azda

I'm thinking the same as you, Garrett! I'm definitely thinking cleaned, though! The tone of all his bronze coins is unnatural and too consistent, which suggests dipping. I may be wrong though.I'll bet you're not.Well we all know who it is and what he does. I'll agree with AC though, all his copper/Bronze has had a dip, the colour is almost always the same. I'll also dip my toe in and say overgraded as this is also consistent with this seller, usually by 1 whole grade

Lol. Trying to Double his money plus Adding the "free" postage cost on top

Never eat yellow snow

Can we guess who this might be 231108549997

You have email from me Richard

It is the sign of the ruination of the British nation. My first encounter with the new British coinage was a chance find on the floor at Kyiv Borispol airport a few years ago - and my thought was wow- what a downer! An 82 year old monarch and a smidgen of a shield on the reverse. No proud Britannia looking out to the seas she ruled, no pride and no powerful statement. Your last sentence Sums it up exactly, no pride what so ever. There is just no Statement in any of our designs in recent years

Amd a happy new year from me to you and yours

Aye

I agree Dave, trouble is they would f*ck it up! Look what the French have done to Roty's beautiful Sower Geez that looks like a Lowry. The only recent Design i like was the 1997 £2 Britannia REV design, they must of sacked that engraver because nothing has come up to scratch since and i can't remember what was great previous to that, i think we're talking decades. They don't seem to have any artistic flair at the mint anymore.

I think we have some of the ugliest coinage in the World. Bring back standing/seated britannia anyday

I think most Men can also relate to this

Is'nt that 4 choices? Lol

I'm curious how CGS are going to grade hammered coins. Striking splits, irregular flans etc would Lead to the, all being less than Fine surely

Well that is what is I hoped someone would say, otherwise what is the point of a 1-100 scale if only the top grades can be achieved by proof coins, while proof is not a grade? Does anyone have an example of a non-proof CGS 'fdc' coin? Still feels like a bit of an oxymoron ... Edit: our posts crossed Nick, do you have a take as to how an fdc description can apply to a non-proof coin?If you look at CGS UIN 2043. It is an 1816 shilling and has been graded as a 91. However, if you're expecting to be dazzled by the quality of the photograph, you may be disappointed.CGS UIN 8978 is an interesting one. It's an 1884 shilling that is ex-Cheshire collection, previously NGS MS-64. CGS has graded it as 90.Interesting, MS64 would be an 80 on the CGS scale and then taking into account that American TPGs generally overgrade British coins i wonder how they then came up with a 91. is it because its a Cheshire coin i wonder

Is there the red wax often associated with impressions on this example, or is the single red patch on each side associated with an old repair? Could also be from sitting in a tray Clive

I assume that the more variety denominations was Party to do with a larger population and for those who did'nt have anything to Barter with. Not all peasants had land or animals to exchange and had to work for the local boss. Is this a fair assumption?

International buyers can search .co.uk and bid. I've had this recently with a proof set i sold, a Chinese buyer won it yet i had'nt listed it on.com which would give it international visibility. It was taken to the PO where my friend was informed that currency was not permitted to be shipped to China. My guess is that of the ebayer has 2 or 3 postal addresses and 1 might be based in the UK but they live elsewhere then they will be permitted to bid and have the item delivered to the UK address. Just as a heads up, you cannot edit an auction that has been bidded on, you can add details about the item but not a full on edit, its just Basic info you can change, but not things like where you post to, start price etc, for this, you'll need to end the auction, change the Details and then relist, but then of course, ebay get another listing fee from you.

Azda, my last attempt, I promise: The change of numerical garde would be if particular coin would have garded for example 75 three years ago and today would grade 80. But this is not the case. The coin would still be graded 75 today as assessed against benchmark set of coins which not going to change. All they did is that they abandoned grade riders for reasons I have mentioned in my original post. The CGS grading system itself arrives and has had always arrived at a numeric grade only !!! It express the state of coin preservation which is assessed against benchmark set of coins (separately for strike, marks, bagmarks, hairlines, spots etc). The comparative tables were and still are just rough guide for collectors who are not familiar with their system so that they have got idea how, for example, grade 65 is percieved on raw coins market or on Sheldon scale. It were collectors and dealers who disagreed and were unhappy that coins pereceived as EF were graded as VF55 and coins in dealers UNC were graded as EF and later AU75 or 78. So they only abandoned riders. Coin graded 75 is still coin graded 75 and you can call it VF, EF or UNC. Up to you, this is not their bussiness any more. It has nothing to do with their grading. All they say is that the state of coin preservation on the 1-100 scale is for example 75. And as the benchmark set of coins is not going to change – the coin with certain number of bagmarks, hairlines, strike etc will still be graded as 75 in 50 years as it was graded 6 years ago (unless they go out of business...). I can not put it more plainly and hope that at least some collectors will understand what I want to say. PS: the quotation from their website you've used is about 7 years old (when they set up CGS) and should be removed or changed so it is not confusing collectors anymore It was my last attempt on this topic, promise. M. I was merely quoting CGS Mike. I'm not so sure this change had much to do with dealers though, its probably more an advantage for a dealer for a coin NOT to be slabbed so grades can be manipulated (the higher the grade the higher the price)

Hmmmm, maybe you should read the scale they set out inon their homepage. If you look at what they've written you'll see that they State 79 is EF, yet the Tabletten that Paulus posted that 78-79 is now UNC, thats a change in my opinion from one grade to another. Here is what is on their website, so have they now changed this to fit? Why are you not grading on the Sheldon G1 - MS70 scale? This scale was originally designed by Sheldon as an aid to comparing the likely commercial value of early US copper cents in various grades, and although well established in the USA it has little relevance to English Coinage. The universal 1 – 100 percentage style scale seemed more logical to us. The traditional grades of VG, F VF and EF Unc naturally fit into a percentage scale also as 0 – 19 VG, 20 – 39 FINE, 40 – 59 VF, 60 – 79 EF, 80- 100 Unc.

Anyone know how PCGS and NGC grade coins (serious question) i know it can Throw up all Manner of hilarity

I really do not want to be involved in another grading discussion but I could not help myself when reading through this thread. As above mentioned conclusion (that CGS changed grading system from one day to the next) is not true and might be misleading to unaware collectors who just reading this forum as I do, I would like to comment: The mistake CGS made initially (when started the business) was attaching traditional grades AU, UNC , EF to the numeric scale incorrectly ( or more exactly too conservatively). The CGS grading system itself arrives at a numeric grade only. As far as I know they had strong arguments at the outset that no traditional grading nomenclature should be attached and the numeric grade should stand alone, that argument obviously lost. After grading 25000 coins the situation was reviewed based on collectors and dealers feedback (as well as on the feedback from this forum – even some of the members here complained that they can't live with grade 78 or even 75 described as AUNC and had the crack the coins out) and the grade riders were removed few months ago. One of the possible benefits is that traders, when they acquire a CGS 75 ot 78, they can describe the coin UNC and graded 78 by CGS and their second finest known rather than having to crack the coin out to describe it as UNC. The whole point I want to make is that CGS numeric grading system hasn't changed at all and it is not going to change. Benchmark sets of coins used for grading and grading proces itself hasn't changed. The only change is that the grade riders were removed. I personally think that this was very sensible move. IMO grading of raw coins is becoming softer and softer. What was Spink EF 40-50 years ago is now almost UNC. It is well posiible that CGS 70 wil be considered by dealers and collectors as UNC in 50 years... But CGS numeric grade will not change. Read across tables were put out only by way of education and marketing so that new or foreigner collectors would have an idea how particular CGS grade number would likely be raw UK grade or likely standard USA Sheldon grade. Finally I'd like to mention that I have no connection with CGS (but yes, for my own reasons, I prefer to collect CGS graded coins). By the way, it's a great forum, I enjoy reading it almost every day. So all the very best to all members for 2014! Mike, if you also read the post from Nick thats another example of CGS changing the numerical grade. How many years have they been in business? I'm not starting a grading debate, the OP is about the dipping of coins and if CGS accept this, but if i'm correct in saying, CGS have'nt been in business 50 years, perhaps 5. (not sure ) but thats twice they've moved the goalposts, just saying

From your picture Bob i can also see the faint outline of the 2 when i enlarge your picture with the ipad. From the spur from the middle bar i Fans we the faint line running down towards the bottom of the 3

One thing is for sure, there's certainly more than the 7 Michael Gouby thinks there is

They obviously though the £73 final price was'nt enough lol.

This just makes a mockery of their grading system. How can you just simply change it from one day to the next, this is obviously to suit the American grading market, unreal, and have lost all credibility for me