CGS Trial

[Peckris 579]

I remember the day when a Spink EF was just about Unc to everyone else...Spink EF just meant that someone had breathed on the coin.

That was just about how it was!

[Paulus 1,942]

Really like the 1834,looks like there are a few nice tones coming through in the fields,I think CGS are alot harder on the grades than most,and would put AU75 for this h/Crown.

uin 25574 could be a VF 55.

uin 25576 could be a VF 60.

I think no matter what grades they get I would still be happy with them in my collection.

Thanks for that Benny ... I will be selling all apart from the 1823 and 1834, as I either have better examples of the type, or they fall outside my current focus

[Paulus 1,942]

The results are in!

1820 HC - VF40

1823 HC - VF45

1834 HC - EF65

1852 FL - EF60

1884 FL - AU75

1825 SH - EF60 (new variety 5/5)

1697 SX - VF45

1712 SH - ungraded (scratches)

On balance pretty much as I expected, especially given how many people said how strict they are, and having seen their grading process in person earlier today (quite impressed!).

Very pleased that none of them came back as cleaned or tampered with in any way (they absolutely will not grade those).

A bit disappointed with the 1823, it is a lot better than 45 in my inexpert opinion!

A few people (including myself) thought the 1834 might make it to AU.

Pleasantly surprised with the 1884 making AU, it must be the weaker strike - as Nick suggested - (which still marks the coin down a bit,) rather than wear.

Nick was remarkably accurate with his predictions, going for 60 on the 1852 (spot on), 78 on the 1884 (3 out), but a little high (55-60) on the 1820 and 1823 G4 HCs.

So the next stage will be to put 6 of them up for sale (all bar the 1823 and 1834). All options will be considered including:

• Private sale
  
• On-line auction
  
• Tradational English auction house
  
• American auction house such as Heritage
  
• Removing some of them from the slabs if I feel this might help
  

Bearing in mind of course any import/customs charges, buyers' and sellers' premiums, and postage fees that might apply to some of these methods.

Any other options?

Again, all and any comments and advice extremely welcome! Thanks to all who have contributed so far

[Sword 1,330]

The results are in!

1820 HC - VF40

1823 HC - VF45

1834 HC - EF65

1852 FL - EF60

1884 FL - AU75

1825 SH - EF60 (new variety 5/5)

1697 SX - VF45

1712 SH - ungraded (scratches)

On balance pretty much as I expected, especially given how many people said how strict they are, and having seen their grading process in person earlier today (quite impressed!).

Very pleased that none of them came back as cleaned or tampered with in any way (they absolutely will not grade those).

A bit disappointed with the 1823, it is a lot better than 45 in my inexpert opinion!

A few people (including myself) thought the 1834 might make it to AU.

Pleasantly surprised with the 1884 making AU, it must be the weaker strike - as Nick suggested - (which still marks the coin down a bit,) rather than wear.

Nick was remarkably accurate with his predictions, going for 60 on the 1852 (spot on), 78 on the 1884 (3 out), but a little high (55-60) on the 1820 and 1823 G4 HCs.

So the next stage will be to put 6 of them up for sale (all bar the 1823 and 1834). All options will be considered including:

• Private sale
  
• On-line auction
  
• Tradational English auction house
  
• American auction house such as Heritage
  
• Removing some of them from the slabs if I feel this might help
  

Bearing in mind of course any import/customs charges, buyers' and sellers' premiums, and postage fees that might apply to some of these methods.

Any other options?

Again, all and any comments and advice extremely welcome! Thanks to all who have contributed so far

Well, I was out by a lot!

1820, 1823 HC grading as VF I can understand but 40 and 45 seem low. The obverses might a bit less than EF in my view but I thought the nicer reverses might compensate.

The 1834 halfcrown only grading as EF65 (i.e. not even GEF which correspond to 70) is something I don't understand. The reverse of that halfcrown in particular looks fantastic to me and seems to be a very strong strike. Anyone can point out where the wear is - love to learn something.

[Paulus 1,942]

Well, I was out by a lot!

1820, 1823 HC grading as VF I can understand but 40 and 45 seem low. The obverses might a bit less than EF in my view but I thought the nicer reverses might compensate.

The 1834 halfcrown only grading as EF65 (i.e. not even GEF which correspond to 70) is something I don't understand. The reverse of that halfcrown in particular looks fantastic to me and seems to be a very strong strike. Anyone can point out where the wear is - love to learn something.

I learnt a lot about their grading process today, spending over two hours with one of their graders (Paul Radford), who has been with CGS since the start. One of the reasons their grading appears so strict is that there is no concept of 'compensation' - a whole series of negatives in several different categories will simply mark the coin down, so if one side is half a grade or more lower than the other, then so is the grade for the whole coin, in essence! (In other words, they don't 'average' the two sides when arriving at the single grade).

[Nick 325]

The results are in!

1820 HC - VF40

1823 HC - VF45

1834 HC - EF65

1852 FL - EF60

1884 FL - AU75

1825 SH - EF60 (new variety 5/5)

1697 SX - VF45

1712 SH - ungraded (scratches)

On balance pretty much as I expected, especially given how many people said how strict they are, and having seen their grading process in person earlier today (quite impressed!).

Very pleased that none of them came back as cleaned or tampered with in any way (they absolutely will not grade those).

A bit disappointed with the 1823, it is a lot better than 45 in my inexpert opinion!

A few people (including myself) thought the 1834 might make it to AU.

Pleasantly surprised with the 1884 making AU, it must be the weaker strike - as Nick suggested - (which still marks the coin down a bit,) rather than wear.

Nick was remarkably accurate with his predictions, going for 60 on the 1852 (spot on), 78 on the 1884 (3 out), but a little high (55-60) on the 1820 and 1823 G4 HCs.

So the next stage will be to put 6 of them up for sale (all bar the 1823 and 1834). All options will be considered including:

• Private sale
  
• On-line auction
  
• Tradational English auction house
  
• American auction house such as Heritage
  
• Removing some of them from the slabs if I feel this might help
  

Bearing in mind of course any import/customs charges, buyers' and sellers' premiums, and postage fees that might apply to some of these methods.

Any other options?

Again, all and any comments and advice extremely welcome! Thanks to all who have contributed so far

I'm pleased that I didn't make myself look foolish on the predictions although I was a bit high on some. The only surprise for me was that the 1834 came in as low as it did, but all in all, I think you can have confidence in the consistency of their grading and we'll wait and hope for a good result when you see the proceeds of the sales.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Nick

[Peckris 579]

The results are in!

1820 HC - VF40

1823 HC - VF45

1834 HC - EF65

1852 FL - EF60

1884 FL - AU75

1825 SH - EF60 (new variety 5/5)

1697 SX - VF45

1712 SH - ungraded (scratches)

On balance pretty much as I expected, especially given how many people said how strict they are, and having seen their grading process in person earlier today (quite impressed!).

Very pleased that none of them came back as cleaned or tampered with in any way (they absolutely will not grade those).

A bit disappointed with the 1823, it is a lot better than 45 in my inexpert opinion!

A few people (including myself) thought the 1834 might make it to AU.

Pleasantly surprised with the 1884 making AU, it must be the weaker strike - as Nick suggested - (which still marks the coin down a bit,) rather than wear.

Nick was remarkably accurate with his predictions, going for 60 on the 1852 (spot on), 78 on the 1884 (3 out), but a little high (55-60) on the 1820 and 1823 G4 HCs.

So the next stage will be to put 6 of them up for sale (all bar the 1823 and 1834). All options will be considered including:

• Private sale
  
• On-line auction
  
• Tradational English auction house
  
• American auction house such as Heritage
  
• Removing some of them from the slabs if I feel this might help
  

Bearing in mind of course any import/customs charges, buyers' and sellers' premiums, and postage fees that might apply to some of these methods.

Any other options?

Again, all and any comments and advice extremely welcome! Thanks to all who have contributed so far

I think their strictness could well have the reverse effect than that intended : as a result of how they graded your coins there is absolutely no way I would ever risk sending any of my best coins to them, to be marked down in the same way. So if I was ever likely to reverse my attitude to slabbing, there is now no way I would do so. I believe I can grade quite well, and I find I am very often in agreement with Derek (who wrote the book).

[Paulus 1,942]

The results are in!

1820 HC - VF40

1823 HC - VF45

1834 HC - EF65

1852 FL - EF60

1884 FL - AU75

1825 SH - EF60 (new variety 5/5)

1697 SX - VF45

1712 SH - ungraded (scratches)

On balance pretty much as I expected, especially given how many people said how strict they are, and having seen their grading process in person earlier today (quite impressed!).

Very pleased that none of them came back as cleaned or tampered with in any way (they absolutely will not grade those).

A bit disappointed with the 1823, it is a lot better than 45 in my inexpert opinion!

A few people (including myself) thought the 1834 might make it to AU.

Pleasantly surprised with the 1884 making AU, it must be the weaker strike - as Nick suggested - (which still marks the coin down a bit,) rather than wear.

Nick was remarkably accurate with his predictions, going for 60 on the 1852 (spot on), 78 on the 1884 (3 out), but a little high (55-60) on the 1820 and 1823 G4 HCs.

So the next stage will be to put 6 of them up for sale (all bar the 1823 and 1834). All options will be considered including:

• Private sale
  
• On-line auction
  
• Tradational English auction house
  
• American auction house such as Heritage
  
• Removing some of them from the slabs if I feel this might help
  

Bearing in mind of course any import/customs charges, buyers' and sellers' premiums, and postage fees that might apply to some of these methods.

Any other options?

Again, all and any comments and advice extremely welcome! Thanks to all who have contributed so far

I think their strictness could well have the reverse effect than that intended : as a result of how they graded your coins there is absolutely no way I would ever risk sending any of my best coins to them, to be marked down in the same way. So if I was ever likely to reverse my attitude to slabbing, there is now no way I would do so. I believe I can grade quite well, and I find I am very often in agreement with Derek (who wrote the book).

I must admit, it's a bit galling to have some coins I admire, bought for my collection as EF and at EF prices, to be graded as VF, knowing that they would almost certainly be graded as EF once again by many dealers and sellers as raw coins! Some of the coins in this batch were sold to me by very highly respected dealers at a grade or more higher than CGS have given. The jury is still out for me, but their apparent over-strictness and unwillingness to move with the times a bit is certainly a double-edged sword at best! I am also a fan of Derek's grading, in my few dealings to date

[Coinery 926]

The results are in!

1820 HC - VF40

1823 HC - VF45

1834 HC - EF65

1852 FL - EF60

1884 FL - AU75

1825 SH - EF60 (new variety 5/5)

1697 SX - VF45

1712 SH - ungraded (scratches)

On balance pretty much as I expected, especially given how many people said how strict they are, and having seen their grading process in person earlier today (quite impressed!).

Very pleased that none of them came back as cleaned or tampered with in any way (they absolutely will not grade those).

A bit disappointed with the 1823, it is a lot better than 45 in my inexpert opinion!

A few people (including myself) thought the 1834 might make it to AU.

Pleasantly surprised with the 1884 making AU, it must be the weaker strike - as Nick suggested - (which still marks the coin down a bit,) rather than wear.

Nick was remarkably accurate with his predictions, going for 60 on the 1852 (spot on), 78 on the 1884 (3 out), but a little high (55-60) on the 1820 and 1823 G4 HCs.

So the next stage will be to put 6 of them up for sale (all bar the 1823 and 1834). All options will be considered including:

• Private sale
  
• On-line auction
  
• Tradational English auction house
  
• American auction house such as Heritage
  
• Removing some of them from the slabs if I feel this might help
  

Bearing in mind of course any import/customs charges, buyers' and sellers' premiums, and postage fees that might apply to some of these methods.

Any other options?

Again, all and any comments and advice extremely welcome! Thanks to all who have contributed so far

I think their strictness could well have the reverse effect than that intended : as a result of how they graded your coins there is absolutely no way I would ever risk sending any of my best coins to them, to be marked down in the same way. So if I was ever likely to reverse my attitude to slabbing, there is now no way I would do so. I believe I can grade quite well, and I find I am very often in agreement with Derek (who wrote the book).

I must admit, it's a bit galling to have some coins I admire, bought for my collection as EF and at EF prices, to be graded as VF, knowing that they would almost certainly be graded as EF once again by many dealers and sellers as raw coins! Some of the coins in this batch were sold to me by very highly respected dealers at a grade or more higher than CGS have given. The jury is still out for me, but their apparent over-strictness and unwillingness to move with the times a bit is certainly a double-edged sword at best! I am also a fan of Derek's grading, in my few dealings to date

I had to break 3 coins back out of the slabs CGS delivered to me! I just couldn't swallow the grades and/or valuations! It sounds like you may be doing something similar? Did they value them favourably overall? Most CGS buyers will take a look at the UIN to check out the valuation on the CGS website, and you can be sure you'll be getting under that, even before selling fees!

[Paulus 1,942]

The results are in!

1820 HC - VF40

1823 HC - VF45

1834 HC - EF65

1852 FL - EF60

1884 FL - AU75

1825 SH - EF60 (new variety 5/5)

1697 SX - VF45

1712 SH - ungraded (scratches)

On balance pretty much as I expected, especially given how many people said how strict they are, and having seen their grading process in person earlier today (quite impressed!).

Very pleased that none of them came back as cleaned or tampered with in any way (they absolutely will not grade those).

A bit disappointed with the 1823, it is a lot better than 45 in my inexpert opinion!

A few people (including myself) thought the 1834 might make it to AU.

Pleasantly surprised with the 1884 making AU, it must be the weaker strike - as Nick suggested - (which still marks the coin down a bit,) rather than wear.

Nick was remarkably accurate with his predictions, going for 60 on the 1852 (spot on), 78 on the 1884 (3 out), but a little high (55-60) on the 1820 and 1823 G4 HCs.

So the next stage will be to put 6 of them up for sale (all bar the 1823 and 1834). All options will be considered including:

• Private sale
  
• On-line auction
  
• Tradational English auction house
  
• American auction house such as Heritage
  
• Removing some of them from the slabs if I feel this might help
  

Bearing in mind of course any import/customs charges, buyers' and sellers' premiums, and postage fees that might apply to some of these methods.

Any other options?

Again, all and any comments and advice extremely welcome! Thanks to all who have contributed so far

I think their strictness could well have the reverse effect than that intended : as a result of how they graded your coins there is absolutely no way I would ever risk sending any of my best coins to them, to be marked down in the same way. So if I was ever likely to reverse my attitude to slabbing, there is now no way I would do so. I believe I can grade quite well, and I find I am very often in agreement with Derek (who wrote the book).

I must admit, it's a bit galling to have some coins I admire, bought for my collection as EF and at EF prices, to be graded as VF, knowing that they would almost certainly be graded as EF once again by many dealers and sellers as raw coins! Some of the coins in this batch were sold to me by very highly respected dealers at a grade or more higher than CGS have given. The jury is still out for me, but their apparent over-strictness and unwillingness to move with the times a bit is certainly a double-edged sword at best! I am also a fan of Derek's grading, in my few dealings to date

I had to break 3 coins back out of the slabs CGS delivered to me! I just couldn't swallow the grades and/or valuations! It sounds like you may be doing something similar? Did they value them favourably overall? Most CGS buyers will take a look at the UIN to check out the valuation on the CGS website, and you can be sure you'll be getting under that, even before selling fees!

I've been looking forward to your response Stuart! On balance it's what I expected, some well below and a couple a bit above what I expected! But you're right, I'm not taking a loss by selling some of them at the CGS valuations in their slabs, in a couple of cases they are ridiculous even in the sense of what I could get by ripping them out and starting them at 99p on eBay!

But it's all part of this little learning experience, and I have learned a lot from it so far ... especially regarding how to grade ... the next bit of learning will be the reaction of buyers of the ones I sell in their coffins! So far it has been money well worth spending, especially after the 'free' time I spent with the graders today! Their benchmark coins are something to behold!!

[Coinery 926]

I've been looking forward to your response Stuart! On balance it's what I expected, some well below and a couple a bit above what I expected! But you're right, I'm not taking a loss by selling some of them at the CGS valuations in their slabs, in a couple of cases they are ridiculous even in the sense of what I could get by ripping them out and starting them at 99p on eBay!

But it's all part of this little learning experience, and I have learned a lot from it so far ... especially regarding how to grade ... the next bit of learning will be the reaction of buyers of the ones I sell in their coffins! So far it has been money well worth spending, especially after the 'free' time I spent with the graders today! Their benchmark coins are something to behold!!

If they're going on the 'bay, you could do a lot worse than BIN & BO! You can sit them on eBay for a year for under a fiver! The right buyer will turn up before then!

[Paulus 1,942]

I've been looking forward to your response Stuart! On balance it's what I expected, some well below and a couple a bit above what I expected! But you're right, I'm not taking a loss by selling some of them at the CGS valuations in their slabs, in a couple of cases they are ridiculous even in the sense of what I could get by ripping them out and starting them at 99p on eBay!

But it's all part of this little learning experience, and I have learned a lot from it so far ... especially regarding how to grade ... the next bit of learning will be the reaction of buyers of the ones I sell in their coffins! So far it has been money well worth spending, especially after the 'free' time I spent with the graders today! Their benchmark coins are something to behold!!

If they're going on the 'bay, you could do a lot worse than BIN & BO! You can sit them on eBay for a year for under a fiver! The right buyer will turn up before then!

That's where I have knowledge, and where I am leaning, for coins £100-£400 anyway, I think the effective 15% or so sellers' premium and 0% buyers' premium swings it, will ensure it is open to eBay.com too, it's only a few pence

[declanwmagee 122]

I've been looking forward to your response Stuart! On balance it's what I expected, some well below and a couple a bit above what I expected! But you're right, I'm not taking a loss by selling some of them at the CGS valuations in their slabs, in a couple of cases they are ridiculous even in the sense of what I could get by ripping them out and starting them at 99p on eBay!

But it's all part of this little learning experience, and I have learned a lot from it so far ... especially regarding how to grade ... the next bit of learning will be the reaction of buyers of the ones I sell in their coffins! So far it has been money well worth spending, especially after the 'free' time I spent with the graders today! Their benchmark coins are something to behold!!

If they're going on the 'bay, you could do a lot worse than BIN & BO! You can sit them on eBay for a year for under a fiver! The right buyer will turn up before then!

That's where I have knowledge, and where I am leaning, for coins £100-£400 anyway, I think the effective 15% or so sellers' premium and 0% buyers' premium swings it, will ensure it is open to eBay.com too, it's only a few pence

...and if you get an eBay shop for £15 a month, each coin is only 10p every 30 days.

I think we're all overgraders now.

[Coinery 926]

I've been looking forward to your response Stuart! On balance it's what I expected, some well below and a couple a bit above what I expected! But you're right, I'm not taking a loss by selling some of them at the CGS valuations in their slabs, in a couple of cases they are ridiculous even in the sense of what I could get by ripping them out and starting them at 99p on eBay!

But it's all part of this little learning experience, and I have learned a lot from it so far ... especially regarding how to grade ... the next bit of learning will be the reaction of buyers of the ones I sell in their coffins! So far it has been money well worth spending, especially after the 'free' time I spent with the graders today! Their benchmark coins are something to behold!!

If they're going on the 'bay, you could do a lot worse than BIN & BO! You can sit them on eBay for a year for under a fiver! The right buyer will turn up before then!

That's where I have knowledge, and where I am leaning, for coins £100-£400 anyway, I think the effective 15% or so sellers' premium and 0% buyers' premium swings it, will ensure it is open to eBay.com too, it's only a few pence

...and if you get an eBay shop for £15 a month, each coin is only 10p every 30 days.

I think we're all overgraders now.

And that calculates out at a break-even price on 50 coins listed. For every coin listed over the 50 you save 30p per coin! A decent saving if you're listing up on the hundred coins +

[Red Riley 2]

1820, 1823 HC grading as VF I can understand but 40 and 45 seem low. The obverses might a bit less than EF in my view but I thought the nicer reverses might compensate.

The 1834 halfcrown only grading as EF65 (i.e. not even GEF which correspond to 70) is something I don't understand. The reverse of that halfcrown in particular looks fantastic to me and seems to be a very strong strike. Anyone can point out where the wear is - love to learn something.

I am all for them being conservative on the higher grades but I just have a sneaking feeling (and my experience is more London Coins than CGS in fairness) that they leave the lower grades, particularly fine, with too much ground to cover. There was one rare and expensive coin I recall that they slabbed as 'fine' which I thought was nearer to 'fair'. On the other hand there have been occasions when I thought they might have been one-third of a grade low which at least is erring on the right side. These are just observations on my part and really shouldn't be given too much weight.

[Gary1000 41]

1820, 1823 HC grading as VF I can understand but 40 and 45 seem low. The obverses might a bit less than EF in my view but I thought the nicer reverses might compensate.

The 1834 halfcrown only grading as EF65 (i.e. not even GEF which correspond to 70) is something I don't understand. The reverse of that halfcrown in particular looks fantastic to me and seems to be a very strong strike. Anyone can point out where the wear is - love to learn something.

I am all for them being conservative on the higher grades but I just have a sneaking feeling (and my experience is more London Coins than CGS in fairness) that they leave the lower grades, particularly fine, with too much ground to cover. There was one rare and expensive coin I recall that they slabbed as 'fine' which I thought was nearer to 'fair'. On the other hand there have been occasions when I thought they might have been one-third of a grade low which at least is erring on the right side. These are just observations on my part and really shouldn't be given too much weight.

What would be particularly interesting is how they would sell in an American auction. I wonder is they would be completely ignored.

[Peckris 579]

1820, 1823 HC grading as VF I can understand but 40 and 45 seem low. The obverses might a bit less than EF in my view but I thought the nicer reverses might compensate.

The 1834 halfcrown only grading as EF65 (i.e. not even GEF which correspond to 70) is something I don't understand. The reverse of that halfcrown in particular looks fantastic to me and seems to be a very strong strike. Anyone can point out where the wear is - love to learn something.

I am all for them being conservative on the higher grades but I just have a sneaking feeling (and my experience is more London Coins than CGS in fairness) that they leave the lower grades, particularly fine, with too much ground to cover. There was one rare and expensive coin I recall that they slabbed as 'fine' which I thought was nearer to 'fair'. On the other hand there have been occasions when I thought they might have been one-third of a grade low which at least is erring on the right side. These are just observations on my part and really shouldn't be given too much weight.

Ah, the burden of being the author of a highly considered hobbyist book!

Your observations are very fair though. I'd only add that a coin that is "all but EF" and would be classed as EF by many dealers, should not be given a VF grade. Considering how much lower the values are for VF compared to EF, and how many collectors would simply see the "VF" and then ignore the number, it is not a good system.

This would be much better: have a range of numbers from - e.g. - 60 to 70 that is the EF grade, and assign the two or three numbers before it to AEF, i.e. 58 - 59. So VF would run from 50 - 57, AEF would be 58 and 59, "just EF but no more" would be 60, and so on. There is absolutely NO good reason why CGS shouldn't adopt something like this as they've now incorporated AUNC into their system.

[Coinery 926]

This would be much better: have a range of numbers from - e.g. - 60 to 70 that is the EF grade, and assign the two or three numbers before it to AEF, i.e. 58 - 59. So VF would run from 50 - 57, AEF would be 58 and 59, "just EF but no more" would be 60, and so on. There is absolutely NO good reason why CGS shouldn't adopt something like this as they've now incorporated AUNC into their system.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion!

[Nick 325]

This would be much better: have a range of numbers from - e.g. - 60 to 70 that is the EF grade, and assign the two or three numbers before it to AEF, i.e. 58 - 59. So VF would run from 50 - 57, AEF would be 58 and 59, "just EF but no more" would be 60, and so on. There is absolutely NO good reason why CGS shouldn't adopt something like this as they've now incorporated AUNC into their system.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion!

I don't know why they bother with the grade prefixes at all. Why not just stick with the percentages as a measure. Then those who think that a 70 is an EF and those who think it is an AU can both be happy.

[VickySilver 775]

And of course, what has been hinted at before - what would happen if some of these coins were cracked out and sold to Lockett/LCA/CGS wholesale and were to be slabbed by CGS, and then sold through LCA - would they hold their grade or then somehow (LOL) find their way to an average of a higher grade?

I think this distinctly a possibility because of the obvious possibility of conflict of interest, and that is a euphemism most certainly.

I think as our own Rob has said, the foibles of slabbing may leave opportunity for the astute collector; know your coins and grade. For the dealer, similar except that it would be with regards to the commercial advantage of buying a coin that is possibly under graded as opposed to what the market may allow.

[Peckris 579]

This would be much better: have a range of numbers from - e.g. - 60 to 70 that is the EF grade, and assign the two or three numbers before it to AEF, i.e. 58 - 59. So VF would run from 50 - 57, AEF would be 58 and 59, "just EF but no more" would be 60, and so on. There is absolutely NO good reason why CGS shouldn't adopt something like this as they've now incorporated AUNC into their system.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion!

I don't know why they bother with the grade prefixes at all. Why not just stick with the percentages as a measure. Then those who think that a 70 is an EF and those who think it is an AU can both be happy.

That's another excellent idea. Isn't that what the Sheldon scale does?

[Nick 325]

This would be much better: have a range of numbers from - e.g. - 60 to 70 that is the EF grade, and assign the two or three numbers before it to AEF, i.e. 58 - 59. So VF would run from 50 - 57, AEF would be 58 and 59, "just EF but no more" would be 60, and so on. There is absolutely NO good reason why CGS shouldn't adopt something like this as they've now incorporated AUNC into their system.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion!

I don't know why they bother with the grade prefixes at all. Why not just stick with the percentages as a measure. Then those who think that a 70 is an EF and those who think it is an AU can both be happy.

That's another excellent idea. Isn't that what the Sheldon scale does?

I'm not sure whether the Sheldon scale was originally intended as a purely numerical measure, but its implementation by the likes of PCGS and NGC incorporates a "grade" prefix (ie EF 40-45, AU 50-58, MS 60-70)

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Well, I was out by a lot!

1820, 1823 HC grading as VF I can understand but 40 and 45 seem low. The obverses might a bit less than EF in my view but I thought the nicer reverses might compensate.

The 1834 halfcrown only grading as EF65 (i.e. not even GEF which correspond to 70) is something I don't understand. The reverse of that halfcrown in particular looks fantastic to me and seems to be a very strong strike. Anyone can point out where the wear is - love to learn something.

I learnt a lot about their grading process today, spending over two hours with one of their graders (Paul Radford), who has been with CGS since the start. One of the reasons their grading appears so strict is that there is no concept of 'compensation' - a whole series of negatives in several different categories will simply mark the coin down, so if one side is half a grade or more lower than the other, then so is the grade for the whole coin, in essence! (In other words, they don't 'average' the two sides when arriving at the single grade).

The recent debate on CGS on this thread (and the other thread) has been prompting a rethink by CGS itself that will become apparent in due course. CGS uses a scientific mechanism for grading of coins that includes downgrading for poor or weak strikes, ghosting etc - thus coins that some dealers regard as UNC may end up as VF (I have had this) through to UNC (and all grades in between). The usage of attributing traditional grades by CGS has caused undoubted consternation for collectors and dealers alike. The fact that most dealers call a CGS 75 or CGS 78 'UNC' yet CGS refer to it as AU has caused resentment. Also, CGS consistently grade whatever the age of the coin - no allowance is made for age or nature of striking of a particular denomination/year (as some graders do). However, should it matter if the coin becomes a finest known for a type even at (VF) CGS 40?

For example, what does the population report say of the coins you had graded Paulus? Are any finest known? My experience of Gothic Florins are if they ever achieve CGS 80 or higher they are real gems (and there is a collector of such coins out there who will pay high sums for such coins) - and achieve well over Spink Catalogue suggestion.

My own experience of Spink has been mixed. Coins I bought as UNC from them have not always achieved a CGS 80 or better grade.

I welcome these exchanges of views and appreciate the time people take on our hobby (even if we disagree!). Only by such an exchange and the preparedness of people like Paulus to share their own experiences will organisations like CGS learn and hopefully take on board comments exchanged.

[Sword 1,330]

This would be much better: have a range of numbers from - e.g. - 60 to 70 that is the EF grade, and assign the two or three numbers before it to AEF, i.e. 58 - 59. So VF would run from 50 - 57, AEF would be 58 and 59, "just EF but no more" would be 60, and so on. There is absolutely NO good reason why CGS shouldn't adopt something like this as they've now incorporated AUNC into their system.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion!

The changing of EF75 to AU75 by CGS a few years back was no big deal. It is the same grade if the number is the same and the seller of an EF75 coin will be quick to point out it is the same as AU75. However, adding new numbers such as 58 and 59 will cause problems, as coins previously graded 55 might be the same as the new 59. I think it is very important to maintain consistency. And where do you stop? The same argument can be used for AVF 19 and 18, AFDC86,87 etc.

Using a finer scale will probably also increase the time it take to grade accurately and consistently and hence cost.

[Rob 3,002]

This would be much better: have a range of numbers from - e.g. - 60 to 70 that is the EF grade, and assign the two or three numbers before it to AEF, i.e. 58 - 59. So VF would run from 50 - 57, AEF would be 58 and 59, "just EF but no more" would be 60, and so on. There is absolutely NO good reason why CGS shouldn't adopt something like this as they've now incorporated AUNC into their system.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion!

The changing of EF75 to AU75 by CGS a few years back was no big deal. It is the same grade if the number is the same and the seller of an EF75 coin will be quick to point out it is the same as AU75. However, adding new numbers such as 58 and 59 will cause problems, as coins previously graded 55 might be the same as the new 59. I think it is very important to maintain consistency. And where do you stop? The same argument can be used for AVF 19 and 18, AFDC86,87 etc.

Using a finer scale will probably also increase the time it take to grade accurately and consistently and hence cost.

You'll progressively get more inconsistency the finer the divisions between grades. If you or I can look at a coin on several occasions and see or miss bits here and there depending on the lighting conditions, the state of your eyesight that day, or even if you had a skinful the night before; then I am certain that the same thing can happen to anyone employed as a grader. They are only human and subject to the same failings as anyone else.