Peckris

Surely you at least wore a pair of cotton gloves?

Yes, but .. what? If a coin was struck in 1640 and handed straight to someone who put it in a box, it's clearly uncirculated. Same as if Bolton handed a halfpenny to someone in 1797 or a mint employee pocketed 20p tomorrow, the amount of wear those coins have been subject to is zero. So ... why aren't they the same grade? As for using proofs for benchmarks, well that suggests to me that the grading is less about wear and more about how well a coin measures up against an idea. The idea of what a 'perfect' coin will look like. Seems to me to be a bit of arbitrariness here ... which brings me back to .. why do we grade coins? If it's a measure of 'perfection', well, OK. Though there are problems with that, I can accept the concept. But if it's to do with wear, why are we using different grade ceilings just because a coin is older? Yeah, I know. Not strictly about CGS is it? But I'm curious now what people think. What you say is perfectly true. I wonder if it's something to do with the fact that minting imperfections were almost inherent pre-Boulton & Watt? Or maybe it's more to do with the fact that people didn't tend to put coins aside in those days, as they were valuable things as money and only kings collected coins numismatically? It's certainly true that there are ARE early milled UNC coins, and I would grade my 1708 shilling as virtually that, also my 1697 sixpence. Both are quite common in those grades, so maybe there was a bag stashed away in a bank that didn't come to light for a couple of centuries. ETA: even in the early 20th Century, collectors weren't obsessive about high grades, as long as they could see the "fine detail" they were happy enough apparently.

I believe that was Peckris's intention. Misleading us poor coinies with an article about other such tricks. Yeah, but the April Fool's joke was my original post, leading to a site that gave the game away. It wasn't part of the joke to freeze up people's computers - sorry about that.

I think hammered coins present their own unique problems for graders Vicky! But I agree that early milled coins are different from, say, Victorian ones. Just look at William III. Weak strikes, haymarking, sometimes all the edge rim, sometimes not. Should those detract from a numeric grade if that is how the coin left the mint? I guess I'm still not quite sure what a grade is for. OK, coins have for a very long time been described at least in part as being 'very fine' or whatever. And certainly when dealers issued typed lists, that helped buyers select coins they would like to inspect. But nowadays most coins are illustrated and (providing the picture is decent) buyers can surely make up their own minds whether it meets their requirements? ... sorry. Just wondering aloud here. You'll have noticed that Spink don't list grades higher than EF for pre-1797 coins. And they have different grading guides for early milled and later milled. Got to be something in that.

This link completely froze my computer and send my hard-drive into a grinding frenzy, leaving me with no option but to crash it! Has it been OK for everyone else? Oh dear, that wasn't the intention at all. I'm sorry that happened to you.

OMG. What fool would pay £850 for a 1967 penny, even if it was a CGS slabbed UNC98? Link

Yes. I also remember leafing through a CM from back then and someone was offering a BU 1932 and 1934 halfcrown pair for a little shy of £200. You'd probably just about get that now, but as you say - 8 weeks wages back then! ..........and yet somebody must have bought them, otherwise they'd never have commanded such high prices for the time. I wonder where some of those coins are now. Salted away forever in private collections, probably. I remember CM had an "Auction News" section towards the back, with a list of hammer prices realised. That would, I'm sure, give the true prices that people were prepared to pay, whatever the (ever optimistic) dealers lists trumpeted.

Indeed. The Pound stayed the same. The d and the p did not. Considering the "d" stood for denarius, what would we say was the predecimal and decimal equivalent? Although nowhere the same buying power, I nominate the silver shilling for the former (though on size alone, the sixpence gets it). As for decimal, there seems to be no suitable denomination that shouts out "I'm a denarius!". Perhaps the 50p, in its dreams?

As has been said already Ozzy, if we had crystal balls we'd all be very rich now! (ahem, Peter, did I hear you cough somewhere there in the background? ) But you will find 1950s UNC cupro-nickel is hard to find - sadly it is already priced to reflect that. Early 60s may be a good place to start, as it is still mildly underrated IMO. To make life easier, why not start with a few sets that were put together in the late 60s in 'Sandhill cases' (clear plastic both sides with inserts for each denomination)? If you can track down UNC examples of such for 1961-1965, you won't find them too expensive, but do make sure the coins are genuine UNC. A lot of those sets were thrown together with circulated examples of one or even all coins.

Talking of 20p - I saw recently that among the early 60s patterns for decimal coins, not only was there a 1/4p, there was a 20p too. Makes you wonder why it didn't make it until 1982 and wasn't introduced in 1971. Maybe the experience of the Double Florin was haunting them! Long memories! Mind you, it wasn't exactly as if florins were "that there new fangled thang" anymore. I sometimes like to hold a Double Florin in one hand and a 20p in the other just to remind myself that they are the same denomination. Yes - not quite a sov versus brass £1 comparison is it?

Yes. I also remember leafing through a CM from back then and someone was offering a BU 1932 and 1934 halfcrown pair for a little shy of £200. You'd probably just about get that now, but as you say - 8 weeks wages back then!

Yes, I think possible cud also. See my 1821 sixpence obverse for reference: http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=5250

I think it is often difficult to tell the difference between the .500% silver and the .925% one. It's perfectly possible for the silver proof NOT to be frosted. However, the .500% silver specimen will probably have a slightly dull appearance compared to the proof. The only way to be absolutely certain is to test it for silver content.

yes indeed.....a nice coin is a nice coin all the same, regardless of whether someones given it a score out of 100. Ski I agree totally, they have just perpetuated the confusion! Remove all cross-references to VF/Ef/AU etc and the Sheldon Scale, and maybe the CGS percentage scale will gain more credibility Yes, I agree too. The numeric scale without specific grades will always provide more consistency without the 'grade slippage' we've seen over the last few decades. A CGS 70 will always be a 70, and it doesn't really matter whether you call it VF or UNC. The benchmark is what matters here. I got the same email and sent it back with a bouquet about their grading system, and a brickbat about slabbing. There has to be a better way for a TPG to operate without sealing the coin into a plastic tomb. I'm relaxed about the use of the word UNC. We've all been handed copper coins in supermarkets that are full lustre, no bag marks, no wear, and can justifiably be termed BU. The fact that they have TECHNICALLY seen a tiny bit of circulation is just semantics really - it's what the coin looks like that counts. How many UNC coins in collections were personally collected from the Royal Mint output bins?

Having registered, you may well get the same email I did - telling us that CGS are changing over to a numeric-only scale of grading from now on. I emailed back to say I think their grading is wonderful but we don't all like slabs, and is this something they could address sometime soon?

Talking of 20p - I saw recently that among the early 60s patterns for decimal coins, not only was there a 1/4p, there was a 20p too. Makes you wonder why it didn't make it until 1982 and wasn't introduced in 1971. Maybe the experience of the Double Florin was haunting them! Long memories! Mind you, it wasn't exactly as if florins were "that there new fangled thang" anymore.

Ok, dorey (welcome to the forums by the way) - you have to take the prices quoted for decimal coins (and most coins from the mid-60s on), with a big pinch of salt. Chris Perkins, who runs this forum, is the publisher of the Collectors Coins GB guides. The previous guy who published it, always had a note somewhere in the guide, that went something like "Please note that any coin quoted with a price of less than £1, is really only to cover the expenses of the dealer in advertising it, selling it, packing it, etc". You won't find more than a tiny handful of dealers who are even remotely interested in run-of-the-mill currency decimal coins. And even then, they have to be absolutely in mint condition, with lustre as on the day they left the Mint. Having said that, bronze coins before the early 90s are proper bronze, not coated steel like later ones. You wouldn't get their copper value from a dealer as they have to make a profit, but they are worth a little over face value. To be honest, the only 2 pences worth anything are 1) that rare 1983 'NEW PENCE', or 2) any from a proof set, or only issued in a BU specimen set, and not for general currency. If you have a look at predecimal coins, you might find more excitement in them.

Blimey, you must have good eyesight! Or maybe you used to have

Talking of 20p - I saw recently that among the early 60s patterns for decimal coins, not only was there a 1/4p, there was a 20p too. Makes you wonder why it didn't make it until 1982 and wasn't introduced in 1971.

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? Looks like CGS were listening This is what they are going to do. YAY. CGS - "Customer Gratification Sought".

They could do better if they would buy in the mounds of large flan 5ps and 10ps, and 1947-67 'silver' as the extra weight means way more value in scrap vs face and more importantly a huge supply with nowhere to go - not collectable and mostly sitting in boxes/bags. Surely the RM as a government offshoot can see that this should be a no-brainer given the alloy has already been made. Or am I missing something? Sorry Rob, you are confusing common sense with policy/decision making...fatal!!! Thanks for clarifying the query John. Silly me. Just think how many Churchill crowns could be lost in this way. :) :) :) Brilliant idea - all they need to really do is haunt the salerooms for a while, peer through the low-value lots that are simply vast accumulations, and bingo! In one move they would recover lots of valuable metal, AND make life so much easier for the poor dealers who currently have to take at least a look-see before throwing up their hands in horror. And it means my Churchill crown could become as scarce as the 1960 crown in, say, a century.

Thanks Nick - a whole new knowledge chasm has just opened up for me! Better get swotting ... The WB thing frightens me to death! I think that's why I've kept putting it off and stuck to tweaking with the editing software instead! The problem with that is that unless you shoot RAW (and most P&S or compact cameras don't have that option), editing software won't do very much in correcting faulty WB. You can always change 'colour temperature' but you can often end up with blown highlights. Getting the WB correct in-camera will give better JPEGs in the long run.

£7 was a lot of money in 1969. I got a job in the school holidays, on the dustbins, where £22 a week was a small fortune. But that was the height of silly money for 20thC coins. A year later, a BU 1932 penny was valued at £50, while a BU 1797 twopence was valued at £35. Crazy crazy crazy. That particular shilling looks to have a lot of rubbing on the cheek. I'd struggle to rate it EF personally, but it may be better in hand.

I went to all their sales in the late 90s, and (with a certain amount of tuition from Peter Viola), always found their sales to be representative of one of the larger and better provincial salerooms. But clearly they have gone downhill since the rise of eBay by all accounts.

Saved in my sellers list Nothing on there at present?