Dont read this if you have not slabbed a cgs coin

[PWA 1967 1,841]

As mentioned corrossion a different reason for rejection.If so would of fallen under CORROSION of which i have had coins rejected before.This coin rejected for FIELD DAMAGE Think coinery got the right reason

[azda 973]

I honesty don't know how they'd go about grading hammered Coins, surely 99% of them Would be rejected for some BS reason but yet gain £30 for accepting the consignment, getting ridiculous

[Rob 3,002]

Will someone who has access to the CGS lists give an indication of which Soho pieces they have slabbed and by extension accepted irrespective of rust marks. With the exception of the first strikes at Soho and the later pieces by Taylor, the various states are effectively categorised by the degree of rust spots present, or their removal by die polishing. Any Peck numbers between 930 and 1400 will do. If CGS are consistent, the numbers should be minute. Thanks.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Rob

[Rob 3,002]

For those of you who do get things slabbed, it would be worth getting a list of those coins which will be automatically rejected as it will save you money in the long term. I suspect they will say that all are considered, but fail to mention at your expense. Guidance would also be useful on how much wear a die can have before it is rejected as this is also die damage. Coins struck from flawed dies ought to be similarly excluded. It can't be they are saying that only coins struck from fresh dies are graded because they will accept coins with recut legend.

If anyone can get a list of (CGS) banned varieties as a result of being struck from rusted dies, posting it would be helpful to all concerned. Failure to supply such a list would be a tad disingenuous.

Here are a few images of things that fall foul of such a policy.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Rob

[Coinery 926]

Not just me in knots about it, then!

[Rob 3,002]

Not just me in knots about it, then!

It's crap. There must be crossed wires somewhere as the idea beggars belief.

[Coinery 926]

Not just me in knots about it, then!

It's crap. There must be crossed wires somewhere as the idea beggars belief.

They (the TPGC's) already have a pretty weighty catalogue of misdemeanours to contend with; to add flawed dies to the list is way, way, beyond the final nail in the coffin...totally bonkers, in fact!

As far as I can make out, you really do have to go with crossed wires, it doesn't stand up any other way!

[Rob 3,002]

If CGS have slabbed either a Cromwell crown or shilling, then flaws are acceptable. If they have slabbed any of the above Soho patterns, then rusted dies are acceptable. The 1799 proof halfpenny (KH16) has a rust spot under Britannia's right armpit and is common enough to have at least one example slabbed in whatever metal finish.

[Colin G. 147]

Rob there are definitely restrikes that have been graded, so it must be crossed wires somewhere.

[Paulus 1,942]

Rob, this is a KH16 that CGS attribute as a 'Pattern in bronzed copper', is this the same coin you are referring to?

[Paulus 1,942]

They describe 'armpitgate' as below:

Edited November 2, 2014 by Paulus

[Paulus 1,942]

They didn't have an issue grading this Cromwell shilling I submitted to them some time back either:

Edited November 2, 2014 by Paulus

[copper123 1,352]

perhaps field damage is the same as corrosion in the coin gradeing companies eye.

I must admit these folks tend to talk in a different way to us on here

[Rob 3,002]

Yes to both coins. I don't have a problem with field damage & corrosion being the same thing, rather the question of rusted dies being a reason for rejection. Both the above coins clearly show this not to be the case.

[Paulus 1,942]

I agree, the key point must be whether the rusted dies are the reason for rejection, or corrosion/field damage to the coin (for whatever reason)

[copper123 1,352]

Surely it is the coin that is rusted - the royal mint never uses rusted dies it scraps them at the first signs appear

[Nick 325]

Surely it is the coin that is rusted - the royal mint never uses rusted dies it scraps them at the first signs appear

How can a coin rust when it contains no iron?

[Peckris 579]

Surely it is the coin that is rusted - the royal mint never uses rusted dies it scraps them at the first signs appear

This doesn't apply to Soho Mint issues, and even less to Taylor restrikes (Taylor having "inherited" a whole load of rusting dies from the Soho Mint). Rob is talking mainly about those not Royal Mint output.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Peckris

[Rob 3,002]

Surely it is the coin that is rusted - the royal mint never uses rusted dies it scraps them at the first signs appear

This doesn't apply to Soho Mint issues, and even less to Taylor restrikes (Taylor having "inherited" a whole load of rusting dies from the Soho Mint). Rob is talking mainly about those not Royal Mint output.

The Royal Mint will use rusty dies as long as they are vaguely presentable. They certainly run the modern ones into the ground with all the flaws seen. The angel above is heavily rusted, which is interesting from the point that the couple of other examples I have seen from this obverse are not, suggesting the die was resurrected. It was in use only at the changeover from cross pommee to crosslet head and is known on this die only (?). The Bristol halfcrown below shows that even in the milled age they were not averse to using rusty dies.

[Coinery 926]

Yes, I've had rusty-die W3 coins too!

[copper123 1,352]

yes I remember they had the great recoinage of all the hammered silver to do so corners probably got cut - remember these coins were made on a milling press and not spewed out in huge quantity by automated machines .

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Feel a bit disappointed as a mate dropped off over twenty coins for grading a month ago.Only just this week had any acknowledgement they had got them. Not even took the photos yet and although no big deal,not very good.

[Paulus 1,942]

Who are you referring to PWA? CGS?? I sense they have a backlog of a few hundred for photographing, grading and slabbing at the moment! The last verifiable number seem to be UIN 33144, yet the numbers assigned to my recent consignment begin UIN 33673. I have always found that you get UIN numbers assigned within a day or 2 of CGS receiving the coins, does your friend have UIN numbers yet?

You can track progress on-line, I have made 6 small consignments in the past, all took 4-5 weeks start to end, although they quote up to 90 days.

Always interested in sharing experiences with using CGS!

Edited November 24, 2014 by Paulus

[PWA 1967 1,841]

The invoice came direct to myself with the uin numbers last thursday after having the coins almost a month.Although normally received them back after about 4-5 weeks in the past.

[azda 973]

I suspect they've forgotten about submissions while grading for the upcoming LC auction, this is why i have a dislike for CGSGRADED because the auction will take preference over people who are actually paying for grading which is unfair IMHO