Paulus

I have posted this before, but for convenience here is the story of this moody Northumberland once again. This was my first consignment to CGS. Bought from a dealer who won it at a Downies auction in Melbourne. I took it to them when I happened to be in Melbourne 3 years ago, after some members on here expressed doubts about it (thanks Rob, Dave, et al) - they were frighteningly ignorant and naive about it, saying 'it was probably okay as most fakes are higher grade'. So I sent it to CGS, who confirmed it as a fake, and eventually got my money back due to it being rejected (via Downies, even though I didn't buy it from them). I asked CGS what gave this one away, and they said a significant factor was the shape/formation of the 6 in the date - the angle of the intersection of the loop at the bottom of the 6 should form a 'rounder '0'.

Looks like London? Tis mine but I haven't got it in hand as yet, I agree it looks like it might benefit from a wash! Moneyer might be Ricard? I'll post better pics when I have it, thanks Rob

Can anyone ID this for me? I think it's Henry III, Spink 1368 or 1368A. Adthanksvance

Far out

I agree, just a publicity stunt. They may be changing the obverse design for this coin later in the year, according to some reports, but the current design on sale from the RM is clearly available in the 10's of thousands (or more) ... at least it's BU (whatever quality that is these days!)

So who does use the Sheldon scale then?? My question about coins continuing to tone/change appearance after slabbing relates to the grade stated on the slab ... if it is 10% based on eye appeal then this is going to change over time!

It has been known to happen.... Sometimes with severe and costly financial consequences... It hasn't happened to any of my 30-40 slabbed coins yet, but must be a consideration if they are factoring eye appeal in to the grading of a 'forever slab'

Once again Stu, I'm impressed you have ventured over to the dark side of TPG threads! Question ... Do my esteemed fellow Forum readers think that a coin will continue to tone/change after slabbing???

May be an interesting watch for some ...

As you can see, Azda is one of our Scottish members! Welcome Kevin

In all probability, I'd grade that as some as struck modern tat. And in 99% of cases, of course, it is! Glad I don't collect post 1946

Not again, they really need to get their act together! Most of these have an incorrect die axis, so should be easy to spot!

Agree with that Peck, added to which they only ever use around 1/3 of the possible grade values from 1-100. And describing a circulation coin with 'FDC' (if only in the translation table) may be strictly ok, but just doesn't sound right! Grades for choice coins are concertinered at the top end (using both CGS and Sheldon scales), resulting in 70 just not being quite good enough! To some it has to be a PCGS 70 Early Strike Ultra Cameo WINGS certified example (population joint finest known)

They have the same scale for proofs and currency issues, and no longer refer to the traditional abbreviation on the slab - so in your example it would simply be 'CGS 82'

link

I fully agree

Thanks Nick, just a minor revision then!

But he does say 1882 penny with H........... Sorry, looks like a bad case of reading what you want to see. Yep!

My understanding is that the CGS grading system is by type, therefore there is no theoretical reason why a circulation non-proof coin could not achieve a grade of 100 ... this despite some anomalies in their descriptions for the grades, CGS 88 and above referencing FDC which normally refers to proof coins only. I have non-proof coins graded as MS70 by NGC ... True, I agree that in theory a non-proof can be graded 100. But I think the mint might not be bothered enough to use perfect flans and handle the resulting coins so carefully for ordinary coins. Yes, the existence of 'perfect' circulation coins is like the Dodo!

My understanding is that the CGS grading system is by type, therefore there is no theoretical reason why a circulation non-proof coin could not achieve a grade of 100 ... this despite some anomalies in their descriptions for the grades, CGS 88 and above referencing FDC which normally refers to proof coins only. I have non-proof coins graded as MS70 by NGC ...

This is a mini-rant at the over-grades sometimes given, please do not read on if your blood pressure is already too high. On what planet is this coin remotely MS (Mint State), let alone MS63? I would struggle with GVF (with problems) for this common date: It is a farthing listed on eBay.uk http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GEORGE-II-1736-COPPER-FARTHING-LUSTROUS-TOP-GRADE-SLABBED-NGC-MS-63-/281584625878?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item418fc068d6 Can anyone explain this massive miss-grading (in my view), or is it just another case of buyer beware, buy the coin not the slab, TPG inconsistency/laziness/vested interest?? Makes a mockery of our beloved hobby

Good point

Pete's 1841 penny:

Some of their earlier photos are pretty dire (is that an oxymoron?) ... and is that a fingerprint in the reverse right field? It certainly has a high CGS grade and corresponding value:

Pete's 1874 H Penny