One of my many dealing with the early CGS

[zookeeperz 470]

Stephen Lockett <steve@londoncoins.co.uk>
To    'rich fox'
CC    paul@londoncoins.co.uk 23/11/07 at 12:51 PM
Hello Richard,

We have discussed your interesting comments.

The first and simplest issue is rejects, our system has now developed so
that any and all rejects should be returned along with a ticket fully
attributing the coins and including instead of a grade the reason why it has
been rejected usually verdigris or corrosion which the graders have seen on
the coin. 

Although our system is configured around known coin types and varieties we
have the facility to add new varieties as they emerge, our teething problem
which you have encouraged us to debate is what criteria to use when
recording new varieties. Our current position is that if the variety was
likely created by a miss striking we will not set it us as a new variety but
where it is clearly a product of a faulty of different die we will.

We would like to see your UIN 3124 again and review and reconsider our
position please.

Also any coins you have received back un – encapsulated without a
description of why they were rejected please send them back and we will
provide a new ticket explaining the reason. There will of course be no
charges for both these revisits

On a general note I would like to say we appreciate your support, CGS is a
very new service with at present a small developing client base and we are
relying on the continuation of this support. All your feedback is valued and
will be considered and it is our policy to move the business forward in a
way that satisfies all our client’s requirements. 

Regards,

Stephen Lockett
CGS

[zookeeperz 470]

Not recognise mistrikes. almost sacrilege . Glad they saw the light though 

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

I have to say that sounds remarkably positive of them in their new approach.

I'd probably be in the same mind set regarding mis-strikes though, take £2 coins for example - many many of these are not "quite right" with regards to the beads around the Queen's head, so how would you best add a category.

For variety collectors, there would probably be way too many combinations of missing or mis-struck linear circle dots and degrees of angle at which the coin is affected (you never know, one day people might want to try that lol - just playing DA)

To simplify it though, why not just have a mis-strike comment in the same manner that there can be a (cleaned) comment on the label.

 

 

[Peckris 579]

I'd agree. Mis-strikes are interesting but not worthy of cataloguing except perhaps in a very exclusive and specialist publication. They are unique but not valuable as other collectors can't acquire another example. The only ones I've seen that are noteworthy are brockages, though there are also those who regard strikes on a different metal / planchet as collectible.

[jelida 1,196]

I’d agree too. Mis-strikes may be of interest to some (not me), but to be a true variety it has to be a physical alteration of the die, whether a deliberate or erroneous action of a human. Failings of the manufacturing process alone , and even die wear and tear (ONF pennies, dot coins etc ) may merit comment in the catalogues but in my opinion not varietal status. The only reason Freeman listed the ‘97 dot penny is that it was initially thought to be a deliberate die identification mark.

Jerry

[zookeeperz 470]

3 hours ago, Unwilling Numismatist said:

I have to say that sounds remarkably positive of them in their new approach.

I'd probably be in the same mind set regarding mis-strikes though, take £2 coins for example - many many of these are not "quite right" with regards to the beads around the Queen's head, so how would you best add a category.

For variety collectors, there would probably be way too many combinations of missing or mis-struck linear circle dots and degrees of angle at which the coin is affected (you never know, one day people might want to try that lol - just playing DA)

To simplify it though, why not just have a mis-strike comment in the same manner that there can be a (cleaned) comment on the label.

 

 

True it isn't something that floats my boat but there are those that this is their niche area of collecting. You only have to look outside the UK and they catalogue absolutely everything as it is a historic reference as to what stage the die was at ,at any given time during it's life. We are less concerned with such minor variations but having said that if we took that approach for every coin the 1920 penny with colon dots to tooth would of been overlooked as just an anomaly. My concern with CGS at the time which was 2007 and when they first started grading was they as stated only recognising established varieties I had a coin 8/8 but because it was so high it looked like a 3 looped 8 if you get me  . In another correspondence before this one they had said such a defect would not enhance the value of a coin to which I pointed them to a sale of two coins one in UNC and the other in EF with the same overstrike the UNC coin was just normal. The overstrike in EF sold for 3x more than the UNC coin which kind of put pay to their assumption. My argument was they are there to catalogue and not to decide what is or what isn't a variety. Collectors decide what is desirable to themselves and that is the great thing about this hobby it caters for every kind of indulgence weather you collect coins without any imperfections at all or coins with so many die cracks they look like spider webs, Brockages,upsets etc. A grader is there to really IMO as a 2nd opinion to confirm what you already know. Just because I tell you something that doesn't automatically make it 100% accurate as mistakes are made but if someone else has the same findings you have it gives fair weight to the claim you make especially if selling on the coins in the same way as provenance does .  I just pointed out they would set a dangerous president if they were to cherry pick what they thought was deemed a variety type. Even some of the minor types have all now appreciated in value and that is only because there is demand for them . Yes but ultimately it was a real surprise after many discussions they did a complete U-turn which is kudos to them  

[Peckris 579]

45 minutes ago, zookeeperz said:

We are less concerned with such minor variations but having said that if we took that approach for every coin the 1920 penny with colon dots to tooth would of been overlooked as just an anomaly. 

Not a minor variation - it's the new obverse and quite possibly unique for 1920. As the known example is in the (?British?) Museum, it has never been overlooked.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Peckris

[secret santa 2,013]

3 hours ago, jelida said:

I’d agree too. Mis-strikes may be of interest to some (not me), but to be a true variety it has to be a physical alteration of the die, whether a deliberate or erroneous action of a human. Failings of the manufacturing process alone , and even die wear and tear (ONF pennies, dot coins etc ) may merit comment in the catalogues but in my opinion not varietal status. The only reason Freeman listed the ‘97 dot penny is that it was initially thought to be a deliberate die identification mark.

I pretty much agree with this but would include "mule" coins where a coin is struck with an unusual die pairing, either planned or by accident.

[zookeeperz 470]

2 hours ago, Peckris said:

Not a minor variation - it's the new obverse and quite possibly unique for 1920. As the known example is in the (?British?) Museum, it has never been overlooked.

wasn't that done for photographic purposes? I can't see 1 going in circulation and that's it even if it was not supposed to be released. history tells us there are always a handful at least before somebody notices? Probably not the best example to use as you rightly say it was a new obverse. But you could use the 1955 DDO lincoln as an example for British coin collectors Double struck even triple struck coins are much of a muchness unless it is a striking separation if they had continue with the opinion they had and had they been presented with the lincoln 1955 DDO would they have classified it as such ? I only used that coin in the convo's just trying to hi-light a variety becomes important to collectors for a variety of reasons and if something out of the ordinary comes in to be graded then it should be designated with any unique attribute never encountered before and you only have to thumb through the price guides and every single variety type has a premium over the normal except where coins like the 1888/7 shilling occurs when the normal standard date is scarcer than the overdate. But they did change their stance and has been a major step forward or you guys that have vast knowledge on variety types and have collected lots of data would of never seen your coins recognised or found it extremely difficult to get some in. If we have to drag the old school boys kicking and screaming in to the modern era where change isn't always a bad idea  so be it I say 

[Peckris 579]

It may or may not have been for photographic purposes. Nevertheless, it was a specimen strike prior to its becoming the new obverse halfway through the 1921 issue, and being the only example of its kind dated 1920, went into the Museum. AFAIK it never went into circulation until the 1921 issue.

However I take your point, and unique specimens have been identified in more recent times, for example the 1953 penny with George VI reverse, and the 1952 proof penny. Bun varieties are still being uncovered.

[jelida 1,196]

2 hours ago, secret santa said:

I pretty much agree with this but would include "mule" coins where a coin is struck with an unusual die pairing, either planned or by accident.

Quite true, unusual die pairings should certainly count, and are of course an act, deliberate or mistaken, of man (or woman).

Jerry