people waste their money when there is no requirement for an instantaneous decision.

The logical alternative would be paying an exact amount for a coin that has been correctly assessed with regards to condition, i.e. graded, and then a fixed price applied and paid............... hang on a minute. We all find it easy to reference another person's in terms of ourselves, but we aren't the person spending the money. We've all bid a little bit more at some time or other.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×