Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sword

Accomplished Collector
  • Content Count

    2,226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    105

Everything posted by Sword

  1. Sword

    Ebay's Worst Offerings

    or this one which has got an "earful". http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Half-Crown-George-V-1927-Matt-Proof-FDC-Mint-/370856072443?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item5658be94fb
  2. Sword

    Ebay's Worst Offerings

    I thought he must have been noticed in the past but such an extraordinary dealer can do with another mention...
  3. Sword

    Ebay's Worst Offerings

    I wonder if this person has been posted here before? George VI 1937 Matt proof crown FDC from someone with "50 years of experience as a dealer / collector" http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Crown-George-VI-1937-Matt-Proof-FDC-Mint-/370854018265?pt=UK_Coins_BritishMilled_RL&hash=item56589f3cd9 Have a look at his ebay "shop" for plenty more examples.
  4. CGS verdict - EF - but rejected for reasons as yet unknown CGS is surprisingly speedy on this batch which is nice to see. I think they automatically reject a coin with with any flan crack. Nice coins by the way. Thanks Sword ... I hope that's not the case, but then again I hope there's nothing else they found 'wrong' with it! As Dave said, they can sit at the 'Finalising Grade' stage for a while, as if it takes ages to slab and post them! The following is from the CGS website: "CGS will reject such coins, they will not have a numerical grade attached, instead they will have the problem described the main ones being; Edge Problems – the coin has significant edge knocks or bruises, or evidence of being mounted, or flan cracks at the edge.Stained – a stain(s) detracts from the coins appearance"I don't personally think they should reject a coin if it has a tiny flan crack or if it has a tiny "stain". Points can be deducted instead accordingly. Now that they have set the rules, they will have, as Stuart has pointed out have a difficult time when dealing with hammered coins.
  5. CGS verdict - EF - but rejected for reasons as yet unknown CGS is surprisingly speedy on this batch which is nice to see. I think they automatically reject a coin with with any flan crack. Nice coins by the way.
  6. I totally agree. They can also be less bloody sloppy and not get foreign objects, dust, etc onto the coins they encapsulate
  7. What if your MS67 comes back as a MS65? :D :D Sorry, can't resist that joke. But why the hassle? Just fake the labels and holders and then stick the coins (real or fake) in. The label is just a computer print out and even a child can fake that. People have done that for quite a few years according to wikipedia (and I have pasted the relevant paragraph below). NGC published the following acknowledgment on January 7, 2008: "NGC has identified and confirmed that (counterfeit replicas) of its holder has been produced.......The holder has been seen housing counterfeit dollar or foreign crown size coins. While the enclosed coins are also counterfeit, the label information matches the coin type enclosed. The label information is copied from actual NGC certification labels, and the certification information therefore will match the NGC database. Most frequently, Trade Dollars and Bust Dollars are found, although Flowing Hair Dollars and foreign coins have also been seen. A range of grades is also represented." NGC and PCGS counterfeit holders have been reported in eBay forums and more may be reported by other firms and individuals. The PCGS website notes that they "anticipate that authentic coins will eventually be placed into counterfeit holders". But this scam won't work for the more expensive coins that where photos were taken before encapsulation.
  8. It is potentially a concern but scams like this are not so easy to run. Firstly, there are 2 graders for each coin and you need at least a partner in crime. Also it might be difficult for the rouge grader to ensure that those coins get to him and not another grader not in the scam. You get people in all trades and professions worldwide committing fraud and abusing their positions and we can only hope they get caught sooner or later. Absolutely right that one should buy the coin and not the holder! Sword, you know this from where? we're talking about American/Chinese TPGs and not CGS, so where's your info coming from dude? Azda, I am not certain what you meant by "my information". Like most people, I don’t buy coins originating from dealers based in China because the authorities there have failed to control coin faking. But what is being alleged here? One individual grader in a TPG company is fraudulent. I merely pointed out the obvious that there are fraudulent individuals working in all trades and professions at the cost of clients / consumers. This is of concern of course but not something that can be eliminated. You are less likely to be cheated if you take precautions. Then I merely said that it take more than a one person to make a scam work. TPGs state that 2 or more graders are involved in grading and I have no reason to doubt that information. Then the final point is whether a PCGS office based in China is less trustworthy than one based in American or Paris. (By the way, I didn't even know that there is a PGCS office in China until now). It is quite like asking if it matters whether a SONY is made in China, Japan, Hong Kong or UK (I assume these places make SONY...). If you trust SONY’s reputation in quality control, then you are probably not too bothered. But if you don’t trust SONY’s quality and reputation, then it also hardly matter because you won’t buy anyway. As you don’t like PCGS regardless, then I guess this story makes little difference to you. As for me, I think it is just as likely to find such individuals in anywhere and I am not too excited either. As people are constantly pointing out, trust yourself rather than the slab. There is no better rule than that. (But I won't stay away from a nice coin just because it is slabbed) I have recently brought my first CGS coin from auction and made the mistake of trusting CGS’s PHOTO and not even the grade (The auction photo was poor). The coin turned out to be a turkey as a carbon sport has developed on the nose of the King since encapsulation. As it was a relatively low value coin, I put it down to experience.
  9. It is potentially a concern but scams like this are not so easy to run. Firstly, there are 2 graders for each coin and you need at least a partner in crime. Also it might be difficult for the rouge grader to ensure that those coins get to him and not another grader not in the scam. You get people in all trades and professions worldwide committing fraud and abusing their positions and we can only hope they get caught sooner or later. Absolutely right that one should buy the coin and not the holder! They're all Reds, those Commie Chinese Alright Peck,
  10. It is potentially a concern but scams like this are not so easy to run. Firstly, there are 2 graders for each coin and you need at least a partner in crime. Also it might be difficult for the rouge grader to ensure that those coins get to him and not another grader not in the scam. You get people in all trades and professions worldwide committing fraud and abusing their positions and we can only hope they get caught sooner or later. Absolutely right that one should buy the coin and not the holder!
  11. London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place) The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around! In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing. I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production. FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production. So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production. However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins. London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago. You see, for me, "Choice UNC" implies virtually no visible damage or marks either during or post-production. If it's "choice" (which is a meaningless kind of label used by advertisers, but taking it at face value..) it should be superior to an 'ordinary' UNC. "aFDC" to me means there is the very slightest sign of handling - anything more, and you couldn't apply any kind of FDC to it. In that light, "aFDC" would be just slightly inferior in terms of handling, to a choice UNC. However, it would deserve its 11 point advantage simply through being a proof, with all the extra detail and care that implies. In other words, I'd take a genuinely "aFDC" over a "choice UNC", as it should still be a better coin. I didn't realise that your definition of "choice UNC" is so strict Peck. (Would be a very good thing if more auction houses are like thtat!) CGS's definition is less so if it is CGS80. There are quite a few currency coins for sale in the London Coins Website and even CGS 85 have obvious contact marks. I would grade a currency coin with virtually no visible damage much higher than 80. The problem is that the same scale is used for both proof coin and currency coin. If a proof coin is graded CGS91 aFDC, then how much damage does it have to sustain to drop 11 points? Probably a fair bit at least.
  12. London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place) The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around! In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing. I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production. FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production. So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production. However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins. London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago.
  13. London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place)
  14. Alright, 81K can be used as a deposit for a flat
  15. Just a guess, but every generation will have thought them very beautiful coins, so they probably got passed around and shown off a great deal. That makes sense. They are beautiful indeed.
  16. Can't blame people for trying with their asking prices, esp on Ebay! Just curious, UNC / aFDC gothic crowns are rare. Is this partly because they weren't issued in boxes? (or did the proof versions have boxes?)
  17. There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary! Bear in mind that a few years ago, people were willing to pay a few hundred for a superbly done silver proof repro of a Gothic Crown. Maybe that is the future - affordable repros for those who can't afford originals? Better by far than fakes IMO. I wasn't aware that people were willing to pay such money for a repro. For me, the main attraction of coin collecting is the feeling of owning some history. I like admiring 19 century unc currency coins thinking how lucky they have been. A repro has little more attraction than a photo of a real coin as far as I am conerned! Modern fakes are of course revolting but contemporary fakes can potentially be interesting (not that I collect them). Just one question - how much would you run to for an expertly done 1933 penny? eBay seems to prove they fetch well into three figures. 50 or 60% of what I can sell it for. I normally buy coins for keep and don't worry too much about profit. But I have no interest in owning a repro and so want to get money for my trouble of buying and selling.
  18. There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary! Bear in mind that a few years ago, people were willing to pay a few hundred for a superbly done silver proof repro of a Gothic Crown. Maybe that is the future - affordable repros for those who can't afford originals? Better by far than fakes IMO. I wasn't aware that people were willing to pay such money for a repro. For me, the main attraction of coin collecting is the feeling of owning some history. I like admiring 19 century unc currency coins thinking how lucky they have been. A repro has little more attraction than a photo of a real coin as far as I am conerned! Modern fakes are of course revolting but contemporary fakes can potentially be interesting (not that I collect them).
  19. There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary! As Rob has said that is where provenance is going to play a major part in putting minds at rest on un-slabbed coins. Provenance will certainly play a major part but many qualtiy coins on the market today have no provenance. It is difficult to know if the provenance claimed is genuine unless photos are available.
  20. Sword

    Overdipped?

    If it is solder, then the person who did it was a bit sloppy as he put the mount on 10:30 rather than 12 o'clock of the coin
  21. There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary!
  22. There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time.
  23. How easy is it to tell if a coin has wear or simply was weakly struck from an auction photo? With coin in hand, I would check a) if the lustre is continuous loss of toning on the weak areas (with my limited experience, I would be catious and assume it is wear except in clear cut cases) However, this is often not possible from a photo. I suppose if a feature is abnormally weak but the rest of the coin is sharp, then it is probably weak strike. A knowledge of the years / features that are particularly prone to weak striking would be very handy but I have little such knowledge. Hence I have avoided coins described as "weak on high points probably due to striking rather than wear" just to be safe. How can experts tell? Is there just no substitute for experience? Are there many cases which you just can't tell from photos? How much premium is a particularly strong struck unc worth compared to "normal" unc? E.g. most Victorian Old Head currency crowns (even those graded as unc) have lost some detail on the strap across St George's chest due to striking. Would an example with the strap (and other details) fully struck up be a lot more desirable?
  24. I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier. I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin! Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that? Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF). I wonder how serious weak strucking is compared to the other "defects". For example, if you were keen to get a George VI or William VI halfcrown in unc condition and you have a choice of: 1) Nicely struck example with a trace of cabinet friction (but would still just grade as unc by modern day standards) 2) A weaker struck example with full lustre and no wear (but would only grade as EF or GEF if the loss of details is actually due to wear rather than stricking) 3) Nicely struck example with no wear but has some contact marks (and hence also just grade as unc) Hypothetically, which one would you prefer? I'm not sure who William VI is, but as far as George VI goes, his halfcrowns are common enough in perfect state without having to settle for one of those 3 options. However, if it was a 19thC halfcrown, I think I would go for option 1. No, DEFINITELY option 1! Option 3 might be ok, but it would depend on exactly how the contact marks look. I guess that's true of all coins though - how it looks in hand. Sorry, I meant William IV and George IV. :D I would choose option 1 too. Mainly because of eye appeal
  25. I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier. I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin! Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that? Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF). I wonder how serious weak strucking is compared to the other "defects". For example, if you were keen to get a George VI or William VI halfcrown in unc condition and you have a choice of: 1) Nicely struck example with a trace of cabinet friction (but would still just grade as unc by modern day standards) 2) A weaker struck example with full lustre and no wear (but would only grade as EF or GEF if the loss of details is actually due to wear rather than stricking) 3) Nicely struck example with no wear but has some contact marks (and hence also just grade as unc) Hypothetically, which one would you prefer?
×