CGS Trial Part 2

[Paulus 1,942]

The results are in (sort of - I can see them on my collection page, but not on a coin verification page yet)

[Paulus 1,942]

Rightly or wrongly (depending on your many points of view) I have submitted another small batch of coins to CGS. They tell me to expect about a 6 week turnaround time, which is about a week longer than my first batch took back in February.

Some of these will be up for sale, and I was very pleased with the selling prices I got for those I sold from the first batch.

So for those of you that like this kind of thing, I invite you to take a stab at the grading CGS will assign to them - they were submitted on 5/7 and pics were available from yesterday 9/7 - there are 7 coins to guess at.

Coin #1 : UIN 28558:

CGS verdict - 60 (EF)

[Paulus 1,942]

Coin #2 : UIN 28561:

CGS verdict - EF - but rejected for reasons as yet unknown

[Paulus 1,942]

Coin #3 : UIN 28560:

CGS verdict - 40 (VF)

[Paulus 1,942]

Coin #4 UIN 28559:

CGS verdict - a rather surprising 50 (GVF)

[Paulus 1,942]

Coin #5 UIN 28556:

CGS verdict - a slightly disappointing 20 (F)

[Paulus 1,942]

Coin #6 UIN 28564 (the obv not being one of CGS' finest pics!) :

CGS verdict - 70 (AU)

[Paulus 1,942]

Coin #7 UIN 28557:

CGS verdict - 65 (GEF)

[Paulus 1,942]

The predictions were pretty close, except for the 1707 which came out half a grade higher than anyone (myself included) thought it would

[Rob 3,002]

The predictions were pretty close, except for the 1707 which came out half a grade higher than anyone (myself included) thought it would

The 1705 came from London Coins in 2004 when graded aEF/EF. I had that marked down a bit though on account of the obvious wear to the plumes. Fully struck plumes come up to a sharp point, though I suspect that not many have seen coins in that condition, CGS included. Don't know if the previous record had any bearing on the assigned grade?

The gVF for the 1707 is far too generous. Also did they record the M over inverted M in MAG as a variety?

The 1709 I acquired from a serious shilling collector on ebay a long time ago. It was covered in grease and crud, which dissolved off to produce quite a pleasingly toned coin underneath. Probably due to the previously attached crud given the variance in toning between the two sides!

The 1700 is where I had it, though needless to say acquired as an ebay unc from a dealer who should know better.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Rob

[Sword 1,330]

Coin #2 : UIN 28561:

CGS verdict - EF - but rejected for reasons as yet unknown

CGS is surprisingly speedy on this batch which is nice to see. I think they automatically reject a coin with with any flan crack.

Nice coins by the way.

[Coinery 926]

Coin #2 : UIN 28561:

CGS verdict - EF - but rejected for reasons as yet unknown

CGS is surprisingly speedy on this batch which is nice to see. I think they automatically reject a coin with with any flan crack.

Nice coins by the way.

I can't fathom that at all? How does that affect its authenticity?

Where will we stand with the hammered coins they have recently taken on?

[Paulus 1,942]

The predictions were pretty close, except for the 1707 which came out half a grade higher than anyone (myself included) thought it would

The 1705 came from London Coins in 2004 when graded aEF/EF. I had that marked down a bit though on account of the obvious wear to the plumes. Fully struck plumes come up to a sharp point, though I suspect that not many have seen coins in that condition, CGS included. Don't know if the previous record had any bearing on the assigned grade?

The gVF for the 1707 is far too generous. Also did they record the M over inverted M in MAG as a variety?

The 1709 I acquired from a serious shilling collector on ebay a long time ago. It was covered in grease and crud, which dissolved off to produce quite a pleasingly toned coin underneath. Probably due to the previously attached crud given the variance in toning between the two sides!

The 1700 is where I had it, though needless to say acquired as an ebay unc from a dealer who should know better.

Thanks for that Rob, I think you either have a photographic memory or very good records to recall these 4 coins I bought from you last year, all of which I remain very pleased with!

They are not finalised yet, but I did point out the M over inverted M on the 1707 to them, so hopefully that will be recorded in their database and on the slab.

The 1700 and 1705 are 2 of my very favourite coins ... I don't believe the 1705 was previously slabbed by CGS as this is the first of the type on their records, so I suspect they have no idea it was previously sold by their main shareholder London Coins - and I didn't know about that 'provenance' so I didn't tell them!

[Paulus 1,942]

Coin #2 : UIN 28561:

CGS verdict - EF - but rejected for reasons as yet unknown

CGS is surprisingly speedy on this batch which is nice to see. I think they automatically reject a coin with with any flan crack.

Nice coins by the way.

I can't fathom that at all? How does that affect its authenticity?

Where will we stand with the hammered coins they have recently taken on?

Blimey, Stuart's put in a rare appearance! Been busy on the boat?

I completely agree, but I don't know why they have rejected it (yet)

Where are all the old emoticons, we want more, not fewer (one!)!

[Paulus 1,942]

Coin #2 : UIN 28561:

CGS verdict - EF - but rejected for reasons as yet unknown

CGS is surprisingly speedy on this batch which is nice to see. I think they automatically reject a coin with with any flan crack.

Nice coins by the way.

Thanks Sword ... I hope that's not the case, but then again I hope there's nothing else they found 'wrong' with it! As Dave said, they can sit at the 'Finalising Grade' stage for a while, as if it takes ages to slab and post them!

[Coinery 926]

Blimey, Stuart's put in a rare appearance! Been busy on the boat?

Hmm? Sorry, what? Covered in paint is what I am!

[Sword 1,330]

Coin #2 : UIN 28561:

CGS verdict - EF - but rejected for reasons as yet unknown

CGS is surprisingly speedy on this batch which is nice to see. I think they automatically reject a coin with with any flan crack.

Nice coins by the way.

Thanks Sword ... I hope that's not the case, but then again I hope there's nothing else they found 'wrong' with it! As Dave said, they can sit at the 'Finalising Grade' stage for a while, as if it takes ages to slab and post them!

The following is from the CGS website:

"CGS will reject such coins, they will not have a numerical grade attached, instead they will have the problem described the main ones being;

• Edge Problems – the coin has significant edge knocks or bruises, or evidence of being mounted, or flan cracks at the edge.
• Stained – a stain(s) detracts from the coins appearance"

I don't personally think they should reject a coin if it has a tiny flan crack or if it has a tiny "stain". Points can be deducted instead accordingly. Now that they have set the rules, they will have, as Stuart has pointed out have a difficult time when dealing with hammered coins.

[Peckris 579]

My first thoughts are that they have got the grades on 3 and 4 the wrong way round. It would be deeply interesting to find out what their thinking was.

(There may be a new forum format, but I still make the mistake of not noticing there's a whole extra page until after I've posted at the bottom of Page 1).

Edited July 23, 2013 by Peckris

[Paulus 1,942]

Coin #2 : UIN 28561:

CGS verdict - EF - but rejected for reasons as yet unknown

CGS is surprisingly speedy on this batch which is nice to see. I think they automatically reject a coin with with any flan crack.

Nice coins by the way.

Thanks Sword ... I hope that's not the case, but then again I hope there's nothing else they found 'wrong' with it! As Dave said, they can sit at the 'Finalising Grade' stage for a while, as if it takes ages to slab and post them!

The following is from the CGS website:

"CGS will reject such coins, they will not have a numerical grade attached, instead they will have the problem described the main ones being;

• Edge Problems – the coin has significant edge knocks or bruises, or evidence of being mounted, or flan cracks at the edge.
• Stained – a stain(s) detracts from the coins appearance"

I don't personally think they should reject a coin if it has a tiny flan crack or if it has a tiny "stain". Points can be deducted instead accordingly. Now that they have set the rules, they will have, as Stuart has pointed out have a difficult time when dealing with hammered coins.

You're right, they do state that ... I shouldn't have wasted my money having it slabbed! And yes, that is a bit of a pickle - what about clipping (hammered) then for goodness sake!

Edited July 23, 2013 by Paulus

[Rob 3,002]

The predictions were pretty close, except for the 1707 which came out half a grade higher than anyone (myself included) thought it would

The 1705 came from London Coins in 2004 when graded aEF/EF. I had that marked down a bit though on account of the obvious wear to the plumes. Fully struck plumes come up to a sharp point, though I suspect that not many have seen coins in that condition, CGS included. Don't know if the previous record had any bearing on the assigned grade?

The gVF for the 1707 is far too generous. Also did they record the M over inverted M in MAG as a variety?

The 1709 I acquired from a serious shilling collector on ebay a long time ago. It was covered in grease and crud, which dissolved off to produce quite a pleasingly toned coin underneath. Probably due to the previously attached crud given the variance in toning between the two sides!

The 1700 is where I had it, though needless to say acquired as an ebay unc from a dealer who should know better.

Thanks for that Rob, I think you either have a photographic memory or very good records to recall these 4 coins I bought from you last year, all of which I remain very pleased with!

They are not finalised yet, but I did point out the M over inverted M on the 1707 to them, so hopefully that will be recorded in their database and on the slab.

The 1700 and 1705 are 2 of my very favourite coins ... I don't believe the 1705 was previously slabbed by CGS as this is the first of the type on their records, so I suspect they have no idea it was previously sold by their main shareholder London Coins - and I didn't know about that 'provenance' so I didn't tell them!

The 1705 was lot 745 in sale 104 on 29/2/2004. I still expect them to have compared any past examples in their photo database and obviously would have found this one. I usually remember who from and when I bought coins, but the info is also recorded should I have a mental block.

[Paulus 1,942]

The predictions were pretty close, except for the 1707 which came out half a grade higher than anyone (myself included) thought it would

The 1705 came from London Coins in 2004 when graded aEF/EF. I had that marked down a bit though on account of the obvious wear to the plumes. Fully struck plumes come up to a sharp point, though I suspect that not many have seen coins in that condition, CGS included. Don't know if the previous record had any bearing on the assigned grade?

The gVF for the 1707 is far too generous. Also did they record the M over inverted M in MAG as a variety?

The 1709 I acquired from a serious shilling collector on ebay a long time ago. It was covered in grease and crud, which dissolved off to produce quite a pleasingly toned coin underneath. Probably due to the previously attached crud given the variance in toning between the two sides!

The 1700 is where I had it, though needless to say acquired as an ebay unc from a dealer who should know better.

Thanks for that Rob, I think you either have a photographic memory or very good records to recall these 4 coins I bought from you last year, all of which I remain very pleased with!

They are not finalised yet, but I did point out the M over inverted M on the 1707 to them, so hopefully that will be recorded in their database and on the slab.

The 1700 and 1705 are 2 of my very favourite coins ... I don't believe the 1705 was previously slabbed by CGS as this is the first of the type on their records, so I suspect they have no idea it was previously sold by their main shareholder London Coins - and I didn't know about that 'provenance' so I didn't tell them!

The 1705 was lot 745 in sale 104 on 29/2/2004. I still expect them to have compared any past examples in their photo database and obviously would have found this one. I usually remember who from and when I bought coins, but the info is also recorded should I have a mental block.

I really don't think they are set up for that! But I could be wrong ... where has Bill Pugsley gone, he will know!

[azda 973]

Coin 4 has really surprised me as a GVF. Hari Detail worn, shoulder worn, rubbimg to the face. I had one similar which they graded 35 and based my asessment on that, so i think their grading is inconsistent. The Last 2 i had virtually correct but i'd still say the William III is better IMO

[azda 973]

As Stuart has already remarked, if CGS won't slab a flan crack then they'll be buggered with hammered with all that clipping and irregular Flans, it would just be a waste of peoples money

[Benny who 6]

The predictions were pretty close, except for the 1707 which came out half a grade higher than anyone (myself included) thought it would

The 1705 came from London Coins in 2004 when graded aEF/EF. I had that marked down a bit though on account of the obvious wear to the plumes. Fully struck plumes come up to a sharp point, though I suspect that not many have seen coins in that condition, CGS included. Don't know if the previous record had any bearing on the assigned grade?

The gVF for the 1707 is far too generous. Also did they record the M over inverted M in MAG as a variety?

The 1709 I acquired from a serious shilling collector on ebay a long time ago. It was covered in grease and crud, which dissolved off to produce quite a pleasingly toned coin underneath. Probably due to the previously attached crud given the variance in toning between the two sides!

The 1700 is where I had it, though needless to say acquired as an ebay unc from a dealer who should know better.

Thanks for that Rob, I think you either have a photographic memory or very good records to recall these 4 coins I bought from you last year, all of which I remain very pleased with!

They are not finalised yet, but I did point out the M over inverted M on the 1707 to them, so hopefully that will be recorded in their database and on the slab.

The 1700 and 1705 are 2 of my very favourite coins ... I don't believe the 1705 was previously slabbed by CGS as this is the first of the type on their records, so I suspect they have no idea it was previously sold by their main shareholder London Coins - and I didn't know about that 'provenance' so I didn't tell them!

I think that the M over inverted M has been marked as a 1707.09 which is with plumes on their website,so it might be worth while asking CGS before it has been slabbed,would be easier to change now rather than having to return it.