Interesting e mail from the cgs

[1949threepence 3,366]

The following is a copy and paste of an e mail I received a few days ago from the coin grading service:-

Dear CGS Member,

When the CGS numerical grading scale was first developed it was convincingly argued by one of our group that any reference to traditional grading nomenclature (VF EF etc) was not required and that the CGS numerical grade CGS 50 or CGS 78 would suffice. The argument that some connection to the traditional market was required prevailed, and we preceded the CGS numerical grade number with a traditional grade abbreviation. The CGS benchmarking grading system takes account of all recognised grading features/problems in a systemised way so it was not surprising that the system was more critical (far more in some cases) than the variety of traditional grading practices in use. Quite soon we had strong arguments from users that what was then EF 75 and 78 were most other peoples UNC and we were persuaded to use AU for these numerical grades. Similar issues still exist for example our 55 which we call VF 55 will be some traditional graders EF, our 30 and 35 we call F30 and F35 are as good or better than others VF.

We are considering removing these letters altogether and simple grading by our number, and would be keen to here your views. Remember the valuation of a 78 remains unchanged whether others like to call it UNC, AU or whatever, in fact the “Valuation By Grade†feature on the CGS web site is by number only so is the population report.

The logic behind the proposal is that as soon as we say for example EF 70 then collectors new to the system will naturally expect our EF 70 to be the same as the next mans say an ebay listing in EF but the in fact it is very probably ours will be much better much scarcer and more valuable, so by removing the letters completely this misleading comparison can not be made.

We are keen to here from all our members but especially keen to hear the views of any traders who have been offering the CGS product in traditional markets.

Yours Sincerely

CGS.

For adherents to the number system I doubt it makes much difference, but for those new to cgs numbering, the prefixes do help.

Any thoughts ?

[Peckris 579]

The following is a copy and paste of an e mail I received a few days ago from the coin grading service:-

For adherents to the number system I doubt it makes much difference, but for those new to cgs numbering, the prefixes do help.

Any thoughts ?

I have never used numbering systems, for one very simple reason : grading is something of an imprecise, subjective art which the traditional method is very suited to. We can all agree that a coin is "broadly" VF, but one person might say NVF, another VF, another GVF. At least VF is a common factor there which means that everyone agrees there is SOME wear, but very much of the detail survives.

But how on earth do you fix on something so exact as a number, e.g. 55? The same situation applies, in that ten different people might rate the same coin at a different number on the scale of 50 to 60 (and Americans would use a higher number as their EF is our VF, and their AUnc is our EF etc). Who decides, finally?

What I've sometimes thought is this : keep the traditional grades but apply a number from 0 to 3 after each. So VF0 is 'almost' or 'about' VF, VF1 is spot on, VF2 is better than, while VF3 would be closer to EF than VF. Or you could use '-' and '+' : VF- VF VF+ VF++

I think a numbering system as they suggest would be too unwieldy and no better than the plethora of grades used now. In fact it would be more confusing because people trust numbers more than letters as being precise, whereas it's still only an estimate after all!

Anyway, that's my twopence halfpenny worth.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

My concern, as they have already given in to pressure to change their EF75/78 to AU 75/78 is that the removal of the traditional grades altogether MIGHT be a prelude to a softening of standards.

It could be that the removal of the distinction between aUNC and UNC might blur as a result of the traditional grades being removed and we might experience 'Grade Creep' i.e. more coins making it to higher numbers.

I have no evidence to suggest that this will happen, or to doubt the integrity of the company, but I am curious as to the motivation behind the move and try as I may, I can't see it in a positive light.

It's a good product, why tamper with it ?

My thoughts, for what they are worth.

[DaveG38 385]

My concern, as they have already given in to pressure to change their EF75/78 to AU 75/78 is that the removal of the traditional grades altogether MIGHT be a prelude to a softening of standards.

It could be that the removal of the distinction between aUNC and UNC might blur as a result of the traditional grades being removed and we might experience 'Grade Creep' i.e. more coins making it to higher numbers.

I have no evidence to suggest that this will happen, or to doubt the integrity of the company, but I am curious as to the motivation behind the move and try as I may, I can't see it in a positive light.

It's a good product, why tamper with it ?

My thoughts, for what they are worth.

Personally, I don't give stuff for the grading system, as I am more interested in what the coin looks like in the hand. Obviously, the general F,VF,EF grading system, with qualifiers, is important as it gives an indication of wear and, hence, likely price or value, but beyond this I don't see any value to me in having a numbering system. I wouldn't care if a coin was a 54 or a 58 if the differences are so minute as to be difficult to distinguish them. What matters is how it looks and whether its got the qualities I want to see. One of these qualities is a lack of edge bumps, something I occasionally have to accept, but actually loathe in a coin. I'd rather have a VF coin without damage than an EF with edge damage. Ditto holes. Ditto bends.

That's it. I feel better now! On a slightly different tack, I have never really understood how any coin from the distant past can be said to be in UNC condition. How does anybody know this for sure? How do you know it came straight from the mint to a collection and stayed that way through its entire life? We don't. What we mean is that there is no discernible wear and, therefore, it wasn't in circulation long. So that makes it A/UNC surely. If you then try to grade by number the minutest of imperfections then I just think it gets silly. In other words there aren't enough hours in the day or lifetimes for this. I know some people are terribly interested, but its not for me.

[VickySilver 775]

Well, CGS hardly has a universal grading system and it has a different numbering system from the others to boot (1-100 versus 1-70) so I think it would be a mistake to dump the descriptive designation. PCGS and NGC have very successfully used designations such as EF45 and I think the two spaces taken by letters are worthwhile - these have now been used for 23 years.As has been stated above, numbering systems are not for everybody and a bit of redundancy would still appeal to a much wider audience.

BTW, and as an aside, I am not at all sure that CGS is more conservative. I have a Specimen 1935 in CGS85 that is definately not up to the same type coin that I have in NGC65. Maybe I will be able to go hi-tech and eventually figure out how to get some pictures...

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

BTW, and as an aside, I am not at all sure that CGS is more conservative. I have a Specimen 1935 in CGS85 that is definitely not up to the same type coin that I have in NGC65.

My experience is that they do have 'off' days. I send a few pieces in to be graded and slabbed and then I keep them, 'cos they're mine , but I have picked up a few on the secondary market and I am beginning to form the opinion that a % of the stuff available on the secondary market has issues - maybe that's why they are back out for sale ?

Their archival photography has stepped up a few levels quite recently though and it is now much easier to see what is going on than before, fair play.

I recently sent in an NGC MS64 which came back UNC82. Right where it should be I guess.

I also have an UNC82, from the secondary market (ebay) which I don't like at all and have now replaced and will be moving on - damn, I was going to keep that a secret....

Generally speaking though, and I guess I have 40 pieces graded by CGS, I only have a problem with the 1. The rest have been graded very strictly and fairly.

The way it should be.

[Chris Perkins 223]

I think that even if they did do away with F, VF, etc prefixes and just used numbers that someone somewhere would translate them to what they are on the usual F, VF etc scale (they'd probably have to translate the numbers for people themselves). People are simply very used to the established scale and with everything else that isn't slabbed being graded using said established scale it's silly to start grading things using just numbers. We need our F, VF, EF, UNC!

[1949threepence 3,366]

FWIW, I pretty much agree with most of what has already been said. I'm very lukewarm to the idea of trying to grade coins to an exact numbering system, as I don't believe the grading of coins is that exact a science. One man's 80, might be another man's 82. Surely it is too subjective to lend itself to such precision.

I do agree that the use of plus and minus in describing the grades such as EF are a useful addition for description purposes. But when buying, the greatest gift of all is to actually be able to see the coin, either on the screen, or even better, in the metal (as opposed to in the flesh )

[Peckris 579]

the greatest gift of all is to actually be able to see the coin, either on the screen, or even better, in the metal (as opposed to in the flesh )

So true

[Sylvester 15]

My biggest complaint is that I'd wish they'd use the Sheldon system! It's taken a while but when I see a number on that system now I can automatically translate it to old school (current school over here!) The problem is by removing the grade prefixes and having a simple numbering system there's going to be a lot of confusion to novice collectors between CGS slabs (Using a 100 scale system) and PCGS/NGC/ANACS/ICG companies (using a 70 scale system). What grades 55 in one is a different grade in another! A novice buying what they think is an AU-55 is going to be disappointed to recieve a CGS 55 (which is VF!) [and I just had to look that up, cos the CGS numbers mean nothing to me yet].

So no I think they should keep the grades as stated to prevent confusion between different systems. Ideally CGS would adopt the Sheldon and then they could lose the grade prefixes.

Or better still we could all do it the old fashioned way and learn to grade for ourselves!

[wybrit 2]

In my opinion, the proposal is an excellent "going out of business" plan for CGS. Few outside of their operation will know what the heck a 78 means without the more traditional coin grading terminology accompanying it. This reminds me of when Coca Cola changed its recipe in the 80's - Pepsi took over the #1 cola spot as a result (although CGS isn't even the "7-Up" of the TPG industry just yet...).

[Guest nigel]

Hi - I'm quite a new collector and have a question about CGS grading. I've seen a very nice halfcrown which is graded CGS F30. It is quite good value and much nicer and better detail than a lot of similar 'VF' halfcrowns available to the public on coin dealer's websites and on ebay. It looks to me that it is definitely Very Fine. So will this grading of V30 harm my prospects of being able to get the best price in the future. What is to stop a coin collector buying a CGS coin for a decent price and simply removing it from the CGS capsule? And then in the future simply selling without giving any grade but saying to interested parties to inspect the coin and make their own decision, or perhaps putting it to auction and leaving it to the auctioneer to apply their grading? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated to help me know the right way to proceed.

Thanks

Nigel

In my opinion, the proposal is an excellent "going out of business" plan for CGS. Few outside of their operation will know what the heck a 78 means without the more traditional coin grading terminology accompanying it. This reminds me of when Coca Cola changed its recipe in the 80's - Pepsi took over the #1 cola spot as a result (although CGS isn't even the "7-Up" of the TPG industry just yet...).

[Colin G. 147]

I think Sylvester has hit the nail on the head, there is a big risk that people (especially beginners) may mix the Sheldon scale with the CGS scale and get something completely different to what they expected. I know you could say it is a case of buyer beware, or study before you buy, but the risk must be increased by this move.

Nigel your comment is exactly the issue CGS are concerened about, which is that their coins may not be holding value in the market due to the strict grading, and people buying by grade rather than studying the coin itself. I have to agree that the coins I have seen to date have been accurately graded (even quite harshly in some circumstances), but I thin some of the prices that they list their items at does seem unjustified. I have seen proof farthings with a £300 premium just because they are in a slab, whilst I can appreciate proofs may be an area where an inexperienced collector can make a costly mistake, that level of premium does appear unjustified and loses them some credibility.

Nigel in relation to your concern, that is what any prudent investor would do in such a circumstance. If you can buy a coin graded harshly, release it, and then sell it on the open market as a grade higher, and get the respective price, whilst it may intitally appear underhand (hence your question I assume), the new owner is buying a coin not a designated grade, and if they are happy with their purchase at the price you have sold it for, you have done nothing wrong. Crossing the mark in my opinion is stating that a coin is a certain grade when it clearly does not achieve that grade. Grading is very subjective, so you will always get a slight difference of opinion.

Just have a look at some of the posts on here referencing grading, opinions are always in the same ball park, but will undoubtedly differ.

Welcome to the wonderful world of collecting coins:D

[Guest nigel]

Hi Colin

That is very helpful and fully explains the position. Many thanks

Kind regards,

Nigel

I think Sylvester has hit the nail on the head, there is a big risk that people (especially beginners) may mix the Sheldon scale with the CGS scale and get something completely different to what they expected. I know you could say it is a case of buyer beware, or study before you buy, but the risk must be increased by this move.

Nigel your comment is exactly the issue CGS are concerened about, which is that their coins may not be holding value in the market due to the strict grading, and people buying by grade rather than studying the coin itself. I have to agree that the coins I have seen to date have been accurately graded (even quite harshly in some circumstances), but I thin some of the prices that they list their items at does seem unjustified. I have seen proof farthings with a £300 premium just because they are in a slab, whilst I can appreciate proofs may be an area where an inexperienced collector can make a costly mistake, that level of premium does appear unjustified and loses them some credibility.

Nigel in relation to your concern, that is what any prudent investor would do in such a circumstance. If you can buy a coin graded harshly, release it, and then sell it on the open market as a grade higher, and get the respective price, whilst it may intitally appear underhand (hence your question I assume), the new owner is buying a coin not a designated grade, and if they are happy with their purchase at the price you have sold it for, you have done nothing wrong. Crossing the mark in my opinion is stating that a coin is a certain grade when it clearly does not achieve that grade. Grading is very subjective, so you will always get a slight difference of opinion.

Just have a look at some of the posts on here referencing grading, opinions are always in the same ball park, but will undoubtedly differ.

Welcome to the wonderful world of collecting coins:D