c.g.s.penny

[PWA 1967 1,841]

There is currently a 1882 no H penny on ebay .I was interested until i looked at the pictures and understand its a very low grade.Has anybody any opinion as to why the coin was not rejected ,appears full of verd/corrosion.The uin on c.g.s. is 33327 although the sellers pictures show the verd much clearer.

Thanks pete

[Rob 3,002]

Probably because rejection is not only a case of having the faults outlined on the label, it is also subject to the desirability test. A common penny would probably be rejected, but a rarity like an 1882 no H needs to be slabbed come what may, to fix a price for a slabbed item and act as an advertising feature.

Look in the next Heritage sale and you will see a Briot milled halfcrown with a load of scratches around the shield. They didn't stop it being given a grade rather than rejected. The considerably lighter marks on the lightweight shilling I sold to Paulus ensured it was only given a details grade and rejected for scratches. Charles I shillings are not rare and available in higher grades, so they could afford to reject it. Had they bothered to weigh it, they could at least have attributed it correctly, but that isn't the name of the game. Briot milled pieces are considerably scarcer, aesthetically more imposing, and I suspect, treated more leniently as a result. All things in life are not equal.

Even raised die polishing lines have been used as an excuse for rejection as scratched on some of the commoner milled pieces.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Rob

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Your reply makes some sense rob.But surely if they quote verd or corrosion coins will be rejected makes it hard to determine what coins i should send for them to grade.

[Rob 3,002]

Yes, but that merely helps to make the case for it being the lottery I think it is. On the whole I do believe they try to be consistent, but when the person looking at the coin and giving it a grade has a bad day, that decision stays with the coin until someone cracks it out.

This is where the whole list of reasons for rejection needs to be rethought. At what point do they reject for scratches? Maybe anything shorter than a given length is ok because every coin that isn't as it left the mint will have them to some extent. I can think of several cases where I have rejected the coin in the slab on the grounds of the obvious verdigris present. I can't see why any coin should be rejected other than for being counterfeit or tooled. Wear is a fundamental part of the process; scratches are made as part of circulation. To reject for these reasons is illogical. Over time, a metal mix with high concentrations of copper will go green in a moist atmosphere, but still won't affect the level of wear which is what a grade purports to be - so why reject some and not others?

Needless to say, you are the one with the difficult decision because they will happily assess a coin and freely give a rejection. I know that doesn't help you, but that is part of the whole 'experience'. The question of rejection criteria is somewhat nebulous and the undue deference paid to grade and grading organisation is on a par with the vacuousness of celebrity culture. Sorry, but that's just my view.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Thanks for your reply and gives me something to think about

[azda 973]

To slab or not to slab?

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Yes that is the question

[azda 973]

You have a choice of TPGs

[Coppers 57]

There is currently a 1882 no H penny on ebay .I was interested until i looked at the pictures and understand its a very low grade.Has anybody any opinion as to why the coin was not rejected ,appears full of verd/corrosion.The uin on c.g.s. is 33327 although the sellers pictures show the verd much clearer.

Thanks pete

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-Queen-Victoria-Penny-1882-NO-H-CGS-/321632341408?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item4ae2c80da0

[Rob 3,002]

When the 1869(?) penny in a previous thread was rejected for corrosion, the consensus was a roughened patch in the reverse field as the reason because the problems didn't exactly leap out at you. In this instance, the only bit that isn't corroded is the P of penny and the datal figures. 1869s are available in reasonable quantities, 1882 no H pennies aren't. I rest my case.

Peter is going to have to start giving that Centisles bloke a bit of credit soon. At least his overgrading is consistent.

[Prax 80]

If I am not mistaken I might have had this coin graded (because I graded a 1882 penny which was in similar grade and there are only 2 more of this date graded). I sold this when in 2009 I quit pennies and sold a huge part of my collection to invest the proceeds in bullion. The point to stress is that this coin and a 1861 6 over 8 that I had graded at pretty much the same time were pretty run down when I bought them. Both had verdigris and they both graded (albeit at very low levels). Back then verdigris was not a problem, this is going back a good 5 or 6 years, it was more about establishing CGS as a brand. I would doubt if these would grade if you took them to CGS for grading today. To give you an idea back then the 2 coins graded in less than 3 weeks and I gave 40 odd pennies for grading. 20 for an encapsulation only service which cost £5. I don't think they have an encapsulation only service anymore. It gives you an idea of where CGS was at back then.

[Prax 80]

Back then verdigris was not a problem - I meant to say "Back then verdigris was not a problem on really low grade coins". I recall a 1865 penny that had the minutest spots of verd was flagged up during inspection and I was warned that it may not pass grading standards. So I did not book it in for grading.

[Paulus 1,942]

Probably because rejection is not only a case of having the faults outlined on the label, it is also subject to the desirability test. A common penny would probably be rejected, but a rarity like an 1882 no H needs to be slabbed come what may, to fix a price for a slabbed item and act as an advertising feature.

Look in the next Heritage sale and you will see a Briot milled halfcrown with a load of scratches around the shield. They didn't stop it being given a grade rather than rejected. The considerably lighter marks on the lightweight shilling I sold to Paulus ensured it was only given a details grade and rejected for scratches. Charles I shillings are not rare and available in higher grades, so they could afford to reject it. Had they bothered to weigh it, they could at least have attributed it correctly, but that isn't the name of the game. Briot milled pieces are considerably scarcer, aesthetically more imposing, and I suspect, treated more leniently as a result. All things in life are not equal.

Even raised die polishing lines have been used as an excuse for rejection as scratched on some of the commoner milled pieces.

Rob, I have not sent the excellent Charles I lightweight shilling I acquired from you for grading (or any of my hammered) ... it is cherished and (carefully) handled without a single coffin in sight!

But I do agree with your point about relative scarcity affecting whether CGS will grade a coin with defects, and with Prax's point about their standards having changed over the few years they have been offering the service ...

Edited January 3, 2015 by Paulus

[Rob 3,002]

There wasn't anything wrong with the lightweight in my opinion as you can't have a well circulated coin without marks or scratches unless it has been polished flat. Nor is there a problem with the numerous Saxon coins that get rejected by the US TPGs for having peck marks. Nor is there a problem with the numerous Saxon coins that get accepted by the US TPGs despite having peck marks..........

[Paulus 1,942]

I completely agree!

[Coinery 926]

Hold it, hold it! Are we saying here that CGS will not slab a hammered coin with scratches?

[azda 973]

Hold it, hold it! Are we saying here that CGS will not slab a hammered coin with scratches?

If you look through the posts regarding CGS and what they have and have not slabbed and reasons for not slabbing, it would be an absolute waste of anyones time and money sending a hammered coin to CGS for slabbing.

Regarding the penny in this post, I find it down right ridiculous that they can slab a coin with all its problems a few years ago and yet seem so f**king elitest these days, you'd think they don't need the business, moving the goalposts just pisses on their own chips in My eyes

Edited January 4, 2015 by azda

[Sword 1,330]

But the UIN 33327 indicates that this 1882 has only been graded very recently (within the last 3 months). So it does indeed confirm the views that verd / corrosions are tolerated on low grade and /or rare coins.

[azda 973]

But the UIN 33327 indicates that this 1882 has only been graded very recently (within the last 3 months). So it does indeed confirm the views that verd / corrosions are tolerated on low grade and /or rare coins.

If verd i's toleranted Then it should be tolerated and not just When it suits a particular coin Or rarity. Prax above mentioned this coin May Have been One of his He Sold in 2009, so Obviously not

[Coppers 57]

Now at £622.00 with 8 days to go.

[Prax 80]

Good Evening All,

Been doing a bit of digging and here is the info that I found on the CGS 1882 no Hs

There are 3 CGS graded no Hs

1. Graded CGS 3 – UIN - 0002837
2. Graded CGS EF 60 – Sold LCA 06/12/2010 – Lot 2055
3. The one on ebay currently

I have handled a and almost certainly c as well though I did not grade coin c). I have to dig up my notes on the other coin. I was involved with grading just one 1882 no H, which at that time was a washer with some verd (possibly on Britannia’s arm and Vicky’s neck) Here is a brief history on a) since I purchased it.

Purchased on 03/06/2007 LCA 1198 - £ 700

Graded on 14/08/2007

Sold to Mog a coin dealer in Bournemouth – 22/02/2008 - £ 800

Mog sells it to an unknown buyer from Windsor – 14/03/2008

Unknown buyer sells it on ebay - 28 Apr 2008

Coin is offered on LCA 01/12/2012 – lot 560 and sold for £ 800

No idea what happened after that but it looks like LCA purchased it and it is now available on their site for sale http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=retailv2_details&uin=0002837

Prax

[Coinery 926]

Wow, you're the man, PRAX Holmes, very enlightening read...great book-keeping too!

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Interesting to no prax .After having a look on the c.g.s. site i see they have also rejected one ,i wonder why as unable to find out on the site.

[azda 973]

I'm assuming Prax that you've worked for

CGS grading coins?

[Prax 80]

Oh dear!!!!

I'm assuming Prax that you've worked for
CGS grading coins?

Oh dear!!!! Can anything be far from the truth

David, I just tend to follow the coins I have handled. One of the reasons I love to grade my coins. With the 1882 no Hs it was easy. I looked up the CGS population report, which was 3 in this case. I know that one of the no Hs is an XF coin http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?page=Pastresults&auc=131&searchlot=2055&searchtype=2, so I knew rightaway that out of the remaining 2 I graded the one. I also knew I was among the first to grade pennies, the rest then falls into place